Possible questionable self-linking in comments January 28, 2006 10:28 PM Subscribe
Do new users know about self-linking? I normally don't care to police this stuff, but mickeyz has been a member two days and self-linked to his own banal blog twice so far.
Normally MetaTalk is the place to hash this out, but maybe it should just be mentioned to him in the threads. I know the community standard usually doesn't object to the occasional mention in a comment, as mickeyz has been doing, but these incidents seem a little TOO self-promotional.
posted by jonson at 10:39 PM on January 28, 2006
posted by jonson at 10:39 PM on January 28, 2006
Put him in the iron maiden!
No Iron Maiden's too god for him! Put him in the Winger!
posted by jonmc at 10:41 PM on January 28, 2006
No Iron Maiden's too god for him! Put him in the Winger!
posted by jonmc at 10:41 PM on January 28, 2006
posting links to your own site is usually ok if it is pertinent to the discussion and that's in the guidelines, but of course, it can seem like spamming if it has nothing to do with anything.
The second example looks like it is related, the first one is borderline.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:53 PM on January 28, 2006
The second example looks like it is related, the first one is borderline.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:53 PM on January 28, 2006
It's like, uh, say what you will about Maiden, but, like, they know what made their career. Explosions in videos. It's like, even if Maiden did unplugged, they'd be, like, you know what? We're not unplugging...the explosion machine. Huh huh.
posted by cortex at 11:16 PM on January 28, 2006
posted by cortex at 11:16 PM on January 28, 2006
eh, the guy seems too link happy. Not a bannable offense but definitely suspicious. Drop him a note and all should be well.
posted by puke & cry at 11:43 PM on January 28, 2006
posted by puke & cry at 11:43 PM on January 28, 2006
Durrrrrr here is a site you guys it just happens to be owned by me
I think it was probably a result of not reading the guidelines closely enough. Burn him!
posted by jenovus at 12:04 AM on January 29, 2006
I think it was probably a result of not reading the guidelines closely enough. Burn him!
posted by jenovus at 12:04 AM on January 29, 2006
"Hrmph. You may discuss this as long as you wish, but I have already laid this topic to rest here."
I'm sure in a hundred years this will be as widely scorned and shameful as signing one's name below one's posts.
--scarabic
posted by scarabic at 12:12 AM on January 29, 2006
I'm sure in a hundred years this will be as widely scorned and shameful as signing one's name below one's posts.
--scarabic
posted by scarabic at 12:12 AM on January 29, 2006
Here is what it says on the Guidelines page.
"It's ok to link to your own things as comments in threads, if it adds to the discussion and/or saves space because you're written a reply elsewhere."
Which is pretty much what mathowie himself said further up the page. I agree... the second example does indeed look like it is related whilst the first one is very borderline.
posted by Effigy2000 at 2:33 AM on January 29, 2006
"It's ok to link to your own things as comments in threads, if it adds to the discussion and/or saves space because you're written a reply elsewhere."
Which is pretty much what mathowie himself said further up the page. I agree... the second example does indeed look like it is related whilst the first one is very borderline.
posted by Effigy2000 at 2:33 AM on January 29, 2006
Mickeyz's posts don't contribute much to the discussion except, "Here's a link web site address. kthxbye," as jenovus said. I can assume the address he dumped into the post has something to do with the discussion, but I don't really have the energy to verify that by taking what he typed, highlighting it and CTRL-clicking > "Go to address" or highlighting it and pasting it into my browser's address field. Without formatting his link as proper HTML, to me he's done nothing more than put a .sig at the end of his post. If Mickeyz doesn't know how/can't be bothered to format a link to a web site—his own or otherwise—can he really be accused of trying to drive traffic to that site?
posted by emelenjr at 3:52 AM on January 29, 2006
posted by emelenjr at 3:52 AM on January 29, 2006
Is it overly crass to suggest my latest book as a way to recapture the past in the name of reshaping the future?
Yes. Please stop it.
posted by languagehat at 5:58 AM on January 29, 2006
Yes. Please stop it.
posted by languagehat at 5:58 AM on January 29, 2006
i fail to see how his blog is anymore banal than any other blog out there.
it seems to be some guy's boring life along with a celebration of clipart instead of some guy's boring life along with a celebration of apple's newest product.
posted by the aloha at 8:50 AM on January 29, 2006
it seems to be some guy's boring life along with a celebration of clipart instead of some guy's boring life along with a celebration of apple's newest product.
posted by the aloha at 8:50 AM on January 29, 2006
*unlocks the cupboard, passes out the pitchforks and torches*
posted by deborah at 10:43 AM on January 29, 2006
posted by deborah at 10:43 AM on January 29, 2006
i fail to see how his blog is anymore banal than any other blog out there.
too true. considering the majority of blogs out there are about the toaster the blogger bought at best buy this morning, "banal blog" is an oxymoron.
a celebration of clipart
or a celebration of how animated gifs are even worse than blink tags.
but, it gets better. it seems mr. z is making an issue of his self-promotion in yet another mefi comment.
taking the bait, i went and found the wikipedia entry to which he alludes, and which has this to say about mr. z: "a self-promoting demagogue and a revisionist."
in seeming to use a mefi thread about wikipedia to answer his critics as "trolls," wikipedia had this to say at the end of the entry on mr. z:
"Z has consistently refused to engage his critics. Critical postings on his blog are frequently deleted. He has tried additionally to modify his wikipedia entry, especially sections on remarks that seem to suggest sexual objectification of minority women.
"On December 9, 2005 Z responded to the entry about him with a warning label: "DANGER: Self-promoting Demagoguery Ahead". He has used this reference several times. In addition he has linked to an article extremely skeptical of the reliability of wikipedia.
"At the same time, he has failed to cite factual inaccuracies within the article and noted in a post on his blog: "I'm more skeptical of the Times than Wiki, I guess."
this is kind of a shame, because mr. z is the author of some books of which i've heard likeable if lightweight comment. i'm sure people would take him more seriously if his main theme upon first encounter weren't himself.
and i wouldn't discount this callout. mr. z has been leaving a trail of this very perception around the web. the grey also seems the right place to respond rather than the blue, as it looks like mr. z is taking this form of making it about himself from thread to thread in the blue.
posted by 3.2.3 at 11:59 AM on January 29, 2006
too true. considering the majority of blogs out there are about the toaster the blogger bought at best buy this morning, "banal blog" is an oxymoron.
a celebration of clipart
or a celebration of how animated gifs are even worse than blink tags.
but, it gets better. it seems mr. z is making an issue of his self-promotion in yet another mefi comment.
taking the bait, i went and found the wikipedia entry to which he alludes, and which has this to say about mr. z: "a self-promoting demagogue and a revisionist."
in seeming to use a mefi thread about wikipedia to answer his critics as "trolls," wikipedia had this to say at the end of the entry on mr. z:
"Z has consistently refused to engage his critics. Critical postings on his blog are frequently deleted. He has tried additionally to modify his wikipedia entry, especially sections on remarks that seem to suggest sexual objectification of minority women.
"On December 9, 2005 Z responded to the entry about him with a warning label: "DANGER: Self-promoting Demagoguery Ahead". He has used this reference several times. In addition he has linked to an article extremely skeptical of the reliability of wikipedia.
"At the same time, he has failed to cite factual inaccuracies within the article and noted in a post on his blog: "I'm more skeptical of the Times than Wiki, I guess."
this is kind of a shame, because mr. z is the author of some books of which i've heard likeable if lightweight comment. i'm sure people would take him more seriously if his main theme upon first encounter weren't himself.
and i wouldn't discount this callout. mr. z has been leaving a trail of this very perception around the web. the grey also seems the right place to respond rather than the blue, as it looks like mr. z is taking this form of making it about himself from thread to thread in the blue.
posted by 3.2.3 at 11:59 AM on January 29, 2006
Everything so far has been short single comments (1 per thread) with multiple referances to self projects, the others being throwaway typing. Needs watching.
posted by edgeways at 1:32 PM on January 29, 2006
posted by edgeways at 1:32 PM on January 29, 2006
considering the majority of blogs out there are about the toaster the blogger bought at best buy this morning, "banal blog" is an oxymoron.
no no. it's redundant.
anyway, yeah I'd say he needs watching for now, banning for later. methinks the front page self-link is coming, just not right away.
posted by shmegegge at 7:17 PM on January 29, 2006
no no. it's redundant.
anyway, yeah I'd say he needs watching for now, banning for later. methinks the front page self-link is coming, just not right away.
posted by shmegegge at 7:17 PM on January 29, 2006
Needs watching.
Yeah, I'll say.
Smells like a self-promoting net kook, I'll also say.
posted by mediareport at 11:36 PM on January 29, 2006
Yeah, I'll say.
Smells like a self-promoting net kook, I'll also say.
posted by mediareport at 11:36 PM on January 29, 2006
« Older Happy birthday Miguel Cardoso's twins! | I'm proposing a small change to amazon URLs Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Execute him! bogus.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 10:39 PM on January 28, 2006