DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> is this spam?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 40 of 40, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/19/2009 08:10:01 AM · #26
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
some members of the SC can find countless hours to argue with members and Registered Users in these forums including the most recent thread about DQ's etc. I would rather see them spend some of that time doing things that are more constuctive for the site instead of wasting the time beating the dead horses and maybe even chasing away members and or potential new members.

It's unfair to say that SC is bickering with users and beating the dead horse, since it is always users that bring that damn horse out and start complaining about the smell in the first place. If SC didn't respond to threads like that (where they are often publicly invoked with comments like "I'd like to hear SC's side") they would be faulted by the population for ignoring issues. What do you expect them to do?

06/19/2009 08:56:26 AM · #27
I don't think it is unfair to state my oppinion., They do it all the time in fact they do it more than I do around here. The point is, once in awhile they should just let it go. It all comes with the territory.
Alot of times I am interested to hear their side of the story also but sometimes I hear 10 definitions all the same but worded differently from 1 of them and many times 2 or 3 more will join in. They are supposed to act as refs to keep the peace around here but instead they are right in the thick of the battle. A good ref does not choose sides. They just make sure the competitors keep with in the rules and make calls. Knowing when to walk away is essential in those cases and sometimes (not all but sometimes) they do not know when to step back and just let it go. However that is just my lonely little oppinion which usually doesn't mean much to many so I will leave it at that.

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
some members of the SC can find countless hours to argue with members and Registered Users in these forums including the most recent thread about DQ's etc. I would rather see them spend some of that time doing things that are more constuctive for the site instead of wasting the time beating the dead horses and maybe even chasing away members and or potential new members.


It's unfair to say that SC is bickering with users and beating the dead horse, since it is always users that bring that damn horse out and start complaining about the smell in the first place. If SC didn't respond to threads like that (where they are often publicly invoked with comments like "I'd like to hear SC's side") they would be faulted by the population for ignoring issues. What do you expect them to do?
06/19/2009 09:15:31 AM · #28
Originally posted by Melethia:
If they're bots, the "type the letters you see" would solve that problem, wouldn't it?

Yes, for now. Usually, but some captcha's are easier than others and there are ways around it that involve social engineering. Judging by some of the tech news I read, we are not too far off from a 'bot being able to read one with fair accuracy.
 06/19/2009 09:26:47 AM · #29
My point is: Was the DQ thread started by an SC saying "neener neener neener we DQ'd you"? No, it was (and always is) started by a user, who asks why they were DQ'd and then the community jumps in, polarizes into the "BAD decision SC" and "Good Job SC!" camps, at which point somebody usually points out one of Scalvert's photos from the past, some rules quoting goes on, alternate rule writing is suggested (which eventually devolves into a further muddling and all around lack of clarity) and somewhere in there the SC are saying how they voted on the specific case in point because it's not a dictatorship and thus there is disagreement. It isn't unfair to state your opinion, but you are placing blame on the SC responding to issues, which is their purpose.
 06/19/2009 09:56:17 AM · #30
I do believe they should come to their own defense, However it should stop there as well, Make the point then back away, Do not stay in the thread for 2 days aruging back and forth, until someone leaves mad. It is not good for DPC it is not good for the SC and it is not good for everyone who ends up with higher blood presure because of the stupid arguments that people have around here. For the record, I like the SC guys. Even the ones I feel need to chill out in those situations. I think all things considered they do a good job making the hard calls when they get caught between a rock and a rule that can be read 2 different ways. But I do believe that there are times when they should know better and leave the arguing up to the people who started the fight in the first place. Like I said. They are the refs. And the refs can not take sides and remain fair in the eyes of all the players. So to protect their reps they have to walk a fine line which is not always the case.


Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
My point is: Was the DQ thread started by an SC saying "neener neener neener we DQ'd you"? No, it was (and always is) started by a user, who asks why they were DQ'd and then the community jumps in, polarizes into the "BAD decision SC" and "Good Job SC!" camps, at which point somebody usually points out one of Scalvert's photos from the past, some rules quoting goes on, alternate rule writing is suggested (which eventually devolves into a further muddling and all around lack of clarity) and somewhere in there the SC are saying how they voted on the specific case in point because it's not a dictatorship and thus there is disagreement. It isn't unfair to state your opinion, but you are placing blame on the SC responding to issues, which is their purpose.


Message edited by author 2009-06-19 09:57:00.
 06/19/2009 10:00:21 AM · #31
One of the best boxing matches I ever saw ended up with the Ref landing a few blows himself... True story actually.
 06/19/2009 12:08:03 PM · #32
Originally posted by Mark-A:
I asked Jeb to marry me still haven't had a reply, I wonder if he is just stringing me along now! ;)

Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by Mark-A:
LOL well to be honest I would really worry about it Iky623, the only board that seems to stay on topic these days is Rant anyway and even then I was involved in one recently on that board that went from a Rant to a marriage proposal ;)


Did you say yes?


Originally posted by Judi:
No he can't....I had heard that he had said yes to Art....unless he is just using Ken and really wants you!!! Hmmm....is this spam????? LOL!

I'm still trying to figure out how to sneak out for the weekend to Reno with Mark and write it off as a DPC GTG......which would really stretch the definition of a GTG.

I've got to come up with a good lie for my wife......

Message edited by author 2009-06-19 12:08:26.
 06/19/2009 12:39:08 PM · #33
Originally posted by Skip:
the thing is, there is a real difference between a spam post and getting spam email.


Of course there is, we don't get our email from DPC so that spam isn't the subject here. I can see how the post in question got characterized as spam. Brand new account with no activity except the post in question. Then the main contribution is a advert for the posters business. I appreciate the content of the advice but I believe the poster would have been better served copying the content from the blog and posting it directly. The post in question is one of the few of it's type that I've ever seen with a link to useful content. Most of the time:
Account created day of post + external links = SPAM.

I like the SPAM button idea and the Craig's Listesque idea of removing after multiple complaints. But I don't see Langdon doing this so I think a dead horse link in the editing bar would be much more useful. Because that's what we're all beating right now.

06/19/2009 12:41:54 PM · #34
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I do believe they should come to their own defense, However it should stop there as well, Make the point then back away, Do not stay in the thread for 2 days aruging back and forth ...

"It takes two" to make an argument ... you are proposing:
1) User trashes SC decision
2) SC member explains decision, then "backs away."
3) Users trash and defend SC decisions for two days while SC members sit back and "take it."

Doesn't sound like a very even-handed discussion to me ...

On-Topic: We are actively discussing ways to deal with the increase in spam-type postings. As noted, any further solution will require coding changes on Langdon's part, so it will not be "immediate," but we are not ignoring the problem.
 06/19/2009 12:56:02 PM · #35
Originally posted by GeneralE:
On-Topic: We are actively discussing ways to deal with the increase in spam-type postings. As noted, any further solution will require coding changes on Langdon's part, so it will not be "immediate," but we are not ignoring the problem.

that's good to hear. in the meantime, though, don't you think it's sufficient to simply hit the [report post] button and let it go at that, without squawking it out?
 06/19/2009 01:27:04 PM · #36
Originally posted by Skip:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
On-Topic: We are actively discussing ways to deal with the increase in spam-type postings. As noted, any further solution will require coding changes on Langdon's part, so it will not be "immediate," but we are not ignoring the problem.

that's good to hear. in the meantime, though, don't you think it's sufficient to simply hit the [report post] button and let it go at that, without squawking it out?

You mean you think people should follow Forum Rule #10?
Originally posted by Forum Rules:
10. Do not publicly accuse other participants of rules violations. If you believe a rule has been broken, report the post and do not reply.
 06/19/2009 02:37:30 PM · #37
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Skip:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
On-Topic: We are actively discussing ways to deal with the increase in spam-type postings. As noted, any further solution will require coding changes on Langdon's part, so it will not be "immediate," but we are not ignoring the problem.

that's good to hear. in the meantime, though, don't you think it's sufficient to simply hit the [report post] button and let it go at that, without squawking it out?

You mean you think people should follow Forum Rule #10?
Originally posted by Forum Rules:
10. Do not publicly accuse other participants of rules violations. If you believe a rule has been broken, report the post and do not reply.


Question for ya: I understand the rule and where it is coming from, but can the same situation be applied to a quite obvious spam post? "Enlarge your penis now!" is the topic, under software and hardware (please don't continue the obvious play on words ;) ), and I report it. Should I say I reported it in the thread, or leave it? How do tons of redundant reports impact you SC?
 06/19/2009 03:25:17 PM · #38
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
...Like I said. They are the refs. And the refs can not take sides and remain fair in the eyes of all the players. So to protect their reps they have to walk a fine line which is not always the case.


The problem here is that a ref's decision is always in favor of one team or the other. Always. Therefore, taking sides is impossible to avoid because if group A isn't assuming side taking, group B is because a decision necessarily benefits one cause. This is why people always try to nail Scalvert, trying to say he is taking an unfair approach to exclude borderline entries when his passed even though (correct me if my memory fails me)decisions were made when he wasn't on the SC. What this eventually becomes, therefore, is a battle between groups that think SC should have NO involvement in challenges, and those that think they should have no involvement.
I still have a hard time accepting that users would be kosher with an SC stepping into a forum, making a statement and declaring the decision final and without compromise, and departing, as sufficient or acceptable. I don't think your expectation of SC conduct is feasible, that's all. It seems to require vague expectations that the SC can't be aware of, like "what is too much reponse and too little?"
 06/19/2009 06:13:51 PM · #39
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Skip:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
On-Topic: We are actively discussing ways to deal with the increase in spam-type postings. As noted, any further solution will require coding changes on Langdon's part, so it will not be "immediate," but we are not ignoring the problem.

that's good to hear. in the meantime, though, don't you think it's sufficient to simply hit the [report post] button and let it go at that, without squawking it out?

You mean you think people should follow Forum Rule #10?
Originally posted by Forum Rules:
10. Do not publicly accuse other participants of rules violations. If you believe a rule has been broken, report the post and do not reply.


Question for ya: I understand the rule and where it is coming from, but can the same situation be applied to a quite obvious spam post? "Enlarge your penis now!" is the topic, under software and hardware (please don't continue the obvious play on words ;) ), and I report it. Should I say I reported it in the thread, or leave it? How do tons of redundant reports impact you SC?

Also, some people don't realize it's spam and they engage the thread and it goes and goes for several posts sometimes (example: the "Movie Webmaster" bla bla bla). Some of the spammers are getting more and more clever. It is for this reason (and the fact that I'm a compulsive smartass) that I ignore rule 10 (which I just became aware of).

Personally, I don't think it is a problem doing things the way we have - even with the occasional misaccusation and subsequent apology. Has any legit user ever been so offended that they ran off? If so, it would just be a matter of time before they left in a huff over some "mean comments" they got anyway. ;-)

I agree with this: Register + Post + external link on same day = spam 99% of the time.
 06/19/2009 07:56:04 PM · #40

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 01:46:05 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 01:46:05 PM EDT.