|Weird editing of posts|
| 10:05 pm on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Just out of curiosity, is there a ban on mentioning, um, (t)He(y) Who Shall Not Be Named? A couple of comments were deleted, the domain is obfusticated if you try to post it, and a comment of mine which referenced a post which mentioned the name that was deleted was editted to remove the comment. :)
| 10:56 pm on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Ok, well, even if the editing is a little heavy handed as you say, we have to remember a couple things:
a) Google is our god
b) Google went into China and complied with their anti-humanitarian mindset, so therefore
c) It must be ok.
I didn't have the issue with the editing, actually. This is a private business and not a democracy. I was just curious why that site was being picked on is all. :)
Also, is certain sites are taboo, they should mention them as such in the guidelines. Either that, or instead of replacing the text with #$!* characters, replace them with foul names, ya know? Be upfront about their opinions. :)
| 11:08 pm on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|A couple of comments were deleted, the domain is obfusticated if you try to post it |
Well, I think it's self-evident that if it's being obfuscated, then it's been programmed into the software for one reason or another. And then, if comments are being deleted it's also pretty evident that it's being done by design, also for some logical reason or another.
As my personal take, I can think of a few *real* good reasons off the top of my head, from being out there 'round about town, and from what I've seen.
First off, to me there's nothing more annoying than seeing a perpetual onslaught of links to sites as deliberate drops or drops by their friends (so they won't get blamed), in order to garner link-pop or eyeballs. Also, if those sites happen to be blogs or forums, who's to tell whether it's decent, authoritative info or whether it's either useless drivel or gross misinformation - or a prelude to a sales pitch? Or worse yet, a profanity-spewing gossip rag?
As far as comments go, yup! I have seen deliberate whisper campaigns out there! The URL may not have been dropped, but there was repeated name dropping - same reason as above, scavenging for eyeballs.
Another thing that happens is that instead of doing a post that can be discussed, some do a hop-skip-jump post that's nothing more than a link to something on their site (or one they're shilling for) or something on their site that's nothing more than a link to someplace else (round robin forum spamming) - again for the same reasons as above. Eyeballs - and in some cases, outright poaching.
There's more, but the bottom line is that it's got to be humanly impossible to give enough time and attention to each one that would happen and do a mind-reading routine to discern the true intentions, or keep tabs on what's at the other end of a link or a name-drop.
Just my personal take, I don't care for "innocent-looking" posts that are often deceptive and an insult to the average person's intelligence by assuming they just fell off the turnip truck and don't have a clue what's going on.
| 11:13 pm on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
But Marcia, I'm not talking about someone trolling for links, I'm talking about a site being named, in relationship to the topic at hand (which happened to be the big supplemental thing going on with Google), along with 2 other sites in the same post. One site was scrambled, 2 were left as is. Someone asked why it was scrambled, and in my post I quoted the person who was asking.
The original post was deleted, the question was deleted, and my post was edited out to erase the fact that the question had ever been asked.
No links were involved.
| 11:15 pm on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm not concerned about being restrained from yelling "mayo" at a gathering of lettuce and tomatoes, indeed that would be salad reason for restraint.
And I'm aware that I have no rights here except as they are granted by the administration.
But where censorship exists I cannot help myself from trying to push the limits and find the boundaries. Yes, it is a personality flaw but it does not usually prevent me from conducting a normal life.
"Normal life!" LOL LOL LOL
| 11:26 pm on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>And I'm aware that I have no rights here except as they are granted by the administration.
Not so at all. You have the ultimate right, that of free choice, and you exercise that right of free choice going in the gate - when signing up for membership. Nobody becomes a member or gets posting privileges without first seeing the Terms of Service and having the volitional capability of agreeing to them or not.
That is where absolute exercise of free choice happens, and each individual is responsible for the choice they themselves make.
| 11:27 pm on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Oh no, I'm not talking about forum spamming, any devious attempt to forum spam, or abuse of that nature.
I'm talking about peculiar stuff that can only be regarded as ego bruising or perhaps some warped form of political correctness. I don't want to make an issue of it or provide examples, my commentary remains just a casual observation.
Yes, perhaps that's a bit unfair but then it can always be deleted. :)
| 11:35 pm on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>certain sites are taboo, they should mention them as such in the guidelines
Sure, give them a permanent name drop, free and for nuttin'. Surely you jest. :D
| 11:46 pm on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I do not jest, and don't call me Surely.
| 11:53 pm on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>don't call me Surely
There you go, trying to censor me. :)
| 11:57 pm on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well, yeah, when you start calling me names that sound like a little curley headded dancing girl I do!
I barely ever dress like that anymore.
| 12:04 am on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Well, yeah, when you start calling me names that sound like a little curley headded dancing girl I do! |
I barely ever dress like that anymore.
If you mean Shirley Temple - I never did dress like her, it wouldn't have looked right since I've never had blonde curls. But Shirley is not the same thing as surely:
define: surely [google.com]
| 4:49 pm on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
> Oh no, I'm not talking about forum spamming
Yes, you/we/marcia is certainly talking about forum spam.
Lets see - here is an example from the bigdaddy influence:
There you have it - a perfect example of forum spamming.
Do you see why/how?
Here is anotherone:
Example searches used to be one of the top forum spams available. It is why we don't do "outtings" here...
Lastly, some urls that get abused do get put on an autofilter. Sometimes that abuse is from the site owner, and other times it is from a competitor - either way, we look the other way for awhile and then we jump in...
| 6:22 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Thank you for replying Brett.
It just looked a little wierd, as the post in question was definately on topic, and the search shown was showing no results, which was, in this case, the topic.
I can understand though. It was also kinda funny cause I found this site because the operator or the other site had posted the url here to that particular thread.
Ironic is all. :)