Selflinking call-out February 27, 2006 7:33 AM   Subscribe

Ignoring whether or not you think bevets is a troll in general, isn't self-linking to the same page on your own website three times in the same thread a bit on the spamming side?
posted by XQUZYPHYR to Etiquette/Policy at 7:33 AM (76 comments total)

He doesn't just link to the same page three times; he links to it on the same word each time. So basically it seems like he's using MeFi to Googlebomb to his own website.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:37 AM on February 27, 2006


It's bevets. He's done this dozens of times. For some reason, he hasn't been banned.

Now we can shout about it until someone closes the thread.
posted by selfnoise at 7:39 AM on February 27, 2006


What selfnoise said. He should have already been banned.
posted by puke & cry at 7:43 AM on February 27, 2006


He should have been banned a long time ago.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:47 AM on February 27, 2006


Out on his one-trick-pony ass. Let him go add nothing to some other forum for a while.
posted by cortex at 7:48 AM on February 27, 2006


Bevets is an incredible person and you should all have a bit more respect.
posted by thirteenkiller at 7:51 AM on February 27, 2006


I quite liked his parable of the billionaire. Of course, while the billionaire!scientist may have no proof beyond the bank and the two pennies, a billionaire!religionist would want you to believe him without even that meager evidence.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:54 AM on February 27, 2006


Matt has repeatedly upheld that bevets's use of MetaFilter to googlebomb his site is acceptable. (1, 2) I do not know why the rules are different for him, but there you go.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:56 AM on February 27, 2006


At least his googlebombing hasn't gotten him onto the main google page yet :)
posted by antifuse at 7:57 AM on February 27, 2006


there's a lot of competition, antifuse.
posted by NinjaPirate at 7:59 AM on February 27, 2006


heish = hush
posted by cortex at 8:00 AM on February 27, 2006


I think we can all agree that using MeFi to Googlebomb your own site is awesome.
posted by COBRA! at 8:05 AM on February 27, 2006


Truly, truly awesome.
posted by COBRA! at 8:05 AM on February 27, 2006


Matt has repeatedly upheld that bevets's use of MetaFilter to googlebomb his site is acceptable. (1, 2) I do not know why the rules are different for him, but there you go.

It all makes sense now. . .mathowie is a creationist.
posted by mlis at 8:14 AM on February 27, 2006


I for one celebrate Bevet's hustle.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:17 AM on February 27, 2006


Matt has repeatedly upheld that bevets's use of MetaFilter to googlebomb his site is acceptable.

Our Lord Matt moves in mysterious ways.
posted by blag at 8:17 AM on February 27, 2006


I do not know why the rules are different for him, but there you go.

He is God's Googlebomber... you don't fuck with that.
posted by gsb at 8:21 AM on February 27, 2006


Let him go add nothing to some other forum for a while.

I think he does so already. He only appears in evolution threads and only to post one of his one-line quotes and a self-link. AFAIK, he does that on several boards.

He is the online equivalent of the types you see handing out little tracts about Jesus in downtown pedestrian areas.
posted by uncle harold at 8:21 AM on February 27, 2006


I'll talk to Matt about this when I see him, but seriously, it's not so much that mathowie allows bevets to do this, it's that those threads are often so lame, so wretched to read, so filled with chest beating and insults and I-flag-you-you-flag-me-flag-flag-flag crap that I bet he didn't notice the linking thing, I know I didn't. I'll put bevets on notice for the linking thing in the meantime.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:23 AM on February 27, 2006


It makes me happy to see that Bevets used the line "Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat..." on another site.
posted by allen.spaulding at 8:36 AM on February 27, 2006


I think a better question is why the hell we need yet another "evolutionists rule; creationists drool!" thread.

We have covered that ground extensively, but yet, we need another weekly thread on it. And usually when those threads do occur, some painfully unclever person talks about summoning bevets as if they are looking forward for him to come say what he has said before. Yet, he fulfills the same function of the people who feel they need to constantly say creationists are idiots. Basically, both of them are ideologues who will repeat the same thing ad nauseam as if they have the self-evidently obvious answer to the greatest of all questions.

It's been done. Nothing new is ever presented in any of these threads. It's just the same people saying the same boring stuff over and over. The horse has been beaten into dust by both sides of the argument. Bevets is guilty of being an obnoxious axe grinder for his position, but so have those who constantly like to tell everyone how stupid Christians are for their beliefs. Either both positions should shut up, or we should let both of them keep on prattling on in the weekly wheel-spinning.

If you accept the principle that bevets has an equal right to be heard, then the only question remains to what extent someone should be able to link to their own website. I don't think there is a prohibition from linking within comment to relevant and in-depth treatments of a topic. I personally could do without it, but no special application of a rule should apply to him.

I'll support the quieting of bevets when we take a position to end all of the pointless and redundant Evolution/Christian threads that are nothing more than a pretextual basis for people to arrogantly belittle those who have a different view on the most unresolvable of all questions.
posted by dios at 8:36 AM on February 27, 2006


Matt has repeatedly upheld that bevets's use of MetaFilter to googlebomb his site is acceptable.

He links to his site's evolution screeds in evolution threads. That's completely on-topic, as I've stated plainly in the past. It's not google bombing and it's not spamming when it is pertinent to the discussion.

Everyone's been telling me to ban this guy for years and it feels like you all are grasping at straws in order to justify your disagreement with his point of view.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:39 AM on February 27, 2006


dios:

If you don't like it, skip it.
posted by ltracey at 8:39 AM on February 27, 2006


dios, I whoeheartedly disagree with you on this one. Sure, most of those threads include their fair share of tired argumentation, but most of those participating are genuinely interested in the debate and engaging with other MeFi members. Bevets is not; bevets is, functionally, a spammer, spitting his cut-and-paste comments into whatever threads seem marginally relevent. I'll repeat my comments from the last time we discussed this:
Bevets is an infamous troll that has been doing this for years on other sites. We can indulge in the polite fiction that he's simply trying to promote discussion and let him be, but remember that it's just that: a fiction. Bevets is not interested in discussion or debate, he is not interested in providing useful information, and he is not interested, despite protestations otherwise, in others "attempt[ing] substantive responses to [his] arguments." He often drops his copy-and-paste spam non-sequiters and then leaves. At best--or maybe I should say at worst--he sticks around in a thread to provide more copy-and-paste spam. There is no real debate, only derailing.

Whether Bevets' links to his own site constitute a technical violation of the site policy is beside the point, at least in my mind. Bevets behavior is poison, and destroys opportunities for real, worthwhile discussion. If that doesn't get you banned, I don't know what will.
Bevets isn't a worthwhile member of the community, he's a spambot.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:41 AM on February 27, 2006


First of all, you're all retarded.

Second, do you honestly think this guy's motivation has anything to do with search engine rankings? Read his stuff, for Christ's sake. Look how much time he puts into it. He's a nut. He honestly believes what he's writing, and he believes he's fighting the good fight. He posts links, in some cases, because he's already written 3,574 paragraphs and thinks the link is more efficient than copying and pasting the text into the thread. I agree — and if you don't, you're wrong.

Third, both jessamyn and dios hit an important point: There's a friggin' ton of pointless, redundant, nasty, ignorant, drooling garbage posted into these threads. Based on the attitude and tenor of his posts, and his obvious motivation for making them, bevets isn't remotely the first I'd consider banning. There may not be crazier folks on the site, but there are definitely nastier and more malicious people whose aim is purely to troll. Bevets isn't that. The guy who stands in the middle of a snowstorm holding a "JESUS IS COMING" sign isn't a troll, he's a true believer. Chill out.

...Unless you think banning harmless nutjobs but tolerating rude, malicious trolls is good policy for MetaFilter. In which case, yeah, you're retarded.
posted by cribcage at 8:47 AM on February 27, 2006


mathowie, I don't even see most of bevets comments; I stay out of those evo-wankfests; I don't have a bevets axe for grinding.

On the face of it, he is taking liberties with the umbrella over in-thread self-links, and offering nothing back to the community. You give me another username with another obsession and another site, I'd say the same thing.
posted by cortex at 8:52 AM on February 27, 2006


If you don't like it, skip it.
posted by ltracey at 10:39 AM CST on February 27


I'm sorry. Were you under some delusion that the comment you linked to here had some application at all in this thread? If so, care to explain it? If you are suggesting that I should skip the thread in question, I did. I didn't read it or comment in it. Nor did I make this callout. I was responding to someone else's callout on the topic.

dios, I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this one. Sure, most of those threads include their fair share of tired argumentation, but most of those participating are genuinely interested in the debate and engaging with other MeFi members. Bevets is not; bevets is, functionally, a spammer, spitting his cut-and-paste comments into whatever threads seem marginally relevent.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:41 AM CST on February 27


I can accept the fact that there is little value to what he adds. I can accept the fact that he is just like a spam bot of the same tedious point, over and over and over. I can accept the fact that he is not interested in debate or engaging in a valued and respectful exchange of ideas. I can agree with you on that topic and do view bevets in that light. However, the same thing be said of all of those who summon bevets with their redundant need to say Christians are stupid because evolution is a fact. So many of the comments in those thread on both sides are, functionally, cut and paste comments. Effort is rarely made to engage those who disagree and to try to hold a respectful dialogue. Both sides just act as to say "You are clearly wrong. Shut up."

Make no mistake, I'd cut it all out. At the least, we ought to use the point about double posts not to re-fight the same battle. There is never anything new in the conversation. Just restatements of the same points. My only point is that if we continue to have the same threads, I see no reason that bevets should be prevented from making the same tedious arguments as his opponents make.
posted by dios at 8:52 AM on February 27, 2006


Yeah, I dunno. I always thought on-topic self-linking in threads was OK.
posted by delmoi at 8:52 AM on February 27, 2006


Just to add one thing more: I suspect most people are happier that he links to his previously written form argument on the issue than if he cut and pasted the same multi-paragraph argument. At least he economical with space. And in a way, the fact that he can just link to his standard responses is emblematic of the stale-ness of the argument. But, perhaps we should not seek the alternative if bevets is told not to link. Then you just get to see lots more writing from him.
posted by dios at 8:57 AM on February 27, 2006


"It's not google bombing and it's not spamming when it is pertinent to the discussion."

Matt, come on, he's using the same key-phrases and linking to the same url three times in one page, it's google-bombing by the numbers.

I know you just want to be fair to the guys who always catch it in the neck, but here bevets is using MetaFilter to raise his search engine profile. I don't care if he was doing it to save drowning kittens, it's an abuse of the site isn't it?
Could you just take out two of the links, or redirect them to the one comment you've left untouched?
posted by NinjaPirate at 8:57 AM on February 27, 2006


Just like taking a sample at the supermarket is okay. Hence, stalking through the grocery store from sample booth to sample booth emptying the whole of every batch into a picnic basket is okay, right? Yeah. That's cool. Keep at it! Wir haben Kameras!
posted by cortex at 8:59 AM on February 27, 2006


Please don't martyr Bevets. Thanks.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:00 AM on February 27, 2006


delmoi (and to my surprise, Matt): this isn't just about the self-linking; I self-link in threads as well when they're pertinent to the conversation. But bevets is self-linking multiple times to the same thing with the same link on the same word in the same thread.

Matt, I'm honestly surprised you're acting like there's no difference there. How can you say he's not Googlebombing? It's not a theoretical concept like "is he trolling" or something... that's exactly what Googlebombing is.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:05 AM on February 27, 2006


First they came for Bevets, and I didn't say anything, because I only Googlebombed threads that had to do with theater, fad dances, old erotica, alcohol, and weird LP covers.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:05 AM on February 27, 2006


That sounds pretty cool, Astro Zombie. What's your link?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:09 AM on February 27, 2006




Yes, and theater, fad dances, old erotica, and alcohol.

And I didn't even mention Weird Minnesota stuff.

Oh, man, my Google ranking is gonna skyrocket! And, incidentally, I need to get a life.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:16 AM on February 27, 2006


So this Bevets thread turned whine into Watusi. It's a miracle!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:19 AM on February 27, 2006


Awesome monju_bosatsu!
posted by Balisong at 9:22 AM on February 27, 2006


Bevets as Bevets is easy to ignore and is on topic. Start banning him for essentially no reason and you plug quarters into a big ol' game of whack-a-mole.
posted by Mitheral at 9:23 AM on February 27, 2006


Hey! You're crediting monju_bosatsu with my blog!

All that work down the drain! And so soon!
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:43 AM on February 27, 2006


Victory is mine!
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:46 AM on February 27, 2006


First of all, you're all retarded.
[snip]
...Unless you think banning harmless nutjobs but tolerating rude, malicious trolls is good policy for MetaFilter. In which case, yeah, you're retarded.


Hard to tell who cribcage is calling "retarded," but since he's not being rude or malicious, what does it matter?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:47 AM on February 27, 2006


I suspect most people are happier that he links to his previously written form argument on the issue than if he cut and pasted the same multi-paragraph argument.

Took the words right outta my, erm, fingers.
posted by sohcahtoa at 10:07 AM on February 27, 2006


I, jenovus, believe that bevets is no longer worth listening to. As such, in my full capacity as jenovus, I have determined that the best tactic is ignoring each of his comments. It is not that difficult, as they are all the same anyway. Eventually your brain, the very thing that finds bevets so hateful, will sweep past his outbursts, and nary a word will register.

YR OB'D'T SRV'T, JENOVUS
posted by jenovus at 10:15 AM on February 27, 2006


Bevets Googlebombed for your sins.
posted by fandango_matt at 10:17 AM on February 27, 2006


Seriously, though, if I happen to see the word "evolutionism" in bold, my brain goes into Defcon II. Now if only Lamarck knew what the hell he was talking about, my children would be safe.
posted by jenovus at 10:17 AM on February 27, 2006


Bevets knows that "talking points" only work when you repeat them enough times. Besides he rejects our reality and knows only his own anyway.

Maybe I should just make all my future comments into one giant link pointing back to my web site? Besides, having my words in yellow will make them all the more noticeable.
posted by clevershark at 10:19 AM on February 27, 2006


Let me test that. "EVOLUTIONISM."
posted by TwelveTwo at 10:21 AM on February 27, 2006


Does anyone else smell burning?
posted by jenovus at 10:23 AM on February 27, 2006


My house!!
posted by TwelveTwo at 10:27 AM on February 27, 2006


delmoi (and to my surprise, Matt): this isn't just about the self-linking; I self-link in threads as well when they're pertinent to the conversation. But bevets is self-linking multiple times to the same thing with the same link on the same word in the same thread.

Dosn't he always do that? It's kind of his thing.
posted by delmoi at 11:51 AM on February 27, 2006


I'm really surprised matts ok with this. I mean, bevets spreads his garbage all over any messageboard he can join and he does the same here and it's ok?
posted by puke & cry at 12:06 PM on February 27, 2006


Wait, who's responsible for Vinyl Oddities? Cause that site is farking funny. Kudos!
posted by haqspan at 12:09 PM on February 27, 2006


It's me, god damn it.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:10 PM on February 27, 2006


quit trying to steal monju's thunder, jerk.
posted by cortex at 12:20 PM on February 27, 2006


I'm Spartacus!
posted by NinjaPirate at 1:25 PM on February 27, 2006


"However, the same thing be said of all of those who summon bevets with their redundant need to say Christians are stupid because evolution is a fact. So many of the comments in those thread on both sides are, functionally, cut and paste comments. Effort is rarely made to engage those who disagree and to try to hold a respectful dialogue."

On this matter, it's difficult to be respectful of the creationist position. It is unreasonable and ignorant. And probably willfully so.

However, I'm inclined to believe that the barrage of evolution/creationism threads are more a subcategory of theist-baiting threads than they are about evolution or creationism. MeFi does have a strong math/science contingent, but this is not an issue that divides neatly into right vs. left as I know a good number of scientifically illiterate people who are very progressive but are turned-off by evolution. I strongly suspect, then, that at least a portion of the creationist-bashing is done by people who are using creationists as proxy for the culturally conservative Christians who are their true target.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:22 PM on February 27, 2006


I strongly suspect, then, that at least a portion of the creationist-bashing is done by people who are using creationists as proxy for the culturally conservative Christians who are their true target.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:22 PM CST on February 27


I had this discussion with someone via e-mail, and I agree completely. And that is why these threads are ultimately feckless and full of arrogant and derisive hectoring by both sides. What is to be accomplished in these other than to polarize the userbase further? Do we think we will resolve the unanswerable questions of life on this messageboard?

It is not without suprise that the threads get so heated. It is a topic that people have too much invested in to discuss with a cool head because it is an argument that is a proxy for the biggest question.
posted by dios at 2:41 PM on February 27, 2006


IYDLISI.
posted by bardic at 2:58 PM on February 27, 2006


Er, yeah, one of the reasons these threads can become so lame is because bevets shows up and deliberately trashes the thread.

It's really sad. Mefi has hosted several very interesting evolution/philosophy-of-science threads in the past and they've been among the best discussions on the site. But this can't happen when bevets show up and then he attracts the other idiots who choose to mock and ridicule bevets instead of, you know, discussing the topic. It's really, really sad to see mathowie explicitly approve this behavior and only confirms my worst fears.
posted by nixerman at 4:01 PM on February 27, 2006


Astro Zombie, that's great! But why are you posting so many of monju_bosatsu's links?
posted by jenovus at 4:03 PM on February 27, 2006


Poster 1: Please can bevets be banned?
mathowie: I'm not banning him just because you disagree with him
Poster 2: He's a self-linker
mathowie: You're grasping at straws
Poster 3: It's not because we disagree with him. He disrupts the threads and gets in the way of a proper conversation
mathowie: Those evolution threads always suck, anyway
Everyone: THEY SUCK BECAUSE BEVETS SHITS ALL OVER THEM
mathowie: ...

Repeat monthly.
posted by blag at 4:43 PM on February 27, 2006


Oh my god I'm losing my mind from rage.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:06 PM on February 27, 2006


I may be wrong, but I don't recall googlebombing being anywhere in mefi's posting-rules, only self-linking out of context.
posted by nomisxid at 5:10 PM on February 27, 2006


Psst, EB, there is no difference between the creationists and the culturally conservative Christians; haven't you read the Wedge document?
posted by darukaru at 6:31 PM on February 27, 2006


That's not rage, Astro Zombie, that's an overdose of soggy lefse, cream of mushroom soup, and too much red jello.
posted by leftcoastbob at 6:58 PM on February 27, 2006


Uffda!
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:17 PM on February 27, 2006


That Vinyl Oddities blog is fucking awesome, monju_bosatsu!

;)
posted by loquacious at 7:26 PM on February 27, 2006


Groan.

Ignore.

Banning only give them an excuse to martyr themselves.

google search for bevets.

It's all bullshit and fireworks. Bread and circuses worked for a while, they're giving bullshit and fireworks a test try. Mixed results, but there are efforts to refine the practice.

Ignore the extremely obvious inflammatory remarks thatare completely bereft of thought (other than to maximize the inflammatory nature of said remakrs).
posted by PurplePorpoise at 9:05 PM on February 27, 2006


heh, an (likely entirely non-original thought) occurred to me - these people have tried many different ways of arguing/trolling/disseminating their points of view.

They repeat the methods that are successful (to their standards of success) and not the ones that aren't.

Their audience catches that method, finds rhetorical strategies against that so the fundamentalists are forced to try new approaches all over again.

The most successful win out.

Ad infinitum.

Does anyone know if someone has catalogued the evolving nature of the evangelical attack on science and rationality?
posted by PurplePorpoise at 9:12 PM on February 27, 2006


Yust a little lefse, will go a long way...

Love your work, monju!
posted by languagehat at 5:34 AM on February 28, 2006


Do we think we will resolve the unanswerable questions of life on this messageboard?

The question of whether or not the theory of evolution is a correct model of life's history on earth isn't unanswerable, genius.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:28 AM on February 28, 2006


I think whatshisface with the rex destroying the Ark just won that thread.
posted by Captaintripps at 1:01 PM on February 28, 2006


Does anyone know if someone has catalogued the evolving nature of the evangelical attack on science and rationality?

I found Creationism's Trojan Horse to be a good read for that particular topic.
posted by darukaru at 1:40 PM on February 28, 2006


INRI

Monju Zombie wins!
posted by Balisong at 10:00 PM on March 4, 2006


« Older Does anyone know if any mefites were victims of...   |   Dumb Pro-Choice Thread Callout Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments