Suggestions and Feedback

**ADAM Web Design** · 01-03-2008, 02:37 AM

http://www.webmaster-talk.com/web-ho...tml#post520392

As much as I hate to agree with Scott here, he's technically correct in that there is no rule explicitly defining cross-posting as a form of spam (although it theoretically could fall under the "post count" rule.)

I think we need to have a rule which explicitly states that cross-posting is forbidden and the determination of cross-posting is at a mod's or admin's discretion. That way, there are no excuses on the subject.

**jamestl2** · 03:58 AM

I agree too (Cross-posting should probably also be listed there),

but........................

it also says (at the end) that what *is* or *isn't* spam is determined by the mods and admins, and isn't negotiable (and it seemed pretty clear, well, to me anyway, that Dan decided it was spam). I guess it should be added as well so everyone can make that distinction.

**chrishirst** · 01-03-2008, 07:13 PM

It's pretty much impossible to have a "No cross forum posting " rule that covers everything. Although some things are pretty much cut and dried as being spam or promotional and can be dealt with, there are also plenty of occasions where someone may ask a question or post an opinion to get a range of thoughts or answers from differing sections of the wider community.
To impose restrictions on WMT members on where and what they can post would very soon stifle the growth of the community and cause stagnation of the discussions. Something that definitely should be avoided.

So, please report the possible problem threads/posts to alert the admin & mods and whatever action deemed necessary can be taken.

Thanks.

**ADAM Web Design** · 01-03-2008, 09:30 PM

I would agree with someone asking a legit question...but that's about it. And let them declare that it's what they're doing and why (a forum poster asking a legitimate question will have no problem with that upfront).

As far as "getting an opinion", it's usually pretty obvious when that's occurring, and again, upfront disclosure shouldn't be a problem.

There are very few cases where either occurs, though, and I don't see how forum growth would be stifled just because we keep cross-posting to a minimum.

**jamestl2** · 01-03-2008, 11:59 PM

We could be saying the same thing about the self-promo / link drops. It doesn't specifically state "No Link Dropping or Self Promo Threads allowed" anywhere in the forum rules.

..........just a thought.

**OSWebMaster** · 01-04-2008, 08:52 PM

Hi All -

The gang's all here! Great. Thanks for agreeing with me Adam -- I love you, too.

A couple of questions:

Should a polling organization be prevented from taking the same poll in different parts of a city, for fear that someone might see it more than once?
Should an investigator hold back from presenting a series of questions on a poster in more than one place for fear someone may see it more than once?
If every definition of "SPAM" refers to a main component of it as being "of a commercial" nature, and a cross post has no commercial aspect to it, is it SPAM? (Google: "Define:SPAM")
Should a Philosophy Professor choose not to ask the same question in different class sessions for fear that the same student might be in both classes?

If it walks like a Duck, but Quacks like a Platypus...

- Scott

**DaveMo~** · 01-05-2008, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrishirst

It's pretty much impossible to have a "No cross forum posting " rule that covers everything. Although some things are pretty much cut and dried as being spam or promotional and can be dealt with, there are also plenty of occasions where someone may ask a question or post an opinion to get a range of thoughts or answers from differing sections of the wider community.

Good point, Chris. I agree that it would be hard to apply a cross-posting from forum to forum rule. This is one of those things that will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. When it becomes obvious that the intention is only to draw attention to a site or product as opposed to trying to give or get information, then it will probably be deleted. (That is in general terms and not necessarily referring to the mentioned post.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

I would agree with someone asking a legit question...but that's about it. And let them declare that it's what they're doing and why (a forum poster asking a legitimate question will have no problem with that upfront).

Determining if a question is a legit question is a hard determination. Because it is asked in more than one forum does NOT make it illegit.

As far as the poster saying that he/she has asked this question on other forums, I don't know that it needs to be a prerequisite for it to be legit. Although, when I have asked the same question on different forums, I have usually qualified it by saying that I've asked elsewhere but not say where. Was it identical? Not quite, but the gist of it was pretty much the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OSWebMaster

A couple of questions:

Should a polling organization be prevented from taking the same poll in different parts of a city, for fear that someone might see it more than once?
Should an investigator hold back from presenting a series of questions on a poster in more than one place for fear someone may see it more than once?
If every definition of "SPAM" refers to a main component of it as being "of a commercial" nature, and a cross post has no commercial aspect to it, is it SPAM? (Google: "Define:SPAM")
Should a Philosophy Professor choose not to ask the same question in different class sessions for fear that the same student might be in both classes?

A couple of answers:

It is not fear that a couple of members might see the posts twice, or even more often, that makes people not like cross-posts.
Google does NOT define spam for WT.
If a main component of spam is for the commercial value and it's determined that a post is being posted on various forums just to get external links for the poster, then it is spam since the commercial value is the external links. Hence, it may be spam.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OSWebMaster

If it walks like a Duck, but Quacks like a Platypus...

Did I miss something here?

Dave

**OSWebMaster** · 01-05-2008, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveMo~

If a main component of spam is for the commercial value and it's determined that a post is being posted on various forums just to get external links for the poster, then it is spam since the commercial value is the external links. Hence, it may be spam.

Did I miss something here?

Dave

Hi Dave -

Thanks for the clarification. But yes, you did miss something regarding the "If it walks like a Duck, but Quacks like a Platypus..." statement.

Above you seem to defining SPAM at WT in part as being a determination that a post has been placed "just to get external links for the poster." My intention was not just to get such links, but rather to honestly study people's thoughts regarding the questions asked, and to engage people in a thoughtful dialog regarding same.

And your statement that "Google does NOT define spam for WT," is not related to the link which I provided. That link was the result of a Google search which then linked to a number of non-Google reference sites all with consistent definitions of SPAM. Are you now saying that the WT definition of SPAM will be different, or consistent with the commonly agreed upon definition of SPAM?

You have also stated that SPAM is related to the commercial value of external links ("...then it is spam since the commercial value is the external links"), so you do seem to be agreeing with those non-Google definitions which I supplied. This is confusing.

Thanks -
Scott

**chrishirst** · 01-05-2008, 04:10 PM

"spam" is a bit like p0rn.

You can't explain what it is, but you know it when you see it.

**jamestl2** · 01-05-2008, 04:20 PM

Chris -
I'm not familiar with this p0rn concept, do you have any examples of what you're talking about?

**DaveMo~** · 01-07-2008, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OSWebMaster

Thanks for the clarification. But yes, you did miss something regarding the "If it walks like a Duck, but Quacks like a Platypus..." statement.

But no explanation? BTW, not necessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OSWebMaster

My intention was not just to get such links, but rather to honestly study people's thoughts regarding the questions asked, and to engage people in a thoughtful dialog regarding same.

I was being general in my post and didn't say that I thought your poll was for spam purposes. As I said, it's really hard to tell the intention behind typed posts. There could be underlying factors that most don't see that could determine it as spam.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OSWebMaster

And your statement that "Google does NOT define spam for WT," is not related to the link which I provided. That link was the result of a Google search which then linked to a number of non-Google reference sites all with consistent definitions of SPAM. Are you now saying that the WT definition of SPAM will be different, or consistent with the commonly agreed upon definition of SPAM?

Though I think my statement about Google was misunderstood, maybe I should rephrase it. Other sites do not determine for WT what we determine as spam. This in no way infers that we will be different than other sites, nor does it infer that we will be the same as other sites. I think that our standing on spam is relatively clear. I hope that clears up the confusion.

If there's still confusion about that, the staff still makes the determination of what is and is not spam.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamestl2

I'm not familiar with this p0rn concept, do you have any examples of what you're talking about?

James, he'll have to PM those to you. Tsk, tsk!

Dave