Posting Guidelines

[John Q. Public]

I just deleted yet another topic because the opening post was just a comment and a link.

An opening post - or any post, for that matter - MUST give enough information that people can reply without clicking a link to see what it's about. Very few people click on links, so very few people will understand what a post is about unless you tell them. Links should only be for reference, documentation or further reading. Any post that doesn't follow this standard will be deleted.

Same goes for videos. People don't watch long videos and videos from sources they don't like. Tell us what they're about or don't expect anybody to reply. Assume that nobody will watch the video because they won't. The one exception to this is videos that are for entertainment purposes only but a comment will generally help "sell" those, so it is recommended.

When quoting a newspaper article or blog post, only quote the part that's relevant to your post. The Fair Use Standard says 2 or 3 paragraphs is usually sufficient. If it takes a writer half a page to get to his point, start at that point. There's no need to start at the top if the "meat" of the article is at the bottom. And NEVER post the site's ads, photo <descriptions>, "follow us on Twitter" links or whatever other irrelevant junk might have stuck to your clipboard. PROOFREAD before posting. That's what the Preview button's for.

[John Q. Public]

Oh, and another thing.

Please use the subject line to give some kind of description of the topic. "Interesting," "Ya gotta see this!", "More Obama LIES!" or one of my favorites , "Question"* doesn't do that. Your topic will get more action and it will help cut down the number of duplicate and parallel threads if the title includes the subject.



* I see board administrators use that one on administrator boards. They're usually administrators of small boards and their "Questions" don't get many views, much less "answers."

[John Q. Public]

And again, please don't start a new thread if one already exists on the topic. I count 5 threads about Obamacare on the Active Topics list. We don't need a new one every time somebody has a synapse fire.

[John Q. Public]

Parrotpaul, read the first post to see why your topic about cats disappeared. Too bad. It sounded interesting.

[Parrotpaul]

Sorry, I thought I had fulfilled what has been asked...guess it didn't. I've always thought I have been extremely careful and informative with my threads and their opening posts and titles.

It's over on FaceBook. Enjoy.

[barstow wiz]

i'm just gonna discontinue attempting to post new threads. too bothersome...

[John Q. Public]

That rule is mainly to prevent dead threads but your post would come under the second reason for it. And that's Google, the Lord and Overseer of All Things Internet.

Unfortunately their new algorithm is labeling posts like that as spam. A lot of site owners, myself included, aren't happy about it but it's something we have to deal with at least until they make some kind of adjustment. The change was to combat link spam, which we all appreciate, but the way they did it penalizes everybody for the actions of the bad apples. And since message boards were especially vulnerable to link spam, we're especially vulnerable to the new rule. And it's being reflected in our search rankings. It's of no concern to the members of the community but it's something that the owner of the place has to watch carefully and try to make adjustments for.

Fark is a prime example of a site that I'd imagine would be hit especially hard. It's been around for years, has good ratings and it's always good for laughs, but all it is is links to amusing stories. It has none of what Google is classifying as "high quality content" and I'd imagine that their ranking - and their income, since it's big enough to be a business - is going to suffer. It sucks but it's something we have to deal with, at least for now.

[John Q. Public]

Bump for Wabash and Red.

[blockquote]An opening post - or any post, for that matter - MUST give enough information that people can reply without clicking a link to see what it's about. Very few people click on links, so very few people will understand what a post is about unless you tell them. Links should only be for reference, documentation or further reading. Any post that doesn't follow this standard will be deleted.[/blockquote]

[Red]

Holy smoke JQP. It was a really great video. Don't you think you are micro-managing a little too much?

[John Q. Public]

No, the rule is very clear on that. This is the internet and we have to play by the internet's rules. Links have become dangerous objects and they must be described and supported. Links like yours, with no description and nothing to support it, are spam and they're borderline warnable. That's how seriously I have to take it.

[John Q. Public]

Bump for Parrotpaul.

I deleted the "13 ideas that challenge traditional marriage as bullcrap" thread because it didn't list even a single "reason."

I usually have 2 or 3 other things I'm doing while I'm reading posts here. I don't have time to do the research to see what topics are about if the post doesn't tell me. From the number of out-clicks I see when I look at that report, I assume I'm typical. Seriously. If you don't tell us what your post is about, nobody's going to know and nobody's going to reply. I can't put it any more simply.

Posts like that also damage the site's (the community's) reputation. They have no content. They're links encouraging people to go to other sites and nothing more. Whether you have an interest in recruiting traffic for the other site or not, they're spam. That's the way Google, which makes or breaks a site's reputation, sees them so that's the way I have to see them. I'd like to be able to just give links to other sites that might only serve to enlighten or amuse people but we can't. It kills us.

If you like spending time here, please try to help the community out by trying to encourage thoughtful (kaff kaff) discussion, not by getting us a reputation as a link dump.

[Parrotpaul]

Sorry, I have always thought my threads were properly phrased and posted. I will watch carefully so I can get it correct. Thanks for the heads-up.

[John Q. Public]

They're all properly phrased and posted, for the most part, but this is more about covering all of the W's. Or at least enough of them so that we don't have to go anywhere to read a story and then, hopefully, come back. The "Ellen Brown" thread, for instance, hinted in the title that she could run but didn't say she was. And the post had a lot of material but none that told us anything about who she is or what any of her ideas are. It relied on us going somewhere else to see what the story was. Topics like that have very low response rates because people don't want to go somewhere else. They want it here.

We all know there are going to be topics that don't go anywhere. Around here, it seems like they're the ones where something can't be blamed on Republicans or Democrats or the ones that can't dissolve into some kind of partisan bickering. Or they're about a non-Trinity team. Or they're, like... interesting. We can't expect every topic to take off - a lot of them are never meant to - but we should at least try to start with enough information that they can.

[Parrotpaul]

Ummmm....it would seem that posting a lead in with enough info to understand the content....followed by two or three opening paragraphs, and a link to the story would be sufficient. Don't the readers have some responsibility? We used to post the entire story, and there was no need to leave the page...that changed.

[John Q. Public]

The rules changed. Copyright trolling became as lucrative as class action suits. I think it's the Las Vegas Sun-Journal won't even let you post a snippet of their articles. The AP got really big on that a couple years ago. They didn't want any of their content re-posted by non-member sites. They eventually settled on 2 or 3 paragraphs and that sort of became the standard. The Huffington Post is the best example of how to do that. The site's amazing, really. Some of their material is licensed, some is original and some is scraped. On the ones they scrape, they'll post a couple paragraphs, maybe add a couple of their own to complete the story, and their version will outrank the original. Very impressive in web terms.

It shouldn't be about getting the reader to "do their part." If you want to talk about something in real life, you don't expect the other person to go buy a newspaper and come back. You tell them what you read and see what they think about it. It shouldn't be any different here.

Like I said up above, links (and scraped content) have become dangerous, both to the site doing the linking and the one that's linked to. I have a situation I have to deal with on that. There's a site in Indonesia that re-posted whole sections of this site. Lord only knows why, but they have 450 links to this site. Now I have to make a list and send it to Google to disavow any relationship with the site. It used to be that any link was a good link, but now stuff like that can kill a site as far as being seen goes.

[John Q. Public]

Bump for Fordama.

Read the first post to see why your "Cultural stereotypes" topic was removed. A tease and a link = spam and we can't allow it.

[John Q. Public]

Bump for Trog and Kramer. Read the first post.

I've removed something like 5 links today because the posts didn't explain them. A sentence doesn't qualify. Links should only be for supplemental reading. They should be used to support your point, not make it.

I'm serious enough about this that I might start giving warnings for it. Unsupported links do nothing for the conversation and they kill the site's reputation.