|
Well I would say it does, I see no value in his answers to a 4 year old questions.
I don't believe this is a site driven spam to "guylangston" blog, I just think this is a spam due to fact that he is repeating himself on multiple posts to a again 4 year old questions.
If you disagree let me know and I'll remove this, but can you explain why you think this is not a spam?
To my understanding, and as I have previously seen, posting on very old questions is usually considered a spam (there are very rare occasions when it is not).
|
|
|
|
|
Spam = Advertising. There is no ad, so no spam. It should not be reported as its totally relavant in context of the question.
Further, answering n-year old question is totally fine given it helps some one facing the issue mentioned in the question.
Programmer : A machine that converts coffee into code !
|
|
|
|
|
I have removed the content, but you should really take a look at what does spam mean [^]
"Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message, in an attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise choose to receive it."
Spam is really not the same as advertising, here we do not have report advertising button so we put those two in the same basket.
With this what you are actually doing is approving a low quality and "spammy" (by the definition above) content to be posted on CP ... nevertheless I removed the message.
|
|
|
|
|
Mario Z wrote: you should really take a look at what does spam mean
I would not because i am concerned only about how Codeproject considers something as spam.
Mario Z wrote: Spam is really not the same as advertising
I tried to explain the general definition of what 'spam' is as per as this site is concerned. Apart from this, it can be a 'Site driving spam' but it's not the case here because link posted there is totally relevant to the question.
Programmer : A machine that converts coffee into code !
|
|
|
|
|
Honestly I don't see a more pointless discussion than talking about the definition of "spam", but as you wish ...
Rohan Leuva wrote:
I would not because i am concerned only about how Codeproject considers something as spam.
I apologize if this may sound rude, but that is an obscured statement, so what you are saying is that you acknowledge only a specific spam and disregard the rest ...
You really shouldn't do that, that is literally saying I disallow one type of evil but will allow other types of it because no one said otherwise ...
And what do you think CodeProject considers a spam?
According to CodeProject's Terms Of Service:
By way of example, and not as a limitation, you agree that when using the Services, you will not:
1. Use the Services in connection with surveys, contests, promotions, pyramid schemes, chain letters, junk email, spamming or any duplicative or unsolicited messages (commercial or otherwise).
So to me it seems that if you indeed consider the CodeProject's terms you would as well agree that that was a spam.
Let me try to explain it in different approach why I think this was a spam.
So we have a new user whose first actions are to post a duplicate answers.
Yes I agree with you, posting to old questions does not have to be spam (but it should definitely trigger a red light in you).
We should ask ourself why does he do that, what was the reason, did he provide any value with this?
The answer is clearly no, he's answering questions which already have an accepted answers (and a very good answers provided by Sergey Alexandrovich) and he is answering it with 3 links. First two do not mention anything new that is not already said to OP and the third one talks about a specific tool.
Nevertheless as you may have already noticed I did remove my message, truth is that I was in dough with this myself but in a way that although his answers should be removed (which now they are) I don't think he should be kicked out.
Also I'm a bit worried to which extend you go in order to justify this particular user...
|
|
|
|
|
Th article,
ASP.NET MVC 5: Extending ASP.NET Identity 2.0 Roles and Implementation of Role Based Authorization[^]
mentions disclaimer,
>Disclaimer
Most of the codes I have used are taken from John Atten's wonderful article Extending Identity Accounts and Implementing Role-Based Authentication in ASP.NET MVC 5. So, if you find similarities in codes and the title, it is not a coincidence. Smile | :)
I can see that both the article share the title as well.
Does mentioning disclaimer allows you to present someone else's work under your name?
Thanks
Do not forget to comment and rate the article if it helped you by any means.
|
|
|
|
|
Akhil Mittal wrote: Does mentioning disclaimer allows you to present someone else's work under your name?
No it doesn't.
See Chris response here:
http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/5050919/Re-Question-about-approving-articles.aspx[^]
It can not make up the bulk of the article, so if he didn't add anything significant it is plagiarism.
[Modified]
I had a (quick) look at both, and I'm not sure about this one.
I don't think he adds anything but he didn't copy paste it either so...
I will let the almighty powers that be decide on this one 
[/Modified]
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
Akhil Mittal wrote: Does mentioning disclaimer allows you to present someone else's work under your name?
Definitely not.
Though the code looks somewhat different from the referenced article. Should be investigated more thoroughly I think.
At the very least it's not an article but a tip/trick. There's barely anything left if you take out the code blocks.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Sascha Lefèvre wrote: There's barely anything left if you take out the code blocks.
Which in my opinion denies it's right to exist as a Tip/Trick
|
|
|
|
|
Can't find the original report member[^] currently on 9.
Question has already gone but contained link to deleted text message recovery site
|
|
|
|
|
final kick applied
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
had to close shop
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
*me confused* (probably because non-native English speaker)
Are you wistful for the pearls? 
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
The groan was for the bad (actually good) witty phrase
But the thought of me being wistful for the pearls is causing some laughter here 
|
|
|
|
|
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Spam[^]mer[^]
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
modified 22-May-15 8:05am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's spam. We've kicked him already at least once.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
rendered obsolete
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gone
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Spam[^]mer[^]
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
All clear here...
Programmer : A machine that converts coffee into code !
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
