Timeline for Do we edit self promotion or leave it to be down voted?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 14, 2013 at 5:44 | comment | added | user9517 Mod | @jmort253: Personally I just try to accept that what people say is what they mean and not read too much into it. He's giving credit to himself, it's not required. | |
| Apr 13, 2013 at 22:02 | comment | added | jmort253 | I see that hiding in there now. :) But, still, the answer was edited to remove the link. I feel like that should be used for cases where someone demonstrates a pattern of abuse or wrote a really low quality answer and then slaps their link in the post. I don't know this user too well and haven't investigated myself, but I wanted to bring this up because I believe it's important to tell the difference between people trying to promote themselves and people who legitimately want to help others and just happen to have relevant content they've posted elsewhere that they want to add as a reference. | |
| Apr 13, 2013 at 19:55 | comment | added | user9517 Mod | @jmort253: I quite clearly say that I don't think it is overt self promotion. | |
| Apr 13, 2013 at 19:49 | comment | added | jmort253 | Seems a bit overboard to call that one "overt self promotion". The link was quite relevant to the post and added additional information. I believe it was wrong of the community to edit out the second link. It's like we're on a witch hunt for someone who might be self-promoting instead of looking at the content and asking if it's relevant to the post. In my experience, spammers usually don't put time into writing good quality, relevant answers. Maybe it would have been better to edit it and say "see X for more information". That way the question of credit isn't even an issue. | |
| Apr 6, 2013 at 19:40 | history | answered | user9517Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |