posted
I read the so called "spam" that seemed to cause quite a hiccup of contension amongst the common posters. The logic behind this is quite simple, the person who posted (my memory fails me at the moment) did not have very many posts. I believe it was around 27 that he had. This drew questions to his credibility which constituted the mesage as spam or an advertisement.
I use this only as an example.
When does it become "okay" to begin speaking about products or advocating certain movies or videogames. Is there a certain level of mutual trust that we must come to, and, if so, how do we determine when we've achieved this? Is there a definitive number of posts one must obtain?
I wanted to talk about a band I like. We'll call them band x for the time being. I just discovered them a few days ago, a truly unique band that I thought many other hatrackers may enjoy. If I were to praise them for their work that I honestly believed to be good, would that violate any sort of unwritten law of the forums?
Does this also mean that, when creating a thread, it must be either a debate or a topic about food ?
Alot of questions, I know, but any contribution helps.
If anything here seems irrational, it's because this was a spontaneous thought that I felt the immidiate urge to put out.
posted
If you only posted about a band or food item, or anything for that matter, once, and then we never heard from you again, that'd raise a lot of alarm bells.
I forgive Michiel if it was indeed spam, mostly because I can't stop playing the demo of that damnable game he was touting.
If someone who has been here awhile, actively participates in threads, and in general makes an effort to fit into the community here posts about a product, I don't think anyone would bat an eyelash at it, and for lack of a better indicator, post count, especially, ESPECIALLY for users who've just registered in the last week or two, is the only indicator of someone's sincerity. Lost post count and recent registration plus advocation of a product looks extremely suspect.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
With the prevelance of spam and "grey" marketing practices such as stealth or viral marketing, it is understandable that many people would have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to spam. Its nothing personal, but when you have a lot to deal with, and the consequences can be annoying to dire for a false negative (i.e. getting caught in phishing or scam) but trivial for a false positive (you miss out on one product), many borderline cases will be mis-classified.
I would just say to the other thread (haven't seen it yet), just not to take it personally.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JumboWumbo: The logic behind this is quite simple, the person who posted (my memory fails me at the moment) did not have very many posts. I believe it was around 27 that he had. This drew questions to his credibility which constituted the mesage as spam or an advertisement.
The drawing of questions wasn't due to post count, but rather to the characteristics of the initial post. (wording, formatting, content, etc -- not prior posts, but this post)
The post count didn't come up until well into the discussion, when the issue of prior posts was brought up by the poster himself.* I say this in order to clarify what happened, not to continue to drag it out -- I myself believe this particular issue was settled on that thread.
However, post count has been a contentious issue on this site before, especially once post counts and member numbers became easily noted at the side of each post. I'd hate to see that be a divisive issue again. However, if it is an issue that needs to be addressed, it's best to be accurate about what is happening (or has happened in the past).
---
I hope you feel welcome to share things here that are important to you, JumboWumbo. I doubt you would get any unwelcome responses to the sort of thing you describe.
----
*Edited to add: Ah, I just reread the thread and noted that Euripides (a different poster) did bring up post count earlier than I remembered. I stand self-corrected -- it was not the OP that brought it up. (It was only when the OP brought it up himself that I ever would have (myself) thought about bringing it up, as I had in close mind the history here I alluded to above.)
Nonetheless, the initial issue wan't post count, and I doubt that post count alone would have raised any eyebrows. People were initially reacting to the "read" of the first post. I don't know how to explain that "read" to you in a comprehensive and specific way, particularly not how to do so in a way that wouldn't be offensive (given recent history), so I'll let it go at that.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
