One-Line wonders, and other digital cockroaches...

[Kay King]

These days it seems that the WSO Forum has
become the destination market and not the
proving ground. There is a growing number of
"Made for the WSO Forum" products appearing.

The majority now is "made for WSO". I joined when it was a proving ground and you had to check frequently just to avoid missing a great price on a new product being rolled out to the public. Many of those good offers were available for only a few hours. Some truly great deals there and good feedback on products, too.

kay

[Paul Myers]

Renegade,

Was anyone here when WF first opened?

Just Allen. He said, "Let there be flames," and there was the Warrior Forum. And he looked upon it and said, "It'll do for a start. We'll get some new software later, if it all works."

What was it like then? Were all those critters on then too?

Mostly. The idea of Warrior Special Offers came later, so that part of the group wasn't around then. But the rest were.

Kay,

Can you send me a copy of that email?

John,

Using your analogy the WSO Forum isn't the patient. The patient is a growing number of people who are becoming increasingly reliant upon Allen's hospitality as their sole source of income.

Not our problem. Those aren't the people screwing up the rest of the forum with one-liners and the like. The "eternal WSO" types have to already have the requisite post count.

They also have to have at least some value to their offers, or they couldn't keep selling there.


Paul

[John Taylor]

Paul,

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Not our problem. Those aren't the people screwing up the rest of the forum with one-liners and the like. The "eternal WSO" types have to already have the requisite post count.

I disagree. The influx of "make 30 quick
posts followed by a WSO" are emulating
the "build a WSO income" crowd.

John

[lgibbon]

I wouldn't mind betting, that just about every devious little trick
used to manipulate the WSO forum, has appeared in an ebook
and sold as a WSO.

What say we ban those sort of ebooks,
and the people that sell them?

[Paul Myers]

John,

I disagree. The influx of "make 30 quick posts followed by a WSO" are emulating the "build a WSO income" crowd.

There's a difference between emulating and are.

I thought about the probability that just mentioning the WSO forum would turn this into another debate on how it's run. I can't believe I let myself get sucked into it despite that.

Les,

What say we ban those sort of ebooks, and the people that sell them?

I think something a bit more... dramatic ... would be in order for those, assuming we could pull it off.


Paul

[mmurtha]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Harvey,Who are you, and what have you done with Harvey?

Access to selling in the WSO section is supposed to "cost" in participation, not cash. I would personally be in favor of raising the required post count to 100, AND adding a time requirement for membership of at least 2 months. It would be much harder to sneak by both of those.

Consider what we'd have if we used your approach: Two advertising sections, both costing $20 to post in, and both open to World+Dog. The main difference is that one requires offering a discount and the other doesn't.

That's not a WARRIOR special at that point. It's a generic discount section.


Paul

Paul,

But the WSOs haven't been "Special deals" in a very long time - at least most of them haven't been. And I believe that's due to the lack of strict requirements for posting them.

I think most people who post WSOs believe a "Special deal" is about price (Only) of the product being sold, when in reality it is much more than that to me. A "Special deal" is also about the quality of a product, not simply the fact that Warriors will get a discount or first dibbs at buying a product.

Or have I misunderstood the true meaning since I've been a member here?

Btw, I think this can be a good start to a solution to help weed out some of the junk, and quick money grabbers:

Access to selling in the WSO section is supposed to "cost" in participation, not cash. I would personally be in favor of raising the required post count to 100, AND adding a time requirement for membership of at least 2 months. It would be much harder to sneak by both of those.

I thought about the probability that just mentioning the WSO forum would turn this into another debate on how it's run. I can't believe I let myself get sucked into it despite that.

I don't think it's possible to leave out the discussion about the WSO forum at this point because most of the posting and vermin posts problems stem from the idea of gaming the forum members, WF system, and the WSO forum.

If I contributed to leading this thread off the beaten path, I do apologize, and won't mention WSOs again.


Mary

[ExRat]

Hi Paul,

I thought about the probability that just mentioning the WSO forum would turn this into another debate on how it's run. I can't believe I let myself get sucked into it despite that.

I'll see if I can hi-jack it onto a slightly different subject

Thinking about your OP, and the critters...and also thinking back to the good ole days, I seem to remember that back then (a coupla years ago) most people were too frightened to post ridiculous stuff like many of the critters (EG regurgitators) because they'd get a guaranteed lambasting.

I can identify two of the different aspects which I think have changed this -

a) a certain subset arrived, and started emphasizing that everyone should be nice to everyone else all of the time in a civilised forum society. Kind of similar to how the same thing has happened in the outside world (liberalisation?). On paper, the 'be nice to everyone' statement looks wholesome and correct. But in practise it actually means that 'the bad guys' get away with murder because the most fearsome new collective in town is the 'be nice' police and their mob. (I blame J-mo and his positivity pledge that he never stuck to Not really..)

I distinctly remember an occasion where I ripped into someone 'bigger' than me for debating purposes, and a new member threw an amateur dramatics display. It kind of started around then...

b) in combination with a) above, a different subset who all happen to be 'bigger' than me rode this wave of must-be-niceness and used it to their advantage. And many more poorly targetted 'marketers complaining about being marketed to by marketers' accusations were used to effectively silence lively debate and discussion.

There may be some who found some of the more explosive debates a little unsettling, but I feel that the presence of those regular flare-ups contributed a lot to stopping people from thinking that they can do what they want here and never get roasted over coals.

If you're the type that 'visits' many different forums you'll be aware that currently certain people suggest that it's a soft-touch around here.

Hi Mary,

RE - WSOs being 'special' - habitual WSOers just create their WSO and then throw up a salespage with the product at a higher price, in order to qualify it as 'specially priced'. They probably never sell one from the webpage at the higher price - it's just there to qualify.

[Elmer Hurlstone]

In a no doubt futile effort to help Paul move this thread back "on track" the easiest—and hardest—way to reduce trollism is provided by a message I received from John Taylor a while back:

Don't Feed the Troll!

Trolls just like higher life forms need food. Their food is our replies to their argumentative, provocative and generally useless musings.

Being ignored will often lead to their demise.

But sometimes they do raise hackles...

[John Taylor]

Paul,

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

I thought about the probability that just mentioning the WSO forum would turn this into another debate on how it's run. I can't believe I let myself get sucked into it despite that.

I don't think we need to discuss "how
it's run". But when we're discussing the
behaviour of the groups you mention in
your original post, the WSO Forum as a
means of exploiting Warrior members is
a lot to do with the motivation behind
that behaviour.

John

[Steven Wagenheim]

Roger, I'm glad you brought up what you just did in your last post.

At the risk of getting myself raked over the coals right now, I'm going to
simply speak from my heart right now...the hell with the consequences.

I lost my mother last week and it made me realize that all of this nonsense
is just that...nonsense. In the grand scheme of things, it's just not all that
important.

Having said that, I realize that this forum, any forum, needs some kind of
hands on monitoring or it will become an absolute grounds of chaos. And
then, nobody will want to be here but the trolls. So for that reason, I
agree that things need to be done. I don't know what they are. I'm not
anywhere smart enough to even try to proclaim I have even close to a
solution to whatever problems we have here. I'll leave that to people like
Paul Myers, John Taylor and others who have been here for a very long
time and truly understand forum life. I do not.

Here is what I do know, and here is where I think a big problem is and why
I thanked Roger for saying what he did.

I was recommended to come here by two old members. They warned me
right up front that the Warrior Forum was very strict and that if I didn't
behave, I would be tossed out on my ear... questions asked. And in spite
of my fear of this place (yes, I was damn afraid) I still acted like a total
ass on more than one occasion. Just ask Paul and Roger. It is only by the
grace of Allen Says that I am still here.

Problem is, I think that fear, for most people, is gone. I don't know what
has happened but it seems that people just don't worry about being
banned or whatever. Seems that they think they can just get another
user name and start all over. Maybe that's true. I sure wouldn't want to.

I joined here in December of 2006 and didn't post my first WSO until
April 2007 and several thousand posts later. I wanted to make sure that
I at least tried to become a part of this community, contribute and gain
some trust. And even with that, I screwed up plenty and failed miserably
on many counts. I can look in the mirror and admit that now because
in the grand scheme of things, it isn't such a horrible thing for me to do.

Trouble is, most people don't want to look in the mirror. They don't care.
If they're frowned upon, so what? Their soul purpose in life is to come
here and take as much advantage as they can. Do you think they care
about consequences? They don't.

It is because of that, I am so split on this whole subject.

Part of me wants to say, screw it...

Turn this into a paid forum.

Make posting a WSO meet these requirements:

3 months membership
Minimum 100 posts (about a post a day)
One screw up...permanent ban. No questions asked.

The other part of me wants to tell the people buying the WSOs to
use a little freaking common sense and do some due diligence. If
somebody has just posted a WSO with only 30 posts or 50 posts, use
a little common sense. At least do some research on this person. Ask
questions.

The problem is, the buyers are in such a horrible state of mind because
of the economy and their desperation to make a buck that they'll latch
onto anything that even hints at the promise of a big pay day.

Like I said, I'm speaking from my heart now and I don't have all the
answers. But I give my word (it's about time I did something right around
here so at least my mother can be proud of me) to do all that I can to
make this a better place. If it's as simple as just reporting an inappropriate
post, great. If it's keeping an eye on a member who seems to be building
up post count just for the sake of posting a WSO, I'll report that to Allen.

We each need to take a look in that mirror and make sure we like the
face staring back at us.

I can't fix what's gone on behind me.

Maybe I can at least help fix what hasn't been broken yet.

[Adrian Cooper]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Harvey,Who are you, and what have you
apc01,DOH!

Did you happen to catch the full name of this place? Dude, they're not here for knitting supplies.
Paul

That is precisely my point.

This is first and foremost a discussion forum - not a Clickbank substitute.

But there are generally up to twice the number of people browsing WSO than the main discussion forum which suggests to me that to the majority of the people visiting finding "products" is more important than getting advice.

Hence my suggestion that perhaps the two should be separated.

It's like Google - as long as their is a benefit to be gained by gaming the system, there will always be those doing their utmost to do it.

[Bruce NewMedia]

Excellent post Paul! Your description of the "Ghost Poster" is soooo accurate.

I see evidence of this often in the WSO section. More and more I think people with 30 posts or so who give glowing testimonials are fake... either paid or just the wso seller disguised.

One evening, bored to tears, I followed the ONLY $$ success claims (by testimonial) on a very popular wso (and an expensive one at that).

I looked back at their actual past post content. Surprise: EVERY SINGLE POST prior to their big money-claiming testimonial was a one-liner , sometimes a one-worder!

And there were a number of new warriors who represented the only dollar success claims for the wso. Imo, I think most were shills.

I'm seeing this phenomenon more and more. I know your post was not specifically about wso's, but I do think this BS posting pattern shows up primarily/especially because of the WSO forum financial opportunity.

I'd also agree with others that the requirements to post a wso should be raised substantially (time, posts, and costs). Then, I'll bet you will see junk posts decline.
_____
Bruce

[milan]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

...The first are folks whose grasp of English is so bad that their posts are incomprehensible. I don't mean, "their grammar is off." I mean people who simply can't be understood at all...

Paul, it's not bad English, it's a dialect of English called Bad English. What you described is proper Bad English.

Oh, wanted this to be a one liner but it didn't fit....

[Kay King]

Paul -

Just PM'd that email to you(didn't an an email address - sorry).

kay

[R Hagel]

Originally Posted by ExRat

...and also thinking back to the good ole days, I seem to remember that back then (a coupla years ago) most people were too frightened to post ridiculous stuff like many of the critters (EG regurgitators) because they'd get a guaranteed lambasting.

Oh shut up, Roger.

a) a certain subset arrived, and started emphasizing that everyone should be nice to everyone else all of the time in a civilised forum society.

Yes, and it's worse when people confuse "being mean" and "attacking" with "constructive criticism." Those who are most likely to confuse attacking with criticism are the folks who come here for validation/confirmation rather than actual help. Sometimes the ego needs to shrink a little in order for us to truly learn something.


--

And on another note...

My favorite one-line wonders are the ones who stack up three to five posts in one thread, one after the other. Instead of writing a paragraph like a normal person, they start a new post for each new sentence.

[new post]

Know what I mean?

[new post]

It's annoying.

[new post]

Cheers,
Becky

[Adrian Cooper]

Experienced IM'ers can sort out the "wheat from the chaff" in WSO, but newcomers to IM visiting WSO must be ultra-confused, and if they are it is failing in its purpose.

WF is here to help all IM'ers and the discussions certainly do, but of course its inclusion of WSO as part of the same trust implies the same standards.

I definitely think a WSO type resource is a great resource, but it is too mixed up with WF generally.

Of course the converse is true.

What happens if someone comes along with a genuinely really great product of huge benefit, but doesn't want to rack up 30 posts in the forums? People don't get to see it.

[MichaelHiles]

Originally Posted by ExRat

...
If you're the type that 'visits' many different forums you'll be aware that currently certain people suggest that it's a soft-touch around here.
...

so so so true.... I put on my ballerina slippers when posting on WF.

Using your real identity helps in the politeness arena. ;-)

[Jillian Slack]

Yesterday I was found several one-liner posts and clicked on their member names to get a better idea of whether these were just a couple of posts that happened to be short (while the rest of their posts were significant) or if they were, essentially, posting nothing but one-liners.

What I found for two of the members' names alarmed me.

Each had run a couple of WSOs. All of the rest of their messages were nothing but one-liners.

So they had infiltrated our forum, posted nothing but one-liners to boost their post count, then posted WSOs to make some money off of the rest of us.

It's just not right for ALL of your posts, except for your WSOs, to be one-liners and useless posts that don't contribute to the conversation.

Grrrr!

[Tenzo]

Originally Posted by apc01

What happens if someone comes along with a genuinely really great product of huge benefit, but doesn't want to rack up 30 posts in the forums? People don't get to see it.

Of course people can see it. There are a ton of different ways to market a product, and a bunch of marketplaces and classified sites to use. It's true that people won't see it as a Warrior Special Offer, but why should someone without an interest in being part of a community have the right to utilize a community marketing channel?

Respectfully,
Kevin

[Kim Standerline]

I've found this thread fascinating reading, thanks Paul for starting it.

Folks probably won't notice I don't post quite as much as I used to, a couple of reasons are that a) I'm "supposed" to be semi retired from IM, and the second (main reason) is because I got fed up of those people with their heads up their backsides thinking I was a real bitch cow for calling so called newbies out on their crappy threads.

You get a gut reaction about these oneline wonders and its so easy to check their previous posts and see what else they have contributed. (Usually very little).

Before you lay into someone for challenging a newbie poster folks, first check out that newbie's posting history, you may be surprised.

Kim

[Paul Myers]

Kay,

Thanks. I'll have a chat with him. He should damned well know better. If he doesn't yet, he will soon.

Nathan,

I repeat: There are technical issues involved that make your suggestion impractical at the moment.

Roger,

Yep. Too many people have let a bunch of whiny, soft-skinned manipulators turn the place into a children's playground, where all the hard edges and sharp corners have to be cushioned. You know... like in "real life."

Yes, I mean the word manipulators. They play games, and quote Rule #1 out of context when they're called on them.

The people who complain the most about direct language are the same ones who spout crap, and think their baseless opinions are worth as much as someone else's hard earned experience.

Like the woman earlier in this thread who got pissed when I suggested, in response to her ideas which would not and cannot work, that she go and get some experience running a large forum before telling people who've done it for years how it should be handled.

apc01,

Hence my suggestion that perhaps the two should be separated.

You're anonymous, you've been here a week, and you don't understand the history, purpose or tradition behind that section of the place. Those things being true, I will merely suggest that you learn more about the background here before expecting anyone to take your recommendations seriously.

The Warrior Forum is not a collection of disparate parts, stapled together and held up by baling wire and duct tape.

Michael,

Using your real identity helps in the politeness arena.

Absolutely. Even more in the truth area. I have long held that anyone whose identity isn't included in some way in their profile is to be treated as a fictional creature, and taken as seriously as one would take Popeye or Donald Duck.

What they say may be true, may be fictional, or may simply be deluded ramblings. Doesn't matter. They're fictional.

Tina,

Um, since when is the purpose of the WSO section to baby sit newbies? I don't recall seeing "protection of the clueless" anywhere in the site's mission statement.

YES!

You tell 'em, Tina!


Paul

[John Durham]

I saw a guy today who has over ,1,100 posts, and whose advice I had put some stock in because I figured he must be a 'real warrior', then come to find out from another post that he never made a dime yet... he's trying to find an idea to make 100 dollars. Yet he is already and advanced or senior warrior member by title (can't remember which but I see him everywhere). I am fairly sure his intentions are harmless but one would be inclined to think "this must be the meaning of "regurgitator".

For me I just come to offer whatever I know, and hang out alot because I work at online at night, and day (okay day and night lol)... it gives me a community to be a part of, and a chance to hopefully makes some friends, as most of you know "working by yourself on can make you feel isolated and stir crazy..., and it's nice to known other people are doing the same thing as you simutaneously and that you are not alone. Especially here. The people are awesome, it's not just a "sense of community" but a "proud one"!

After reading this post I now recognize some of the people I have been talking to as "vermin"...it's just a hard distinction to make. They all seem to mean well, I almost would feel guilty flagging them, just in case I'm wrong.

But I see why it's important. What if "I" was the one taking their advice and losing all my family's savings...?

[John Taylor]

Originally Posted by kadensnga

After reading this post I now recognize some of the people I have been talking to as "vermin"...it's just a hard distinction to make.

The ability to recognise patterns of forum
behaviour comes with experience. It gets
easier.

They all seem to mean well, I almost would feel guilty flagging them, just in case I'm wrong.

No need to feel guilty, your report on its
own won't "do harm". However, if enough
people agree with you.. it will make a real
difference.

John

[John Taylor]

You know, one of the most common
Internet Marketing "mantras" is..

"Take action"

In the context of this forum, taking
action means looking out for the good
of all.

By not reporting the types of behaviour
that are damaging the forum, you are
condoning that behaviour. Thus allowing
the "vermin" to get away with it.

John

[lgibbon]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

apc01,You're anonymous, you've been here a week, and you don't understand the history,

But he's made a whole lot of posts
in that short time Paul.

[John Durham]

I sure wish someone could "nuke" my last thread!!!

Late night sleep deprived rambling, I answered half of my own questions..., when a reread I thought "who is this idiot? Sure to be an embarrassment for years to come.

I doubt many people will read through it's entirety anyway...

Ps. The next thought was "wow this idiot is a genius, he just solved my whole prob"! lol

Thanks, John for your input, I shall try to take my responsibility as a community member more seriously, and watch out for my warrior brothers and sisters by acting upon these things when I see them henceforth!

[Martin Luxton]

Is is feasible to add an automated "average word/line per post" feature, sort of like Clickbank gravity?

So a one-line wonder with 30 posts would have an average of 8.26 words/1.0 lines per post and would read something like this

30/8.25/1.0

and WSO's couldn't be posted until it looked something like this

50/20/3

(50 posts with an average of 20 words and 3 lines per post).

Failing that, how about a "health warning" placed prominently at the top of each WSO?

Warning: before buying a WSO do your due diligence. If the seller fits this profile you should be extra cautious

• Joined the WF in the last 3 months
• Has less than 100 posts
• Most of his/her posts are just one-liners
• They have a lots of thanks but they are mainly from people who also post mostly one liners
• Requires you to post in the WSO thread your proof of purchase
• Requires you to send him/her a private message to get your download
• Requires payment by Western Union or some other system where it's difficult/impossible to recover your money
• Deals only in services for which you pay upfront and which don't yet exist (this is a controversial one, I know)
• etc

It kind of forces people to think about due diligence without changing the core idea of the WSO Forum.

Allen can also remove the health warning from Warriors he trusts.

Martin

[John Durham]

Originally Posted by Martin Luxton

Is is feasible to add an automated "average word/line per post" feature, sort of like Clickbank gravity?

So a one-line wonder with 30 posts would have an average of 8.26 words/1.0 lines per post and would read something like this

30/8.25/1.0...

At the risk of submitting a one liner; that sounds brilliant! I am sure it wouldn't stop ALL of the abuse, but even 50% of it would be a significant decrease in workload for the mods.
Maybe I'm ignorant but that sounds like a great solution.

[sbucciarel]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Like the woman earlier in this thread who got pissed when I suggested, in response to her ideas which would not and cannot work, that she go and get some experience running a large forum before telling people who've done it for years how it should be handled.

Excuse me but I got pissed off when I received what I perceived to be a rather rude response to my opinion. That's what pissed me off. In other cases, aggressive or rude posts are just deleted, so it doesn't appear that rules are applied equally.

Secondly, you don't know me from Adam. You assume that I don't have any experience running a large forum. Actually, my suggestion to warn people rather than randomly delete posts is a function that is built into most forum software and quite simple to implement. Does it really in the long run matter to me whether or not you do? No.

My suggestion is actually based on experience in a lot of forums. I've seen many newbies, who are casually being called cockroaches here, get a warning or two and turn around and become valuable members.

As for exploitation of the WSO forum. If run a forum that is touted as being "The #1 Internet Marketing Forum on the Internet", do you really think it will not attract those wanting to make money from Internet Marketing. They make their posts, they pay their $20. If junk gets through the WSO, that's a malfunction of the system in place that is approving these, but these people have paid the fee to post it and someone has accepted that fee, so how is that exploitation? It's simply buying a service that is readily available.

[Diana Lane]

Originally Posted by Martin Luxton

Is is feasible to add an automated "average word/line per post" feature, sort of like Clickbank gravity?

So a one-line wonder with 30 posts would have an average of 8.26 words/1.0 lines per post and would read something like this

30/8.25/1.0

and WSO's couldn't be posted until it looked something like this

50/20/3

(50 posts with an average of 20 words and 3 lines per post).

Failing that, how about a "health warning" placed prominently at the top of each WSO?

Warning: before buying a WSO do your due diligence. If the seller fits this profile you should be extra cautious

• Joined the WF in the last 3 months
• Has less than 100 posts
• Most of his/her posts are just one-liners
• They have a lots of thanks but they are mainly from people who also post mostly one liners
• Requires you to post in the WSO thread your proof of purchase
• Requires you to send him/her a private message to get your download
• Requires payment by Western Union or some other system where it's difficult/impossible to recover your money
• Deals only in services for which you pay upfront and which don't yet exist (this is a controversial one, I know)
• etc

It kind of forces people to think about due diligence without changing the core idea of the WSO Forum.

Allen can also remove the health warning from Warriors he trusts.

Martin

I don't think an automated word count solution would be helpful. Few and far between though they are, I've seen genuinely useful one line posts that were probably left by someone who wanted to help but could have been too busy with actual work to bulk them up for appearance's sake. Likewise, I have seen lengthy posts (whole threads, even) that have had as much use or substance to them as dehydrated water.

I shouldn't think Allen would want to spend his days removing health warnings from Warriors who've proved themselves trustworthy, either. We ought to be big enough and bright enough to look out for ourselves, as well as looking out for each other when appropriate. I think such warnings would give newcomers the impression that none of us know the perils of the internet and how it works, that we spend our time on here insulting each other's intelligence, and that by joining us they can expect the same.

This is (supposed to be) a community of business people after all.

[Kay King]

Diana -

I agree. If there is any change to address the current bit of chaos it needs to be simple in order to work. Higher post limit and/or time limit - something easy to apply and enforce.


Paul -
I can't believe it - no duct tape? That's unAmerican. We need WF virtual duct tape for use on fingers of those who sign up and start barfing out nonsense before reading the sticky rules.

Roger - I love the word "lambast" - always sounds like a high end text version of "barf".


kay

[John Durham]

Originally Posted by Diana Lane

I don't think an automated word count solution would be helpful. Few and far between though they are, I've seen genuinely useful one line posts that were probably left by someone who wanted to help but could have been too busy with actual work to bulk them up for appearance's sake.

I see your point but I think he was referring to an "average" . There are exceptions to the rule, however, I think , more often than not, at least 20 words is a comprehensive answer.

I think an overall "average" number of words per post would be effective, as some posts could be a thousand words or more bringing the average up, but if you see that only 5 out of 100 posts are more than one line, then chances are most of the posts are minimally helpful at best. In "most" cases 1 line represents more of a comment than a real solution. Once again there are exceptions always.

Of course I doubt that the warrior forum would ever 'leave out the human aspect", in other words I'm sure it wouldn't apply to members who were known to be reliable...

Pardon me for partially disagreeing. I certainly don't mean to offend in any way, nor do I think of myself as an authority on the subject, but it just sounded like a reasonable solution with consideration to "averages".

I think 95% 1 liners clearly represents that a person isn't putting forth much effort to help with comprehensive answers, however 50% might be reasonable.

[Adrian Cooper]

Originally Posted by lgibbon

But he's made a whole lot of posts
in that short time Paul.

Not even to post in WSO

You are right though - I don't know the history. Actually I remember when Warriors was first created by Allen,and have dropped by from time to time, I figured last week it was time to make a contribution.

[Paul Myers]

Les,

But he's made a whole lot of posts in that short time Paul.

True. I've seen a few, and they're mostly useful additions. Certainly not a lot of one-liners.

sbucciarel,

Excuse me but I got pissed off when I received what I perceived to be a rather rude response to my opinion.

You chose to read it that way. If you look at what I wrote, I clearly acknowledged the good intentions behind the suggestion.

As for participating in a lot of forums, that is very different from running one. Very different indeed. Ask any of the people who've moderated here and thought the way you do, until they got a look behind the curtain.

We have lots of examples of people who've been warned and turned into valuable participants. Several in this thread, actually. Thing is, none of them started in the ways I'm talking about.

The type of people I call cockroaches here are quite specific. They are pests, and they are destructive to the group as a whole. They're not just average new folks with less experience. They have precise intentions and harmful behavior. If you don't like the label, that's fine. Don't use it.

Just don't try and make it sound like I'm bashing new folks in general. That's not going to fly.


Paul

[John Durham]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

sbucciarel,

Just don't try and make it sound like I'm bashing new folks in general. That's not going to fly.


Paul

I learned on my first post that this is not a democracy... not to kiss butt in anyway, but I'm glad there is some absolute authority to keep down the chaos. Once again I say "if you want to see newbs getting used and abused, go check out DP".

Ps. True apc01 seems a bit elusive, being anonymous and all, however I (for 1) find his posts to be quite helpful. (no we're not teaming up to pull off a scam) lol.

[Bev Clement]

It doesn't help when you have people who run a WSO saying, they haven't made any money until they used the WSO forum. They now only make money via the WSO, and sell telling people to follow him as it is free traffic, easy to make thousands off the forum each month.

Also, many WSO are not special in that they give a special price to the first xx number of people. Once that number is reached, then they sell it for the same price as they have it elsewhere. If that happens then it should be removed.

There are a group of people who launch their WSO in other places to get feedback and testimonials. They either give it away or charge a lower price for that, and you will find they get testimonials within minutes of launching their products.

It is very easy to see those who only use the WF to sell via the WSO. Take a look at the MF and see people who normally don't post, and they either start a thread or they make comments in relevant threads, and you will find they are about to launch a new WSO. You don't see them again until they want to use the WSO again. These people also don't contribute to the forum even if their posts when they do make them are good.

I have stopped posting for various reasons, but when I do visit I just hit the report button, it isn't worth posting any comment in the threads. Also, some people just take any decent posts and use them for their blog and articles. They might not take the post as is, but it is close enough to know where they got it from. When you know a post is going to be taken and used like that, it doesn't give people the incentive to post good quality information.

[Jeff Henshaw]

This has been in informative, interesting and thought stimulating thread.

---- end of the one liner!

Thanks for instigating it Paul.

---- end of the two liner!

Sorry - just being facetious - you have done a very good job here in initiating this discussion.

Whatever the "restrictions" on WSO posting - the higher minimun post count and the increased length of membership are probably the easiest to implement quickly, in order to stop the drive by spammers.

I agree with both these suggestions, but I consider that the post count should only reflect anything posted on six of the eight sub forums included under "The Warrior Forum". Exclude postings to the WSO, the WCAs.

Personally, I would like to see the exclusion of postings to "The Chat Room" and "Warrior Events" forming part of the "restrictions" too.

I have in mind a few more "restrictions" that should deter the spammers, scammers and those who drag down the reputation of this forum. These though may have a financial cost to implement them. At past 2:30AM here however, I'll keep them for another day.

Just my few thoughts on this important topic.

Regards,
Jeff Henshaw.