Perhaps he wanted to share the link with us, not facebook.
I get the feeling that if that thread was stated exactly the same way it is, but instead of a single sentence that’s one big link, it was a single sentence and a separate link, it would have been fine.
I wonder how many people didn’t actually read it, they opened the thread, saw a link and backed out.
Don’t you mean a tagnet?
Sorry, but a post like yours is not going to attract anyone to this site. So continuing to try to make it about attracting new members is really a non-starter.
If you found the link so interesting, what’s so extremely hard about telling other posters a little about it?
He did. He described what the link was about, and in the title spoke to what he wanted to discuss. This was more than just a drive-by link. Not a lot more, but more.
My usual report is “contentless clickbait”.
Nope; it disappeared about the time the main page of TSD was made more smart phone friendly.
So maybe he could use the same post to start a thread called “Weird Earls” and ask others to post more.
This was your second thread of the day that you started with a link and little else. I let that one go.
We receive complaints whenever there is little comment and just a link and/or non-descriptive titles. Those complaints are not always acted on but know a significant number of fellow posters don’t like it.
This is the equivalent of holding your phone up to someone’s face and saying “Watch this.”
If you really want to add content start the conversation by saying what you think about it. If you can’t be bothered to comment why should others?
I’m usually pretty lenient about such things. I left your first thread of the day alone. When you did it again the same day I stepped in.
Again, if you really want to discuss the story open a new thread and actually start the discussion. If you really want to help add content that’s the way to do it.
I did not see a report on the spud one. Although not 100% clear the mention of pareidolia is probably enough for me to let it go. If I didn’t want to stop this from being a habit with the OP I may have let this one go as well.
There was a Weird Earls thread like that but it died a quick death.
Personally I like the idea of the thread but it only works if people participate.
I believe Ed’s reasoning in getting rid of Weird Earl’s was that he didn’t want people clicking on the main SDMB to take them somewhere else. He wanted to keep the traffic here.
IIRC, Ed himself suggested using the thread as a replacement for it.
Thanks–I didn’t realize that there was a behind-the-scenes peanut gallery policing what was too mundane and pointless to share.
:rolleyes:
Is that really how you view the report function?
All I can say is that I’ve never reported anything that wasn’t blatant spam, sock puppeting, trolling, or personal attacks. It never crossed my mind that were people who reported posts to the mods that weren’t sufficiently descriptive for their tastes.
Just because a rule isn’t important to you doesn’t mean it’s not important to others.
You’re acting a little ridiculous in this thread. Message boards have been dying out for a long, long time now. Frankly, it’s a miracle the SDMB is still going at this point. I’m glad that it is as I don’t want to see it go, but I’m afraid posting an OP that consists of a link and nothing else is not going to usher in a new era at the SDMB along with a bunch of new, contributing users. I’m not sure at this point if there is anything that can do that. The loyal user base is what has kept the SDMB live for this long, but I think it may be prudent to come to terms with the fact that it’s not going to last forever.
Exactly. Share your reaction or ask a question - like what weird embarrassing things have your parents done to try to facilitate your love life?
Overall, I think the omnibus threads in the pit have done a lot of harm. Sometimes I look in there for a good rant about the latest debacle in DC, but most topics end up in the zillion-page thread that I just can’t be arsed to sort through. And nobody is going to waste their energy formulating a good rant that will just be buried in a tired old thread. So I get my fix elsewhere.
I see GreenBean’s point, but it would also be annoying if there were a million Trump threads. So I don’t know what the right answer is there.
I took Darren as meaning that if a newer poster starts a thread and gets it closed for a rule like this, they are going to be driven away and not feel like coming back. But I am not a mindreader.
Same here.
Yeah, that’s interesting and a little sad. I wonder if and when we cross a point of reverse critical mass? When it starts to seem so “dead” around here that some of those loyal posters also stop bothering to post, which then snowballs the whole thing?
We try to be kind to newbies. We don’t expect them to know all of the rules. Heck, most of them don’t even bother to read the registration agreement.
We are also fairly lenient about this particular rule. If you post a link and nothing else every once in a while, no biggie. It’s only when you get excessive about it that we start to enforce the rule. When I looked through Darren’s posts, I didn’t actually count the posts, but it seemed to me like a very significant number of them (it seemed like well more than half of his posts) were nothing but links. If you do that, you start to look like a link spammer.
And, it should also be pointed out, we aren’t trying to stifle posts. Anyone complaining that we are trying to stifle posts is clearly not understanding the point of the moderation. By all means, post a link if you want to discuss it. Just don’t only post a link. Add something to indicate exactly what it is about this link that you want to discuss.
Let’s look at the post in question in the OP. The link is given the description "There is a woman wandering around on a college campus showing girls a photo of her son and asking them if they would date him. " Uh, ok. Do you want to discuss whether or not it’s appropriate for a woman to do that? Do you want to discuss how it would make you feel if your mother did that? The thread title is “World’s most embarrassing mother?” Do you want do share embarrassing mother stories? Do you want to discuss overbearing and excessively intrusive mothers? Do you want do discuss it from the mother’s point of view (like what she should or should not do) or do you want to discuss it from the son’s point of view? What is it about this link that you want to discuss? There is no indication whatsoever of the actual thread topic, just a description of the link and a vague title.
Something about that link was of interest to Darren, and is probably of interest to others here, but we have no idea what it is because Darren only posted the link.
That’s all we’re asking for here. Just give us some indication of what the actual thread topic is.