Timeline for Possible project/product spamming
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 11, 2013 at 22:09 | comment | added | Thomas | And, as always, don't feed the trolls! If you suspect me or anyone else of trolling, just ignore it and move on :) | |
| Dec 11, 2013 at 22:06 | comment | added | Thomas | @Iain I'm sorry. My intent was not to defend Izap or his specific answers, which this comment thread kind of turned into, but rather I meant to use this instance as a sample in discussing the general interpretation and application of SF's policies. My understanding was that Meta was the place for these discussions and that it's OK for people to disagree in such discussions. If the questions would be closed under today's guidelines, then someone should go and close them. If shopping questions are bad because they invite product pushing, then the questions should be flagged, not the answers. | |
| Dec 11, 2013 at 21:32 | comment | added | user9517 | @Thomas: Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I left comments and I wouldn't be surprised if he was contacted directly by the mods. It seems to me that you're only here to have a whinge. Please stop it really isn't helpful and your getting boring and trollish. | |
| Dec 11, 2013 at 15:54 | comment | added | Thomas | Also, there is no indication that anyone attempted to speak with Izap on the subject. Perhaps someone did and I am simply not privy to that conversation. But the appearance is that these answers were dismissed out of hand with no attempt to ascertain the intent and purpose of the writer. | |
| Dec 11, 2013 at 15:52 | comment | added | Thomas | The answers were deleted before I could read them in their entirety, however Skyhawk's comment on the OP clearly demonstrates that in at least one case Izap acknowledged his involvement in the project. I am not trying to advocate letter of the law over the intent - quite the opposite, since my observations indicate an overabundance of "letter-of-the-law" jurisprudence on SF. It just so happens that in this case the letter and the intent of the law, in my opinion, exonerate Izap and his answers. | |
| Dec 11, 2013 at 10:50 | comment | added | MadHatter | Thomas, note also the last paras of serverfault.com/help/behavior, on self-promotion: "if some (but not all) [of your answer] happen to be about your product or website, that’s okay. However, you must disclose your affiliation in your answers.". lzap did not. | |
| Dec 11, 2013 at 2:17 | comment | added | Andrew B | You're trying to advocate letter of the law over intent of the law. While that works well in legal institutions, we're generally more concerned with the latter in these parts. Digging up old questions that would be closed by current standards is not demonstrative of healthy participation in the community, especially to push a project. A number of reasons behind why shopping questions are of poor quality are also why shopping answers are of poor quality -- particularly their short term relevance. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 23:14 | comment | added | Thomas | "The official stance is: It it's on topic, adds value to the discussion, and they disclose that it's their own product, it's ok." By what I read, Izap appears to have met these criteria. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 23:12 | comment | added | Thomas | Also, there is nothing to indicate to me that any of these answers, or all of them together, qualify for deletion under what I read in the FAQ on the criterion for deletion. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 23:09 | comment | added | Thomas | Izap has been on SF for almost 3 years and has over 400 reputation from 16 answers and 6 questions. Hardly worthy of the "spammer" label. To refer to an answer as spam, or to refer to a user as a spammer, insinuates malicious intent; I see no more malicious intent here than if a Citrix consultant were to answer questions about virtualization. Or if an MS partner were to answer questions about Active Directory. And if a user asked "What is virtualization and how do I do it?" would you really expect a VMWare developer to keep quiet when he is perhaps the most qualified to answer? | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 22:57 | comment | added | user9517 | Many of those questions asking for $product recommendations would be closed today. They (and others) are all ancient questions and were obviously dug up to push $product, this is typical spammer behaviour.There really is very little difference between this incident and many others that we've had over the years with for example password recovery, email recovery etc etc products. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 22:50 | comment | added | Thomas | @Iain I suppose the "by this community's definition" is the part I should spend more time getting familiar with. Each of the example questions in the OP were asking for recommendations for particular applications to automate a particular task; Izap gave direct and succinct answers. And it's no surprise that he found several of these questions in short time, since SF is designed to point them out to us. So we're essentially discriminating against him because he is associated with the product he's recommending (never mind that he was asked to recommend something to begin with). | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 22:29 | comment | added | user9517 | There is a fine line to be walked between pushing a product that you are involved with and spam. Some people manage it quite well. Others, like the person in question step over the line and need to be educated. What makes the difference to our community is how you go about it, if it's 'organic' and you answer other questions along the way then that seems to be acceptable. What this person did was answer several questions in quick succession all of which pushed a project they are involved with. That is pretty much spamming by this communities definition and it was handled appropriately. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 22:00 | history | answered | Thomas | CC BY-SA 3.0 |