Yes, really. Look at the post I replied to.
Thank you. I guess we’ll see what happens over time, although the poster in question may have tried to access his account and been unable to do so meantime.
And you continue to define useful, pertinent information as spam.
It was spam. It was useful, pertinent spam, but still spam. We’re not talking about someone who stumbled across our site and decided to post something relevant because he found the topic interesting. This guy wrote a research paper, googled and found us, and spammed us to promote his paper.
I’ve allowed things that were self-promoting before, as long as they were on-topic and useful (which this was, I’m not arguing that). It was his sneaky way of posting “research has shown…” instead of admitting that it was his own research that clearly indicated he was spamming and that was why I moderated him.
Since it was on-topic and useful, and some folks very strongly wanted the post to stay, I didn’t really have a problem unbanning him, especially since he’s not at all likely to be a problem spammer in the future. But he spammed us, plain and simple. It was useful and pertinent spam, as I said, but it was still spam.
Except it’s exactly what you’re saying, even if you don’t realize it.
On-topic, edificatory, relevant information is really the exact opposite of spam.
Oh no! Someone did informative research and then had the sheer unmitigated gall to share it with people who had expressed an interest in a question that the research attempts to answer!
“Useful and pertinent spam” is an oxymoron. If it’s useful and pertinent, it must not be spam.
Doesn’t spam, by definition, require multiple posts? A single post to a single thread or a email to a single person may be advertising but unless he posts it to a billion* sites or a billion email accounts, he’s not spamming.
*hyperbole. I won’t debate the bottom threshold except that it’s more than one or two.
“Useful and pertinent spam?” Holy shit that’s tortured.
Under which definition of the term “spam” do you consider this guy’s message to be actual spam?
Is it the the “unsolicited” part? Because the OP of the thread, txvepr, was asking for this information.
Is it the “advertising” part? Because the guy surely wasn’t making any money off of the post, and he wasn’t selling a product or service. He was sharing information.
Is it the “sending messages repeatedly on the same site” part? Because that didn’t happen. He posted it one time, to a thread that was seeking this very information.
What if Stephen Hawking came across an old thread on wormholes, and registered just so he could post a paper he just finished? Would you ban the professor and cornfield his post as spam? Maybe this guy with the gold coin paper is the Stephen Fucking Hawking of buccaneer numismatics, and we just chased him off like a common penis pill peddler.
All due respect, e_c_g, either you stick with the “spam” thing and you cornfield this post away again like you’re supposed to do with spam, or just admit you goofed and pulled the trigger on a post that it wasn’t actually spam. Cowboy up.
Alternate hypothesis:
While researching his paper, he came across our thread. He bookmarked it. Then when he completed his paper he shared it with us, because he thought we might find it interesting.
I rarely speak of these matters, but I got to tell you, you’re defending a spammer.
It’s complete and total spam. It really really is spam and has nothing to do with the board or the community at all. Note that the people who do this are always Guests and never Members. Because if they were Members of the community they know they could just ask up about it, get permission, and go forward. But no, they have to sneak their business in through the back door. They’re spammers.
Sometimes they don’t even bother to sign up as Guests. I have seen email that references something on the board – usually it says something like "I saw this on your board and … " (cites old post that most often is of ancient vintage that only could have been found through a Google search) and in the guise of “giving you an update” or “answering the question” they say “I have written a blog post/scholarly paper/entire encyclopedia on this topic and hey wouldn’t it be a good idea if you update your site to include this link?” They’re so lazy and disinterested in the community that they can’t even sign up!
Other times they offered to write “guest posts” … or worse, “guest columns.” This shows such a massive ignorance of this site and how it operates that I don’t know what kept my eyeballs from rolling all the way back in my head.
Even if it’s entertaining, this person wants to use the views on the board for their own benefit and nothing more. They’re not interested in joining the community or sustaining it except as it suits their own ends. They don’t know Cecil and they don’t know you. F’ em. They’re spammers.
Just saying.
And now back to the farm … it really is peaceful. (And I’ve got a day pass and night is falling.)
your humble TubaDiva
It looks a lot more to me like it was someone who did extensive research on a fairly oddball topic and then found through a google search there was a community of people actually interested in discussing it. So he posted his opinion on the subject and linked to research that supported it which happened to be his own.
As far as I know research gate doesn’t pay people to drive traffic to their site. Unlike, aherm, say the spammy ads we get here every day. The only conceivable thing the OP had to gain was that other people might cite his paper in their papers or something. So it might have been in some way self-promotion but it was on topic and relevant to the thread.
Maybe not acknowledging being the author raised some kind of spam flag based on past experiences but since the mods were able to connect his membership here to the author of the paper (which isn’t obvious from just his username) he must have been honest with all the information he signed up with.
So nothing really to gain. No dishonesty or disguises when signing up to post. The topic was directly, literally, the subject of extensive investigation he had done, and he linked to it as a cite that supported his position on the subject. Not spam by any reasonable definition of spam unless there was some other information available to the mods that isn’t evident in this thread.
…it is spam as defined by the moderators of this board, and thats all that really matters. I’m pretty sure they have to deal with hundreds of similar posts every year, they get zapped into the ether and no-one even notices.
A post that bumps a 17 year old thread by a new poster with a single post, posting a link to a cite whilst giving no indication that they are the author of that cite? This board has always treated such posts as spam and I’m surprised at how many posters did not know that. The decision to “zap” the post was a reasonable and routine one based on the the way these boards have always been moderated, the decision to reinstate the post based on feedback in this thread is also a reasonable and a fair one, but not one that should set a precedent for any future similar posts (IMHO) .
The fact that the post has been restored and the poster has been unbanned seems to contradict your opinion.
…incorrect. The moderators are (and a former admin) still of the opinion that the post was spam, as can be noted by their posts here in this very thread. They have chosen to treat this instance of spam differently to other instances of spam based on feedback from this thread.
…incorrect. It means despite the fact that it met many criteria they use to detect spam in this case when taking a second look based on our feedback they agreed that it wasn’t harmful, intended for self-promotion or profit, deceptive, or off topic to the thread.
So, not spam by any reasonable definition. They are saying “still, it’s spam” to mean it was posted by someone who isn’t interested in becoming a long term participating member of the boards and is the author of the research they linked to, but that isn’t really what spam means.
…how am I incorrect?
I’m sure the moderators can speak for themselves, but I don’t see any indication that the post in question no longer fits their threshold for what is considered spam here. You’ve provided a definition of spam. But the moderators have explicitly told you what they consider to be spam, and that they considered the post in question to be spam. So your definition is not only irrelevant, it doesn’t make me incorrect.
But it is spam as defined by the moderating team. And their definition seems reasonable to me.
I think their posts in this thread are pretty clear. They believe it to be spam, but useful and pertinent spam. It fits how they have always defined spam, it was moderated in accordance with the way they have treated spam before, some people made the argument in this thread that even though it is “spam” the information was useful and pertinent, so the moderators made an exception in this case.
It is not spam on a rope.
It is not spam on the Dope.
It is not spam here or there.
It is not spam anywhere.
The posters disagree that it’s spam.
We think it’s OK, Sam-I-am.
I don’t know this non-existent made up person Cecil either. I’ve never read a column or a book of its and I’ve never been to or plan on going to Chicago. I don’t know musicat either. I assume they like music in some way but that’s about it.
Should I be fucked too humble TubaDiva?
Exactly. I’ve got no connection to “The Straight Dope” brand beyond enjoying participating in this messageboard; I didn’t even know there was a column of that name when I first found the place and I’ve never heard it referenced anywhere else except on the boards.
In this case I don’t see a problem with what the poster did - it’s a pretty niche subject and frankly if I’d put all that work into a properly researched paper on the topic, I’d be wanting to share it with anyone who would read it too.