|
|
trying to sell books:
Robert smith Sep2021 - Professional Profile[^]
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thai casino again: Member 15358346 - Professional Profile[^]
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spammer terminated.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spammer terminated.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 19-Oct-21 10:58am.
|
|
|
|
|
.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
So that's it? No review process? No suspended status while the account is given a chance to explain? What kind of operation do you run here? This was my account that was erroneously removed. Did anyone even read my posts, or can any overzealous community member who doesn't spend the time to investigate get someone kicked off at any moment? Please tell me what is wrong with my post(s), what policy I violated! True, I have only posted 2 - 3 times since joining. Is infrequent usage against the rules? The comments that I have posted have been detailed and helpful, and have not had any negative language or innuendo. Yes, two of the posts contained links to information sites that I created. But, I did disclose that they were my sites, and they are just info, not selling or stealing anything. One site is my blog and one is just subject-specific info. How does any of this even come close to qualifying as spam? Or even undesirable?
Please undo my account removal, or at least have the decency to justify the removal. If the issue is the links to my info sites then I can remove those, though they are perfectly valid, non-harmful, non-deceptive destinations, so I can't imagine that they are the real problem.
This situation is certainly not making me feel like I missed anything for spending most of my time on StackExchange sites (and a few others) instead of here.
Thanks,
Solomon..
P.S. Regarding the stated criteria for flagging my comment as spam being that I was replying to a comment from 2014: Are you seriously penalizing me for being the first person in 7 years to a) understand the problem, and b) care enough to spend the time to share my knowledge of the issue with others? Is this site a joke?
|
|
|
|
|
The account was gone when I looked, and I merely posted as such. The short time frame to account closure suggests a site admin or the like nuked the account. Unfortunately some mistakes may be made as everyone here is human, but the vast majority of spam posts are accurate. If you believe the account closure is unwarranted maybe @sean-ewington might review what transpired and reactivate the account.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
He wasn't... I was the one reporting your message.
Member 15358241 wrote: Yes, two of the posts contained links to information sites that I created. But, I did disclose that they were my sites, and they are just info, not selling or stealing anything. One site is my blog and one is just subject-specific info. How does any of this even come close to qualifying as spam? It is not spam.
Trying to divert traffic to the own site to generate clicks and maybe revenue. There is a huge amount of people doing that, it is called "site driving" and it usually is not allowed.
Member 15358241 wrote: P.S. Regarding the stated criteria for flagging my comment as spam being that I was replying to a comment from 2014: It is not due to the 2014 question per se. That's exactly the usual pattern of the people trying to take profit from the site. They create a post in their blog (sometimes just a copy of other place's content, so add plagiarism to the list), come here search for more or less related topics with a couple of keywords and start posting messages like "this is due to XXX, for more information visit [my-link]".
Quote: Are you seriously penalizing me for being the first person in 7 years to a) understand the problem, and b) care enough to spend the time to share my knowledge of the issue with others? Is this site a joke? That's the problem, usually the people don't do it for "sharing the knowledge" the goal is to divert the traffic with a minimal text as a click bait.
You message was giving some technical content, yes. But the "more info in [Link]" was too similar to the usual pattern. That's why I flagged it.
Member 15358241 wrote: Is this site a joke? No, it isn't. And that's exactly the main reason why we, users that care about the site, try to keep it clean of spam, abuse and people trying to bend the rules to their own profit. I am just a volunteer that offers his spare time to help (same as you, but in other direction). As a normal person I am no infalible and can have errors.
I might have judged the message wrongly and I apologize for possible inconveniences. @Sean-Ewington or @Chris-Maunder will have a look and reactivate your account if they see it as my error too.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello @Nelek and thanks for replying. I appreciate and understand your various points. I wasn't aware of that trend (i.e. "site driving") and how my actions fit that pattern. I do understand that you are also a volunteer, and yes, everyone makes mistakes (I now understand that I did as well by including that helpful -- IMHO -- though ultimately unnecessary info link in my comment; sorry about that). The only part that was really upsetting (which I will mention in my reply to Chris, who also replied) was the total lack of recourse. The email notifying me of my account termination didn't include a link for "if you feel this action is in error, please contact oops@codeproject.com" or something like that. And so I came back to this site looking for Help / FAQ info on "What to do if you feel that your account should not have been terminated" or something like that, but I couldn't find anything.
Thanks again, Solomon...
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Solomon
Your point about a suspension period is fair. Let me add to Nelek's excellent explanation a little.
We get a lot of spam. A lot. As in: hundreds of thousands of accounts getting created by spam operators that we then have to clean up and remove. Over the years they've changed their tactics, and with the rise of Content Marketing we're seeing a blurring between outright spam and content providers posting answers to questions solely for the purpose of inserting links into posts. Yes, information is provided, but if you forbid the links in the posts would that person have posted in the first place?
Your posts, intentionally or not, fit the profile of content spam. The only two posts your made included links that pointed back to your own site. As such they were flagged and your account marked because we see this constantly. We do not have the time or energy to contact every spammer or potential spammer and have a conversation because almost 100% of the time the account that posted the content has no interest in a conversation. They post, they move on.
We, collectively, have been trained to understand that a spammer will spam and move on and will not respond to our "excuse me but could we ask you to tone down the self-referencing posts please?" messages.
You've reached out to us which means you're a real person. I'm happy to be able to have an actual conversation, and would offer our apologies but would also ask you respect our experience with spam over the years.
So: if the links in your post were removed would you still wish to post your messages?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
And two days later... no response
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Dude, chill... It's only been 2 days (as you said), not 2 weeks. I have a wife and 3 young kids, am slammed with work, and yesterday was a holiday. So, 2 - 3 days is actually not so bad..
|
|
|
|