Arguments and anonymity

A "hurdle" for robust posts?

[stever]

In a couple of WebmasterWorld threads in the Google and Directory forums lately the exchange of views has been somewhat robust, and has shown up a negative side of the "no discussion of specific URLs" rule.

While this rule is a tremendous one in keeping the quality of discussions high in general, it does allow people to throw out allegations from the cloak of anonymity.

For example, "my perfectly good site won't get listed in DMOZ because the editor is corrupt" or "Google banned me and I have never done anything that it would view as wrong."

Now, of course, in most cases we don't have a chance to view the sites in question and so the discussion proceeds as if the allegation is perfectly fair. (Although the search facility can be tremendously illuminating...;) )

I'm certainly not in favour of any censorship and not against any frank exchange of views - but how about if someone making an allegation like that had to submit their URL to say three experienced WebmasterWorld members? So that if people did want to discuss these issues and allegations they had to make an effort to come up with a convincing case.

And if two of those members decided: "Look, the site is full of affiliate MLM links, what did they expect?" or "Maybe the fact that they mentioned Ruritanian hotels 45 times might have something to do with the fact that Google doesn't love them any more" then the culprit making a serious and unjustified allegation could have their posting privileges suspended for three months or so...

Because to be honest, the number of sites that I have seen complained about, either here or elsewhere, where Google or DMOZ has erred is miniscule compared to the number of sites where they have acted correctly _according to their own rules and pronouncements_

[rogerd]

It may be a bit limiting, SteveR, but I think the fear is that relaxing the rule might open the floodgates. After participating in other fora, it took a while for me to get used to, but I've come to believe in the approach.

People can still put their URLs into their profile, and indeed have gotten the kind of feedback you describe.

[Mohamed_E]

> For example, "my perfectly good site won't get listed in DMOZ because the editor is corrupt" or "Google banned me and I have never done anything that it would view as wrong."

Let me suggest that most of us take these allegations with a grain of salt. They add to the overall level of noise, but once such a thread starts it is easily ignored.

It does not seem to me that this requires modifying an excellent system.

[ScottM]

While this may be a good idea, the solution falls on a single problem:

"Who is going to prove that the poster owns the URL is question?"

On more than one occasion, a poster has posted/talked about a URL they didn't own. Either from a 'this guy is spamming' point of view, or...even more cleverly: "He's spamming. 'No, he's got this and this and this going for him', Oh,ok, thanks!...and then rushes off to duplicate the positive feedback about about 'his site'."

As these fora grow, it gets harder and harder for general consensus. "One man's spam is another's optimization." And since optimization takes diferent forms across the web, it would be nearly impossible to to reach any consensus on these issues.

Regarding the DMOZ. You either love it, hate it or are indifferent to it. Same with Google. In fact, same with almost everything. (Except pop-ups and spam e-mail. You will note there is very little chatter about these items. Why? Because there is almost universal consensus on these items.)

There are also many lurkers that frequent. You see them pop in for a first post, when in fact they've been reading for months. They're not 'new' in the strictest sense, but they may ask a question or have a new stategy. Rarely is the first post a 'consensus' post.

Regarding the 'complaint review'. I think the Mods and Admins already have their hands quite full. Pushing it upon 'experienced' users won't prove anything, either. Experience is hard to pin down. For example, I have ZILCH experience in PHP, and I certainly don't want to be the judge of a complaint in that area.

Sometimes silence can speak volumes over an issue. Other times a spirited debate is healthy.

I run a forum that get's VERY heated almost every fall (autumn), and removing personal insults is part of the price I pay. Entrenched ideals and 'rights' come into play. It's tough, but it tends to relax about mid-December.

So, through this all, I think there is no 'easy' answer. One of the hallmarks of WW, beyond high quality discussion is 'warts and all'. In otherwords...people are people. Mod, Admin or not. Anonymity breeds more downside than goodwill. Just like any large city will have a higher crime rate than a small 200 person town.

[heini]

I see where you are coming from with that stever.
I would anyhow address this rather from the other end: posts making allegations against people, like editors or against companies, like SEs are not overly welcome anyway.

There have been some threads as of lately which went into areas which were less than professional. Hmhm.

Messages addressing an alleged algo flaw in an engine however do need no checking IMO. Most people are quite convinced their sites should be at the top ;) I guess we all know how to take such messages.

Messages however pointing out competitors or generally other people's sites have never been welcome anyway.