|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 2:15 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Why is this getting so convoluted?
Spamming is posting the same link or article multiple times.
Intent doesn't matter. The quality of the information doesn't matter.
Just don't post the same article or link multiple times. Problem solved. I haven't seen it in a few weeks. I find some of IGTG's antics extremely ubnoxious, but it seems sh/he has decided to stop antagonizing everyone. Why beat a dead horse?
Posting the same idea on multiple threads is not spamming. Some people see a topic of high personal interest as having far reaching implicatons. You can easily dismiss them by not reading their posts. Problem solved.
If this board gets Tipper Gored to death it will lose its appeal. I think we can all agree the music is just gibberish when played backwards and agree to get along. Flag rampant abuse and I'm sure the proactive mods will deal with it. Again, problem solved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| Posting the same idea on multiple threads is not spamming. Some people see a topic of high personal interest as having far reaching implicatons. You can easily dismiss them by not reading their posts. Problem solved. |
Well said; I was just thinking along the same lines. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
From time to time there are posts, stories, videos, whatever, that are germane to more than one ongoing thread. In these cases it would be appropriate for the item to be posted in more than one place. It would be a shame to prohibit items that contribute to a topic just because they may have appeared elsewhere.
I have seen several cases where the same item was posted in more than one thread by DIFFERENT posters. They may not have been reading every thread to check for duplicates. Or, they may have felt that the information belonged in more than one place.
Duplicate posting does not automatically equate to spam, even if it is done by the same poster.
Spam would be multiple posting of the same item in threads where the item is unrelated and adds nothing to the thread.
If an item of news is so important that you think everyone should see it, however, then multiple posting is not the best way to spread the message. You should start a new thread.
You can also type in bold and all caps which will have the double benefit of calling attention to your post and annoying some of the oversensitive readers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
From time to time there are posts, stories, videos, whatever, that are germane to more than one ongoing thread. In these cases it would be appropriate for the item to be posted in more than one place. It would be a shame to prohibit items that contribute to a topic just because they may have appeared elsewhere.
I have seen several cases where the same item was posted in more than one thread by DIFFERENT posters. They may not have been reading every thread to check for duplicates. Or, they may have felt that the information belonged in more than one place.
Duplicate posting does not automatically equate to spam, even if it is done by the same poster.
Spam would be multiple posting of the same item in threads where the item is unrelated and adds nothing to the thread.
If an item of news is so important that you think everyone should see it, however, then multiple posting is not the best way to spread the message. You should start a new thread.
You can also type in bold and all caps which will have the double benefit of calling attention to your post and annoying some of the oversensitive readers. |
Ontheway,
I agree with what you are saying, most of it boils down to intent (as Czar was saying). If you do it in a way that is not obnoxious I have no problem with it. There are a few posters who do this and it's annoying to quite a few people (and just to clarify I'm not talking about you, but a few specific posters). That combined with the mods completely ignoring the complaints let to things getting bad (granted they did step in and do something about it after two weeks).
As someone else said, it hasn't been going on much lately (at least not that I've noticed). However, that is because the mods did step in and do something. My take on this is it comes in cycles, yes it may be better now, but given the past history it's clear we're headed for a sequel eventually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Enrico & company:
Well, I'll let you guys work this out. I still think we should limit new threads by the same poster on a daily basis. I'd settle for 3, or even fewer, forcing all of us to choose our burning issue of the day. But that's just my take.
However you guys work it out, if Kuros and the other Clinton backers gain an advantage on this matter then I hereby request that MilwaukieDave and I be designatd super delegates!
The aforementioned can be delegate leaders from Michigan or Florida. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:58 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Once upon a time, one poster decided he was going to "freshen up" the front page of CE and posted 10 new threads. Another poster saw this and decided that these 10 threads were all shrill, puerile, far-left propaganda. He came unhinged and posted 10 meaty, put-hair-on-your-chest, Republican-style threads in retaliation. Eventually, the two reached a kind of detente and removed all of these excessive threads.
I don't know if that is termed spamming or not, but whatever the word for it, that kind of uber-thread-posting is a pain.
I voted for three.
Disclaimer: IGTG was not involved in the above anecdote.
Furthermore, I object to the way in which IGTG is being repeatedly singled out in public. There is a noticeable lack of discretion here, and I feel a lot of what is being said ought to be said in pm's. Otherwise, it all looks a bit like a witch hunt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Enrico Palazzo
Mod Team
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
Enrico & company:
Well, I'll let you guys work this out. I still think we should limit new threads by the same poster on a daily basis. I'd settle for 3, or even fewer, forcing all of us to choose our burning issue of the day. But that's just my take.
However you guys work it out, if Kuros and the other Clinton backers gain an advantage on this matter then I hereby request that MilwaukieDave and I be designatd super delegates!
The aforementioned can be delegate leaders from Michigan or Florida. |
Where were we? I was looking up some things up somewhere....
I will go with this 3 posts per day per poster. Of course, this can only be
voluntary. Now, if someone all of a sudden posts 5 in one day, then you could notify a mod or tell the poster they are going over the voluntary quota. I guess they call it the honor system? Anyway, we seem to have more posters, so it would be a big mess if we go generally beyond the three posts per person a day. Reducing it to less than 3 posts would not be good as others said 3 was more than fine before. Gopher wanted a round number. 3 means 6 posts in two days.
I hope this would encourage posters to choose diverse posts rather than talking about the same things over and over which seems to happen.
You know what about be wild if people could specialize in certain areas in terms of posting articles to ensure some diversity. Of course, that might be a very crazy idea. I am concerned about people going in circles about the same topics. Could that be a potential concern? Of course, that might be a ridiculous idea or might be a great idea.
Anyway, whatever we can do to change things up a bit might be good... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:21 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You know what about be wild if people could specialize in certain areas in terms of posting articles to ensure some diversity. Of course, that might be a very crazy idea. I am concerned about people going in circles about the same topics. Could that be a potential concern? Of course, that might be a ridiculous idea or might be a great idea. |
Well, that already happens. Mith, for example, is on top of the space news.
| Quote: |
| I am concerned about people going in circles about the same topics. Could that be a potential concern? |
I think you're going completely overboard in coming up with new stuff.
Why don't you try running with what you have for a good three to six months and then decide what new stuff you're going to make? You are aware that the forum is in a lull until the start of May, right? Then it's going to head into the craziest part of its 4-year cycle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Enrico Palazzo
Mod Team
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:54 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You know what about be wild if people could specialize in certain areas in terms of posting articles to ensure some diversity. Of course, that might be a very crazy idea. I am concerned about people going in circles about the same topics. Could that be a potential concern? Of course, that might be a ridiculous idea or might be a great idea. |
Well, that already happens. Mith, for example, is on top of the space news.
| Quote: |
| I am concerned about people going in circles about the same topics. Could that be a potential concern? |
I think you're going completely overboard in coming up with new stuff.
Why don't you try running with what you have for a good three to six months and then decide what new stuff you're going to make? You are aware that the forum is in a lull until the start of May, right? Then it's going to head into the craziest part of its 4-year cycle. |
I am not sure about this crazies part of the 4 year cycle? Is a werewolf going to join the forum or something? Okay, that was a joke.
I think you may have a point. We should just leave it at 3 posts per person maximum. That's fine. And let's not single out the musician.
Let's give him a break rather than demean him. Refer to him as a him rather than a female, because people may think it's one of those high school things where when attacking someone you use a female attribute. It wouldn't look good on our forum, I think, and let's give him a bit of a break. He's trying.
And let's limit as we agreed to posting the exact same article repeatedly.
I think there is some consensus over the 3 posts a day thing that's voluntary. I say aye, and no more additions like people specializing. Yeah, that's too insane, but let's try to aim for some variety instead of say electioneering ourselves to death for example....
I don't think I can add more than that... You guys have done a decent job.....Nice work... Do we need more than the above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Enrico Palazzo wrote: |
| Gopher wanted a round number. |
Just to clarify, I would not mind a thousand new threads per day from a single poster, provided they introduced a thousand new, innovative discussions. I think "discretion" is the key concept here. People who produce ten 9/11 conspiracy theory threads in a row know they are spamming just as someone who forces his or her link onto ten threads in the span of five minutes knows what they are doing when they do it.n Same thing with placing ten new threads designed to cast America in the most unfavorable light.
These represent not discussion but power plays.
| Enrico Palazzo wrote: |
| You know what about be wild if people could specialize in certain areas in terms of posting articles to ensure some diversity. Of course, that might be a very crazy idea. I am concerned about people going in circles about the same topics. Could that be a potential concern? Of course, that might be a ridiculous idea or might be a great idea [my emphasis]. |
This is what I mean: some have attempted to force all discussions to deal with the particular ideological axes they want to grind (and grind and grind and grind and...). Look at your own "civility" thread, for example, Enrico, and see how they derailed it into a conspiracy theory thread (see Regicide and Bacasper on p. 5)... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wouldn't have gotten so annoyed on Friday (and started this) if one thread had contained the article and then saw a link on related threads--but that wasn't what I was finding. What was posted on other threads was the identical longish article complete with big picture and bolded copy.
I think it's a perfectly valid point that one article can be related to several topics. Why can't one article, with it's salient details be posted one time, then just the headline and a link posted in related threads? It wouldn't hurt to include a comment about how it is related to other topics/aspects being discussed on another thread. I don't think that approach would stifle anyone and would not annoy anyone either.
I think what most bothers me about this whole thing is the idea that someone might miss an article if it isn't posted everywhere is way to close to being the required reading approach. There's a huge difference between providing me a link to an article I might be interested in and trying to shove said article down my throat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| This is what I mean: some have attempted to force all discussions to deal with the particular ideological axes they want to grind (and grind and grind and grind and...). Look at your own "civility" thread, for example, Enrico, and see how they derailed it into a conspiracy theory thread (see Regicide and Bacasper on p. 5)... |
Gopher's lack of insight is astounding. It's OK for him to repeatedly grind his "ideological axe" over and over and over, right? But of course, he doesn't see that he does that.
On the civility thread, my one-line comment was in response to a post by Ya-ta Boy. I didn't post anything gratuitously. And Gopher, as usual, began the descent into incivility by calling me unreasonable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Enrico Palazzo
Mod Team
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Enrico Palazzo wrote: |
| Gopher wanted a round number. |
Just to clarify, I would not mind a thousand new threads per day from a single poster, provided they introduced a thousand new, innovative discussions. I think "discretion" is the key concept here. People who produce ten 9/11 conspiracy theory threads in a row know they are spamming just as someone who forces his or her link onto ten threads in the span of five minutes knows what they are doing when they do it.n Same thing with placing ten new threads designed to cast America in the most unfavorable light.
These represent not discussion but power plays.
| Enrico Palazzo wrote: |
| You know what about be wild if people could specialize in certain areas in terms of posting articles to ensure some diversity. Of course, that might be a very crazy idea. I am concerned about people going in circles about the same topics. Could that be a potential concern? Of course, that might be a ridiculous idea or might be a great idea [my emphasis]. |
This is what I mean: some have attempted to force all discussions to deal with the particular ideological axes they want to grind (and grind and grind and grind and...). Look at your own "civility" thread, for example, Enrico, and see how they derailed it into a conspiracy theory thread (see Regicide and Bacasper on p. 5)... |
Gopher, it seems like you and Bacasper seem to butt heads. I suppose that's normal. It happens in a forum. I hope you both can find some common enough ground without needing romantic feelings for each other (that was a joke, of course), I mean there is a lot of finger pointing and fault-finding around. I know that's normal, but let's not use focus and point and point. I am sure I am guilty of this, but it's my job, unfortunately, I am the ump/ref. As far as Regicide, well he's losing his temper on Ya-Ta-Boy and taking an exception to him taking an exception to IGTG's posts. I am sure people choose people to defend. I find that normal.
Bacasper, it is kind of normal for posters to point to the behaviour of other posters. It's going to happen, as long as it isn't really malicious what can we do. As long as it's not a blatant slam fest, trying to regulate that thing that might be asking too much. Gopher was asked to show some more courtesy toward IGTG, assume it's a he until we have evidence to the contrary, and allow him to post some conspiracy stuff as long as we don't get 5 posts in a day to where one person is dominating too much of the board then he or she should, which wouldn't happen if he just sticks to 3 or 4 at the maximum, preferrably 3. I don't agree that if someone posts germane, good topics it doesn't matter the number, because we can't be selfish and take too much of our individual shares.
Gopher, what's your balanced, unemotional take on what Bacasper is saying about you not being civil in some ways. A couple of others have said you let loose a cannon or something sometimes, and let your lips loose on them. Of course, many people do this, and I am not looking to single out. What's your modest take on that? Maybe, Bacasper is overplaying it somewhat, because it's natural to address some things you are concerned that other posters are doing. It's being open.
Anyway, we've agreed so far no overdoing it with posting too many articles by one person 3 preferrably, no repeating of the same article, some objected to how IGTG is being referred to as a female and feel he is being bullied somehow. Let's take all that into consideration.
Can we agree on that stuff? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Enrico Palazzo wrote: |
| some objected to how IGTG is being referred to as a female and feel he is being bullied somehow. |
Um, why is being called female an insult? I'm rather surprised by this take on it. Anyway, the reason IGTG has been refered to as 'she' was simply that in the past he or she made some mention of their personal circumstances which suggested to at least one poster here that he/she was in all probability female. I know for a fact that some posters genuinely assumed s/he was a woman. That was certainly the case with regard to Gopher, who thought he was addressing him/her correctly (I know this because my curiosity was piqued when I first saw IGTG referred to as female, and since in that particular instance it was Gopher doing it, I asked him about it). It was not intended as some strange method to belittle.
Surely being mistaken for a woman is the ultimate compliment!?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Desperate whining. What does that entail ... 4U?
Whoops ... hehe ... sorry. Wrong thread  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
