Why "ban" **************************?

[sammich]

I understand why this was banned, but I see constant posts (lots of times by the same members) parroting the "search mroogle" with a bunch of outdated links over and over and over again - with nary a word or move from a moderator.

Seems like it's the exact reasoning which got ****** banned - unhelpful, pretentious, etc.

Is there a reason those posts aren't as policed?

Maybe those 'outdated' posts have the solution and if they tried to search, their questions will be answered immediately instead of waiting for someone to post a the same solution, often repeating the entire process that previous thread went through (clarification etc).

 

[Queen of Spades]

Maybe those 'outdated' posts have the solution and if they tried to search, their questions will be answered immediately instead of waiting for someone to post a the same solution, often repeating the entire process that previous thread went through (clarification etc).

Just as often they don't have the answers. Products change (hard cases, for example), and the whole point of a forum is for discussion, not to index a wiki. If you don't want to take the time to answer it, then don't. It's pretty simple.

The "search for it" response is almost always condescending and rarely engages a poster.

 

[sammich]

Just as often they don't have the answers. Products change (hard cases, for example), and the whole point of a forum is for discussion, not to index a wiki. If you don't want to take the time to answer it, then don't. It's pretty simple.

The "search for it" response is almost always condescending and rarely engages a poster.

Clearly there are people who abuse the system. I'm not against those people who legitimately link useful threads, but I am against those who post links without a care of what is in those threads, or the content of the first post.

So to clarify my referenced example from my previous post: if you had a vague question for an older computer, would you rather go through the whole process of waiting, then a poster asks for more information, you post again, then more waiting etc. It's reinventing the wheel, seriously, that's whole point of a search engine like google, to reuse information. The OP clicks through a link to the existing thread and he/she may even add their results to it, and it makes it a good collection of knowledge, rather many hard to collate results from dozens of threads.

The point being, if the topic is the same, then a link to an existing AND useful thread is 100% acceptable and welcomed. If it's different, like 'What is the NEW case from this company better?' of course, old links do no justice.

 

[alFR]

I wonder if there's any chance they could filter out "cool story, bro" while they're at it? It's similarly useless and annoying.

 

[r.j.s]

I wonder if there's any chance they could filter out "cool story, bro" while they're at it? It's similarly useless and annoying.

If you are talking about someone posting that and only that, it isusually deleted by the mods as a one word post that adds nothing to a discussion. If you see it, report it.

 

[Cromulent]

So they can just ban that too

Let's just be sensitive to people who are too stupid/lazy to Google their query and have the answer stare them in the face in the first few results.

oh well, another win for the brain dead.

Just add it to a guide and post a link to the guide.

Most of the threads in the programming forum are "How do I learn Objective-C?" with the answer in the guides at the top of the forum.

 

[annk]

I understand why this was banned, but I see constant posts (lots of times by the same members) parroting the "search mroogle" with a bunch of outdated links over and over and over again - with nary a word or move from a moderator.

Seems like it's the exact reasoning which got ****** banned - unhelpful, pretentious, etc.

Is there a reason those posts aren't as policed?

We delete what I call "just search" posts - that is, posts that don't give any helpful information about the problem itself. But if someone replies with relevant links that can help the OP, it's fine if that person includes a polite reminder about searching.

What people don't seem to think about is that it can be helpful to let the OP know how you searched when you found the links. Search words/strings etc. Not everyone searches well. I know, I work at a public library and help people with this all the time.

 

[belvdr]

What about posts that consist of nothing but a facepalm image and the like (basically posts that add nothing to the topic and are there to flame someone)?

Of course, this wouldn't apply to some threads that are Wasteland material only.

 

[r.j.s]

What about posts that consist of nothing but a facepalm image and the like (basically posts that add nothing to the topic and are there to flame someone)?

Of course, this wouldn't apply to some threads that are Wasteland material only.

Report them, they are akin to lol or +1 posts.

 

[GoCubsGo]

Come on people, when I mean people I mean the admins.

What's wrong with answering questions like, "Should I get...?" or "When will...?" with...

http://tinyurl.com/2fldt86

What ever happened to search first. Then search again. Then maybe post your question.

There is a small amount of irony here. Right?

 

[Sun Baked]

What people don't seem to think about is that it can be helpful to let the OP know how you searched when you found the links. Search words/strings etc. Not everyone searches well. I know, I work at a public library and help people with this all the time.

So telling somebody that they can find this thread by searching for "Getting Banned Deleted Posts and Google Forum Search" is helpful.

 

[annk]

^ Not particularly, no.

My point is that if the "just search" crowd gave people a little more info on how to search usefully, it would be an improvement over "This has been posted a zillion times, can't you use the search function?" or "Google is your friend" etc.

 

[KítscheñÇinqµe]

It was amusing the first 2 times, but then got annoying really fast.

imo, more bland than actually annoying. it's about as interesting as a "me too" reply, or "have you seen that kewl new site geocities?"

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

What is this forum coming to that we can't post cheeky things like that to lazy members?

Bring it back! Image

Use tinyurl.com or a similar service to create a short l m g t f y url. Problem solved.

 

[Hellhammer]

Use tinyurl.com or a similar service to create a short l m g t f y url. Problem solved.

The filter is there for a reason. Bypassing it is prohibited and such posts will be deleted.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

The filter is there for a reason. Bypassing it is prohibited and such posts will be deleted.

And that reason is: Mods or forum software (automatic generated warnings) know it better than the "average" humans, which can actually understand humor. It is quite clear that this rule limits the fun (as others said). If it would be something illegal, ok, but indirect links to google.com are not illegal (except in China). Was someone injured before this rule came into force, here on MR? I don't think so.

I was a mod on another big (ok *very* relative to MR, hehe) forum (> 40.000 registered users), and in my active time we came to the conclusion, that we should not act as censoring machines. I guess, different forum, different openness and climate. Good to know for the future. <-:

 

[stridemat]

arn's sandbox, arn's rules. Don't really see the point in dragging up this old thread.

Instead of posting ways to 'bypass' the rules perhaps it would be more beneficial to posts suggestions why it should be allowed.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

Just as often they don't have the answers. Products change (hard cases, for example), and the whole point of a forum is for discussion, not to index a wiki.

A wiki like structure would be better for MR. That would make many external links superfluous. They do that already *applause* with their guides section, but i think they should expand it.

 

[Hellhammer]

And that reason is: Mods or forum software (automatic generated warnings) know it better than the "average" humans, which can actually understand humor. It is quite clear that this rule limits the fun (as others said). If it would be something illegal, ok, but indirect links to google.com are not illegal (except in China). Was someone injured before this rule came into force, here on MR? I don't think so.

Posts which contain only Google links aren't allowed either. Why? Because they are useless. If someone takes the time to post a thread in here, then you should also read the thread and answer the question, not just Google the title and link the Google page. If we preferred that, we might as well build a script for that. Or what is the point of forums anyway, there is Google which answers everything.

Sure, ****** links must be fun for the poster and possibly others, but that is pretty much it. The person who posted the question will most likely not share your thoughts, nor will his question be answered with accuracy.

 

[maflynn]

It is quite clear that this rule limits the fun (as others said).

As already documented ****** does not create an environment of humor, nor does it answer the OPs question, but instead it derails threads, increases the likelihood of arguments and does not extend the dialog. In essence there's little good that comes out of those posts and more negative.

 

[Tomorrow]

As already documented ****** does not create an environment of humor, nor does it answer the OPs question...

It provides links to answer the OP's question.

Are we now banning posts which post links to answer questions? If so, better get ready to ban GGJstudios and miles01110. If not, then you're contradicting yourselves.

And yes, it provides humor. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[Peace]

Tell ya what would stop all this real fast.

A lot of discussions do it.

Do not allow a newbie or a person with less than "X" number of posts or a certain level of membership to start a thread. Or use moderated threads.

e.g. an unapproved member wants to start a thread. The member starts the thread. The mods then go over them and either "approve" or "disapprove" thus opening or closing said thread.

This would

A. make members search for an answer more.
B. Slow down the number of useless threads.

 

[wordoflife]

Do not allow a newbie or a person with less than "X" number of posts or a certain level of membership to start a thread.

Most people (newbie rank) come here to ask questions. Doing what you described above really defeats that purpose. Horrible idea in my opinion.

Your second idea wasn't that bad, but I don't think it's worth the hassle. As Hellhammer said above, they are essentially volunteering their time. No need to make the system any more complicated than it is. Threads that need to be deleted will be deleted when the time comes. Some issues are unique to themselves and other threads may not necessarily answer those issues. And, I don't think the moderators have time (or care to) decide whether each thread is unique to their own or not. It's not that big of a deal. It's a message board for Pete's sake.

People blow issue out of proportions here (speaking as a whole). Again, this is just a message board.

 

[miles01110]

It provides links to answer the OP's question.

Are we now banning posts which post links to answer questions? If so, better get ready to ban GGJstudios and miles01110. If not, then you're contradicting yourselves.

And yes, it provides humor. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.

There is quite a difference between an obnoxious ****** link and a straight link that answers the question directly. Nice try, though.

 

[kainjow]

The answer, previously posted in this thread:

In short the usage of it was deemed inherently rude and troublesome causing more work for the moderators.

...the primary reason for banning ************************** was because the whole point of it is to be rude and condescending. We've lost track of the number of threads that have gotten derailed because of its usage, creating mountains of work for the moderators.

We don't have an issue with people linking to Google search results, although we do prefer that members also link to a specific page that addresses the question being posed. Something along the lines of...

You might want to check out Blah Blah Blah. Or try a Google search along these lines for more info.

...would be terrific. By doing so, you're giving the poster one fish to tide him over while you teach him how to catch his own fish for the future.

TL;DR: it comes across as rude and condescending.