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

[Paul Myers]

We go through cycles here, just like every other forum. Ours has traditionally involved the need for occasional fumigation, to get rid of the one-line wonders and other virtual vermin.

In the past, it was the job of the moderators to handle this when it came up. As time has gone on, the cycles have grown shorter, because the number of new people coming in each month has grown. It's now reached the point where we need bug hunters in-house pretty much all the time.

That would be you.

Here's the thing: Most of these pests don't know they're destructive. That's why they sound so sincere when they complain about their posts getting deleted. I'm pretty sure that rats, mice and roaches would feel like they were being badly treated by the exterminator, too.

They would no doubt be quite sincere in their pleas. It could be easy to feel like they had a valid point.

No mercy.

If you let them breed, they'll make your house unlivable.

The most common of these lately is the One-Line Wonder. They start up an account and race to 30 posts, most of them irrelevant, and nearly all one or two lines in length. As soon as they hit the Magic Number, they post a WSO. Shortly after that, they disappear. At least under that username...

For them, the rules about posting limits are either unfair or some kind of stupid inconvenience, put in place to keep the Little Guy from making "easy money." The idea of what a WSO is supposed to be doesn't make sense to them. "Participation? Exchange of ideas? Being part of the group, and then giving something back? What's that got to do with making money? That's too much work!"

Don't bother trying to educate them. That's about as productive as trying to teach a leech. They have one thought in mind: "Feed me!"

Very few of them are "evil," although some really are. If you doubt that last part, you should visit some of the other forums in this niche and read the things that are said about running a WSO to get some quick cash from the newbies. Which is a whole other reason for making regular participation a requirement...

Most of the one-line wonders are okay people who are just focused on that one thing: Get the money. They usually sell crap, thinking it's gold, and always fill up the board with time- and resource-wasting nonsense. Doesn't matter what their intentions are, they need to be removed.

If you see posts that say things like, "Great post. Thanks for the share," or "Thanks. That's really great info," and the poster has a low post count, look at their profile and check their other comments. If they have a lot of one or two line posts that seem rushed, use the report post button. (The red triangle with the black exclamation point, at the lower left of each post.)

If the folks who complain about the WSO forum want to do something useful to clean up the stupid stuff there, that's an excellent place to start. Then there's...

The Regurgitator: This is the person who comes in after reading a couple of books and thinks s/he's a marketing genius. They spout cliches as absolutes, opinion as fact, and generally run off at the keyboard without having the first hint of a whiff of a sniff of clue, and expect their comments to be taken as Gospel.

The answer to them is to call them on their BS. Ask them if they've actually tested it, or if this is just their opinion. If they say, "It's obvious," or "That's how I feel, so there must be a lot of others who feel the same way," they're just spouting. Calling them on their fantasies helps to keep others from being misled.

A (usually) less obvious bit of vermin is the Ghost Poster. These are people who are paid to work an account up to the requisite 30 posts for commenting in the WSO section. These are sneakier, since what they normally are meant for is posting positive comments or giving testimonials in response to a WSO. Because of that, their comments have a slightly different, somewhat friendlier, tone.

A frequent clue to these is a common name in a major American, Canadian or British city, with posts written in English that's broken in ways that are more like those typical of Malaysia or the Phillipines. That's hardly universal, though. Some ghost posters are knowledgeable of the industry and speak English well, as a first language. Those are the toughies.

If you see something you suspect to be a set-up, don't flag it. Report it using the help desk. There are ways of recognizing those activities that the folks with access behind the curtain can see more clearly than the usual visitor.

There's a lot more of this going on than you might think. The problem is that it's often indistinguishable from legit comments from people who just don't post often. That's why you should report it, rather than flagging the posts with the "Report Post" button.

My personal opinion: Anyone caught "ghost posting" here should be permanently banned. The only person who has any business hiring someone to post here (Allen) has no need to do so.

If it were up to me, anyone using ghost posters to manipulate the WSO forum would be outed in both that section and the main forum, and reported to whoever might have authority over them for fraud. (Yes, this fits the legal definition of fraud. It's a crime.)

Then there's everyone's favorite - The Troll. These are people (and I employ the term here quite loosely) who use various techniques to draw others into arguments or pointless debates.

The term comes from the fishing technique by the same name, which involves pulling bait or a lure on a line behind a boat, hoping the fish won't see that it's a trap and will hook themselves.

Trolls can sometimes be subtle, and seem like the usual confused person expressing an opinion. They can sometimes be obvious, such as the ones asking for advice and refusing to acknowledge or consider what's offered. And they can sometimes just come out with it, posting outrageous nonsense that's guaranteed to start an argument if anyone takes them seriously.

If you suspect you're dealing with a troll, either flag their posts or, if there's a senior person involved who's engaging them after stating what they are, pop some popcorn and enjoy the show. A few of the more experienced people here will often carry on the discussion in order to let the less experienced become more familiar with the mindset of trolls.

Trolls are sneaky, cowardly creatures. They like to start trouble and then sit back and watch as others argue. If you call them on their games, they may respond by stating some seemingly harmless reason for their comments. They most commonly throw a tantrum or start to devolve into even lower life forms, right before your eyes.

Some will switch gears, and claim to be engaged in "performance art." Those people should be laughed out of the place, as they deserve.

Unless you're really experienced in dealing with them, your best bet is to flag their posts, and explain it with the phrase, "Looks like a troll." The mods can usually recognize the species pretty well. If they can't tell for sure, it's probably not a thread that needs to be left anyway.

Don't confuse trolling with outright racism or other hate speech. There's a name for animals who post that sort of thing on public forums, but it's not suitable for use here. The best use for such creatures is hauling large piles of heavy rocks from here to there and back to here again - ad nauseum.

Or as archery targets, if you don't have any large piles of rocks for them to move around.

There are a couple of categories of posters who aren't strictly vermin, or even bad people in any way, but who should nonetheless be reported for removal.

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.

Yes, they speak English better than I speak their language, which is to say, "Not even a little." However, since English is the default language here, and must be for the moderators to keep various forms of nastiness out, that's what we've got. A lot of posts that add nothing but confusion are as unhelpful as those which have less honest motives driving them.

These folks aren't to be seen as bad in any way, but we really shouldn't keep their posts until they learn the language well enough to at least be understood with a little effort.

Yes, that sucks, and yes, it seems somehow unfair. Still, if they can't make themselves understood, they're not going to gain anything by active participation here anyway. All they're going to do is confuse the hell out of well-meaning people who try to translate what can't be translated.

Don't abuse them, but flag them.

The second are the folks who post nothing but negatives. I don't mean, "sometimes skeptical or argumentative." Those can be very useful. I'm talking about people who post complaints with no search for answers, no point that can help anyone else, and just to vent.

What, exactly, is helped by someone posting, "I'm depressed, it's so unfair, my life sucks!?" Or worse, "I hate it! This takes sooo muuuuch woooooork!"

Flag 'em. Especially that last one.

Oh yeah... Any time you see someone use the expression, "Thanks for the share," (in those exact words), you want to be careful in dealing with them. That is not conclusive proof, but it tends to indicate that they've hung around on pirate boards, where that phrase gets used a lot.

If you see that used by a One-Line Wonder, you can safely bet that they've got something sneaky planned.

Before you ask, no. Telling you rhis isn't going to help the creeps. If everyone who's signed up right now read it, which is simply not going to happen, it wouldn't affect anything for long. First, there are other signs that people with the experience to be moderators here will recognize. And, after a week at most, there'll be a whole new crop of them, doing the same things as they pass through with their scams. The folks who plan to be here for a while will be the ones who remember, and a few of you will be better equipped to help deal with them down the road.

The scammers and creeps run on short term approaches. The serious members go in longer phases, and tend to teach other serious members. Understanding that and taking advantage of it is how the place keeps some semblance of sanity, and gets better over time.

Like I said: Cycles.


Paul

[Mark Coverdale]

This is true. good information.








Sorry Paul. Couldn't help myself.

[Paul Myers]

Mark,

This is true. good information.

And good entertainment. Specifically, http://www.ThisIsTrue.com ... ;)

Sorry Paul. Couldn't help myself.

Somebody was gonna do it. Just as well to get it out of the way early. ;)


Paul

[Mark Coverdale]

In all seriousness Paul, I do think we would be fighting a losing battle when dealing with a crowd that is fueled by greed.

Greed is a very strong motivator and when these creeps see a few dollar signs, they start frothing at the mouth. Then the relentless pursuit of the newbie customer takes over.

It's easy money, if only for a very short time.

They don't understand that helping people find a solution to a problem and really getting the whole marketing thing can create a life long business with lifelong relationships. The whole internet thing makes the anonimity of it too easy. Collect the dollars, walk away, never to see the face of the person you just ripped off.

Schemers, out to ruin the online experience for as many as they can.

So sad........., but it all comes back to greed.

Get in there, get there WSO out. Leave.

[xiaophil]

They most commonly throw a tantrum or start to devolve into even lower life forms, right before your eyes.

I witnessed my first one of these on a recent thread which started with a seemingly innocent enough call for some help with converting sales.

They obviously were not interested in the feedback anyone had to offer.

This particular troll had a few people drawn in, myself included, before being outed by Paul. After that it was downright disturbing how rapidly and the level to which their tone descended - complete with insults, hate speech and even death threats.

Very, very nasty and the quicker such entities are filtered out the better.


Phil

[JazzOscar]

Thanks for the ....., Paul!

To be serious; This was a good guide on different behaviors and how to handle them.

One group you didn't spesifically mention are those that, in addition to posting a lot of posts with an average of 5-6 minutes between them, almost seem to go by the alphabet, sending out hundreds of friendship requests.

When I get a request from someone behaving like that I don't want to accept it. I see many others seem to be less critical about it than me though.

[David Raybould]

Hey guys...

This is very timely Paul, I've noticed
a lot of this stuff over the past week
or so, thought it was just me.

I'm glad I'm not the only one.

I guess it's just something we have to
deal with as the forum membership gets
ever larger...

Sometimes I yearn for warrior forum I joined
3 years ago, where the main theme was
positivity and encouragement.

It doesn't seem that way any more, but I'm
unsure whether it's actually me or the forum
that's changed...

Any psychologists in the house?

-David Raybould

[Paul Myers]

Mark,

If you think it's a losing battle, that's only because you haven't been at it as long as some. You never win it completely, even with a totally closed system. Still, you can win enough of it to keep things useful and productive and fun.

Consider: This same stuff has been going on here, and some worse, for more than 10 years. Despite that, the place is better than ever.

Phil,

There are few life forms capable of posting in a forum that are lower than the fellow you're talking about.

That thread was ugly, but instructional. It let people see the creature live, rather than just reading about it. And it gave me enough ammo to go to his ISP and get some action taken.

Another round or so of that and he'll have the police at his door. I could care less about death threats from some anonymous college punk hiding behind a monitor, but the racism and other hate speech he was posting under various usernames isn't something that has ever been tolerated here.

He's obsessive. He'll be back. That's what his kind does. And he'll give me enough to get him arrested, because he can't help himself.

They all think they're somehow unique and special. They're really all the same. I've seen a LOT of that kind of person over the past 22 years, and they never vary in any way that counts.

Psychopathic sheep, mindlessly following the same patterns of anger and ego.


Paul

[Paul Myers]

Oscar,

I don't worry about the friend requests much. If you ignore them, they don't get any access. Simple, and there aren't enough to keep the place from being useful. Hell, thousands of those a day wouldn't interfere with any function I bother with.

I can see where it could get annoying, though.

David,

That's just a sign that you focus on the positive. That's what you remember from the mix that's always been here.

Congratulations, sir. You've learned something useful today.


Paul

[Steven Wagenheim]

Paul, excellent bit of advice but I need to make a minor correction that
will save people a little time and trouble if I may.

You can no longer post to the WSO forum unless you already have a
specific number of posts. I'm not sure what it is. I think it's 15 or 30. You'll
have to check with Allen on that.

Point is, people can't run up their post counts any longer by posting
meaningless nonsense in the WSO forum.

Allen has done an excellent job of putting little safeguards in place
(minimum post counts, time limits on PMs) that have really helped a lot. At
least in my opinion anyway.

Anyway, as always you're constantly thinking about the welfare of this
forum and we all appreciate it.

[Paul Myers]

Steven,

You can no longer post to the WSO forum unless you already have a specific number of posts. I'm not sure what it is. I think it's 15 or 30.

Ummm.... 30. That's what I said.


Paul

[ExRat]

Hi Paul,

I can't be sure, but it would appear from my observations that one of the greatest changes to the dynamics here is that with the new forum software, it seems that more new people are arriving here via the SERPs - IE - the forum is functioning even better from an SEO point of view.

They see a thread that relates to a specific issue/website, and sign up to leave a comment. This appears to be very apparent in the 'review' section.

I reckon that overall this means that the forum is being found by a much broader group of 'newbie' - so I would also conclude that this is the demographic that has grown the most in recent times. I believe this presents some new challenges, but of course, it also provides many positive benefits for those who sell via their forum participation - again, this in turn presents new challenges, as the desire to capitalise, and the ROI on the various ways of selling here grows.

Yet another issue (which you touched upon) is that with an influx of new people that is apparent to anyone who has been here a while, it is easier for those with bad intentions (particularly those with multiple forum personality disorder) to avoid being spotted.

Would you agree?

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Steven,Ummm.... 30. That's what I said.


Paul

Sorry, I must have missed that. Not at my best these days with recent
events that I won't go into here

Anyway, thanks again for watching out for us.

** EDIT ** Oh, okay. I reread that section again and I totally
misunderstood it.

I thought you meant that they were trying to build up their
post count in the WSO section. But obviously that makes
no sense at all since you can't post there unless you have
the required number of posts.

:sigh: Getting my head back on straight is going to be harder
than I thought.

[Paul Myers]

Roger,

I don't know if the SERPS play any role in the problem part of things, as the folks who know enough to create the problems come in here with that knowledge. They know exactly how many posts they need in order to get access to the WSO section. Most of them seem to be coming from two other forums and from "recommendations" by experienced folk.

Your observations regarding the other challenges and opportunities are dead on. They seem to be countered to some extent by the folks who game the system, though, so I'm not sure there's an overall positive increase. Hard to tell without access to data that may not even exist.

I tend to think the "spotting" of folks with MFPD is still done mostly by the experienced members. It's actually a bit harder with all the new folks acting as cover, albeit purely unintentionally.


Paul

[J Elizabeth Dize]

Paul,

This list is absolutely necessary. I'm one who is usually very naive about the true intentions of people. Even though I've been around for a little while now, the fact that there are "ghost posters" and other slime still surprises me -- though it shouldn't by now.

You mean everyone is not honest and upright?

I've been very lucky that the people I've dealt with on the Warrior Forum have been great to me, and I've made some good friends. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean my luck will always be this good -- especially as I examine my friend list, and some friend requests, and realize that I have no idea who some of these faceless, nameless people are.

As great as the WF is as a whole, I think I need to be more mindful that this is a marketing forum, and there are people who take "marketing" to a whole new level

Long way of saying, "thanks for the post"

[ExRat]

Hi Paul,

The problem I see due to the SERPs is that it has changed the dynamics. This appears to have -

a) (as mentioned above) provided 'cover' for those with bad intentions. There was a much more familiar/reliable posting style/sequence of events occuring daily across the board, previously. With new 'styles', it makes it much harder to be sure of bad behaviour, which makes it less likely that 'call-outs' and reports will occur.

b) many people with good track records of altruistic moderating behaviour have noticeably disappeared or come here less (I have taken breaks recently too). Some of the reasons highlighted revolve around -

1) a) above

2) generally overwhelmed

3) after spending time helping in a thread, the OP turns out to be fake, had bad intentions or disappears

4) quantity of (ahem) uneducated/unhelpful contributions (as mentioned in 'regurgitator' in your OP) drown out responsible posters and make them feel their contribution is a waste of time. Often caused by 'sig exposers'.

c) as would be expected, a certain kind of familiarity (as relates to community) has been diluted - I reckon a lot of people are uncomfortable with this (as can be seen in various comments in posts from old timers.)

I hope no-one takes these points the wrong way - as a negative whine. I have read the comments you have made about cycles and accepting change and appreciate and agree with them.

But I do see a problem in that if someone writes quality thought out posts - that takes time. Due to the nature of the opposite kind of posting, it doesn't take as much time - therefore the quantity can be overwhelming and cause the problem mentioned in 4) above.

For example, yesterday I called out someone who posted a copy/paste of an article already posted to a warrior blog months ago, as a new thread. The article was also all over the net, in pdfs etc. And it wasn't particularly high quality.

I stated it as 'appearing to have been plaguarised.' I then got embroiled in a pointless discussion with a 3rd party, because the OP of the copy/paste thread was a business partner with the person who posted it months ago on a warrior blog. I had to wheel out the old cliches about the forum becoming an article directory if everyone did the same, but to no avail - the 3rd party wanted to debate whether it really was plaguarism due to them being partners.

Sigh.

They totally missed the point, which was that it's not that difficult to make useful, interesting posts to promote yourself/business - but it takes longer than plaguarising. If copy/pastes of old crap are allowed to stay, they set a precedent, and also make the whole place crap if they are allowed to 'breed' - because it's so quick and easy to copy/paste tons of articles that you haven't written yourself.

My point - I spent more time trying to explain my actions to a 3rd party, than I did detecting and calling out a copy/paster. And this type of thing is a common occurence, which eventually leads to a sense of 'moderator apathy'. Plus, once I had explained myself in detail, it hampers the urge to report the post and get it deleted because after going to lengths to explain the problem, I wanted others to see it.

This is something that appears to be particularly prevalent since the latter period after the forum change, as the 'armies' of people who will argue with someone trying to 'put things right', appear to have grown. Just after the forum change when we all became moderators, it didn't seem so bad. And there were more oldies on hand to call out things that needed calling out.

For clarity -

I don't know if the SERPS play any role in the problem part of things, as the folks who know enough to create the problems come in here with that knowledge.

I'm not saying the changes due to higher exposure through SERPs are necessarily bringing more miscreants. I'm saying that it makes it harder for ordinary forum users who bother to moderate to stay on top of things AND to go about their normal forum activities (which may have driven some away).

[Paul Myers]

Jenn,

I wouldn't call it naive. I'd think more along the lines of "no need to have the experience that brings that sort of knowledge."

The worst of this stuff, in terms of sneakiness, isn't something most honest people would become aware of without having moderated a forum. The black hats (in the evil sense of the word) trade in it, so a lot more of them know it.

There's much worse than what I listed, but it's mostly not stuff that members without mod access can do anything about, so there's no point giving anyone those ideas who doesn't already have them.


Paul

[Richard Tunnah]

Hi Paul,
Yes I agree there's been an marked increase in those joining/posting recently that don't give a rats behind about this forum but how they can leverage it quickly to make a buck. Something I know Roger has found like I is the recent trend of copying and pasting other IM articles into their first few posts to big themselves up. Well does jack for me and I've called them out. Everyone here can copy and paste.
Certainly agree that posts need reporting ASAP. Maybe if enough people do this then the word will get out that the warrior forum isn't the place to cut and run with a few bucks!

Rich

[Paul Myers]

Roger,

Complete agreement, on all points. Especially the feeling of futility that can occur when some 3rd party feels the need to hijack a thread over minutiae they usually don't even understand.

That's where it's helpful to remember that you're often talking to the silent readers, rather than the person whose comments evoked the response. That keeps the value of the post in mind. Of course, that's not as gratifying as slapping the idiot upside the head would be, but that would bring all sorts of other complications.

This point...

I do see a problem in that if someone writes quality thought out posts - that takes time. Due to the nature of the opposite kind of posting, it doesn't take as much time - therefore the quantity can be overwhelming and cause the problem mentioned in 4) above.

... is incredibly important for people to consider. It's probably the most important point that has been, or will be, made in this thread. And it's true regardless of the intentions of the poster.

That's why informed use of the "Report Post" icon to flag the crap is so important. Combine that with reading with a skeptical (not cynical) eye, and you've got the ideal participant.


Paul

[Paul Myers]

Rich,

I've noticed that starting off with a copy-and-paste is a fast one-way ticket to nukedom. Reporting them definitely helps to alert the mods, which speeds it up even more.


Paul

[Steven Wagenheim]

Paul, some of the things that you've pointed out are pretty obvious and
easy to spot (well, after you've pointed them out anyway) but what about
the more subtle things? The things that maybe the casual forum participant
would not recognize?

My question is simple.

How does one train themselves to spot all the problems that might crop up
on a forum such as this, or is that simply not possible to do and that's
where we need to simply rely on the admins and those like yourself to
keep things in order?

I ask because, like Jenn, I too am pretty trusting. If somebody seems
sincere, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. It's how I've been
taken by cons myself. You know the story from last year so I won't go
into it here.

Anyway, some tips on training your intuition, eye, whatever you want to
call it, would probably be helpful, again...if it's even at all possible.

[ExRat]

Hi Paul,

Especially the feeling of futility that can occur when some 3rd party feels the need to hijack a thread over minutiae they usually don't even understand

No need to make your freudian slaps at me so cutting, sir!

Hi Steven,

The thread got deleted yesterday, but someone asked what made me copy/paste an OP into google to find that it was a copy/paste. It's easy - they usually look like an article, rather than a forum post. Some even have 'in this email' within the post, giving away the fact that it's pasted from an autoresponder email.

[Nigel Greaves]

Paul,

An excellent post as always.

I think one thing that is driving these people in to the forum is possibly the economic climate. The new people who are looking to supplement or replace their incomes and believe that they can get away with turning out any old tat. That belief is driven by the things they read along the lines of "it's easy to make money, just auto generate a blog and sell it for hundreds of dollars" etc. These fit into the group that have no malice and are at best mis-guided.

The flip side to those people are the low lifes that prey on them. These are the ones that you identified very clearly. They are malicious and are simply trying to use our forum to rip people off with worthless garbage under the pretext of being Warriors.

It's up to all of us as member of the WF to show them the door in double quick time and your post has made it much easier to identify the sly ones that seem to sneak in much more frequently these days.

Nigel

[Martin Luxton]

Paul,

Another dangerous breed which you haven't mentioned specifically is the "WSO lawyer".

When people call them on being misleading/scamming/rule breaking they quote the WF rules at them and make threats.

"You are not allowed to try and ruin someone's WSO. If you don't delete your comment I will get Allan to ban you from the Warrior Forum."

These people are usually very mean and nasty because they get really angry with people who interfere with their god-given right to cheat others.

Martin

[Paul Myers]

Steven,

Here's a basic primer on improving your judgement: Improve Your Instincts TalkBiz News: The Blog

As for spotting ALL the problems: Forget it. You're pitting your one brain against all the evil bastards in the world. Most honest people restrict their thinking in ways that crooks and creeps don't, so the crooks and creeps have more options available to them.

Here's the key to becoming a world class problem spotter: Understand that you don't have to be smarter or more evil than the sum of the whole crowd. You can, single-handedly, stop every one of them that's less creative than you.

Learn to ask the questions an evil bastard would ask: How do I break this? What would get me access to the "good stuff" here, whatever that might be? Where are the weak points? What is the process, and what are the vulnerabilities at each step?

To figure it out live, the main question is: "What things could this person be after right now, and why might they be going about it this way?"

Watch other forums, or different people within a single forum.

Never assume you're right without checking. You may have to act on the possible answers, but you want to try and do so with appropriate discretion. The trick is to act in ways that cause the least potential damage consistent with your goals.

Sometimes that means you'll make mistakes. Oh well... you're human. None of us get it right every time, no matter how hard we try or how good our information or experience.

The best way to learn is to do it.


Paul

[ExRat]

Hi Tina,

It can get frustrating to report a post and then see 8 people posting their thanks but at least I feel like I'm doing my little part to keep this forum clean and valuable.

At risk of sounding like I'm saying 'it was better in the old days' () that's one of the things that has arrived in recent times, specifically when you call them out in the thread. Sometimes it's almost 'as if' someone runs off to create a new ID just to do it.

1. OP (150 posts) = 'blah blah spammy bunch of crap'

2. responsible poster (7k posts ) = 'sorry, but that's a dangerous, misleading, spammy bunch of crap. Here's why.......'

3. new ID (3 posts) = 'thanks OP, awesome stuff!'

4. New ID (2 posts) = 'thanks OP, I agree. Some people need to chill out'

Sigh.......

[CDarklock]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

The term comes from the fishing technique by the same name, which involves pulling bait or a lure on a line behind a boat, hoping the fish won't see that it's a trap and will hook themselves.

It also owes some heritage to the old children's story "The Three Billy Goats Gruff".

Who's that trip-trapping over my bridge?!

[Steven Wagenheim]

Paul, thank you for your reply on spotting problems. That will help a lot.

Folks, one thing that nobody has commented on yet is how Paul has taken
what could have been a really dull subject and made it a must read, starting
with the title of the thread...copywriting genius if you ask me.

And then the way he describes the vermin in the body of the post.

I wonder how many people realize that not only does Paul educate us well,
but he does it in a way that doesn't make us want to yawn and turn on
the TV in the process.

[Jagged]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

In the past, it was the job of the moderators to handle this when it came up. As time has gone on, the cycles have grown shorter, because the number of new people coming in each month has grown. It's now reached the point where we need bug hunters in-house pretty much all the time.

That would be you.

Thanks Paul for pointing out that this is OUR house and WE are responsible for housekeeping. Don't wait for the next guy / gal to handle it....don't just sweep things under the rug.

I've noticed many of these threads started that are started for the sole sake of inducing arguement.....Paul has called out a couple in recent days....in these same threads i've also noticed that most replies are from "low count" members looking to bump their post totals...this goes on until for the most part until someone, usually one of the warrior elite points out that they are a troll. I've seen it were there are 30-40 posts with maybe 2 posts from members with a post count over 100...

It's not only the troll to watch for...it's the coat tail posters, maybe not one-line wonders....harmless as they seem...that need to be brought to light also...


Question: At what point does one become a "warrior"?

At sign up?
At a certain post count level?
When they contribute value to the forum?
....Other?

I ask because rule #1 states: [If you have a problem with another Warrior, a Guru, or God, take it up with them directly. Not here. No exceptions.]

Is a new member, one who joins solely for the 15 posts - WSO, or to post babble.....are they truly considered "warriors"? Can we call them out in open forum without retribution from rule #1?

I understand it says "no exceptions", but if they are not considered warriors...does no exceptions even apply?


Ken

[Ken Leatherman]

Paul,

The Regurgitator: This is the person who comes in after reading a couple of books and thinks s/he's a marketing genius. They spout cliches as absolutes, opinion as fact, and generally run off at the keyboard without having the first hint of a whiff of a sniff of clue, and expect their comments to be taken as Gospel.

IMHO these are the folks who cause more harm than good to the new folks and the not so new folks, than any other listed above. Although we are all responsible for doing our own "due diligence", as Jenn said above many of us have a propensity to take people and what they say at face value.

However, with some very pointed questions back at "The Regurgitator", it doesn't take long before these folks have egg all over their face. Therefore it is very important for each of us to weigh closely what we read before we take it as the "Gospel".

Thanks Paul for taking your time to write this post.

Ken

[Paul Myers]

Tina,

If we only had another dozen or so with your attitude... Thank you, ma'am!

Nigel,

Nice distinction between the mis-guided and the folks who prey on them. That's a really helpful thing to keep in mind. Thanks for that.

Martin,

Excellent addition to the list. Forum lawyers suck. Unless they're, like, you know, actual lawyers, talking about the law and stuff. In which case only 98% of them suck.

I fit those folks in the same category as people who insist that Rule #1 forbids any strong disagreement. They're simply to be ignored until they become a big enough problem to warrant removal.

Any other categories I forgot, folks?


Paul

[Paul Myers]

Steven,

"It's hard to get people to listen if you turn off their ears."

Or, to use a musical analogy: People will tell you the tune they want to hear. You just have to fit the lyrics to the melody.

Ken (Jagged),

Rule #1 is NOT intended to prevent open debate, even hostile debate, among active members. It's meant primarily to stop people from posting customer service issues, claims about someone's business practices and the like, in an attempt to harm or blackmail another person.

That's the basic intent, as I understand it. It's become the way to bully people into shutting up, but that doesn't work very often, as the senior folks mostly understand how it's applied.

Ken Leatherman,

Yep. The misinformation is more dangerous than all the evil bastards combined. That's where us old geezers can be helpful.

Nathan,

Excellent idea, and it's the way things used to be done. The problems are technical, though, and more difficult to solve than a simple policy change would allow for. Switching software always has trade-offs. I suspect that's one that Allen's working on.


Paul

[tommygadget]

I aggressively report all those one-liners. The fact that they don't disappear immediately tells me that there should be more people of like mind. You get a click on the thanks button Paul.

TomG.

[Paul Myers]

Tina,

We in the trade have a technical term for such folks: Liars.

Tommy,

Gotta be careful with those. I watched one guy, a programmer, lose a ton of legit one-line responses recently. He was recommending specific book or software titles, without affiliate links, in response to questions people asked about how to do things.

I suspect you'd have seen the difference, but a lot of people might tend to get carried away, which is why I suggested actually looking at the person's posting history. Most folks don't have your experience.


Paul

[Bev Clement]

Paul thanks for that.......... had to say it as well

One group I find a problem, are those who can have a decent post count, and then people assume what they say is gospel because of their post count.

Having said that, we also have the problem where people who have come this year, with a couple of hundred posts, who try and tear down anyone with a higher post count than them.

Someone asks a question, and a warrior who is experienced in that area posts a factual answer. Someone with a lowish count comes in, and says "Don't take this personally, but......" The know it is a personal attack, because it is a standard thing with them.

A great way to try and put down someone who knows what they are talking about, and making themselves looking important.

[Paul Myers]

Bev,

The post count thing is (usually) invented in the mind of the reader. I saw an exception earlier today, where someone posting anonymously made some claims (Maybe true, maybe not) that are impossible to verify, and used his post count as a justification for demanding that no-one question him.

THAT is silly. All sorts of wrong assumptions implied in the post. Yeah... Those people are hazards. Even if what they say is 100% true, the implications carry over with some readers and create potential problems.

The "Don't take this personally" thing reminds me of one of my favorite forum gambits: Attempting to trivialize ideas by attacking the person presenting them.

That's not a vermin category, though. More a sloppy thinking thing.


Paul

[Simon Ashari]

Would it be harmful to the forum if this OP was made into a sticky (aka, spammers reading this sticky if it becomes one).

I'd recomend it become a sticky (if it hasn't already, its taken me ages to read the OP and responses)

I for one will take this responsibility more serious and report posts (I didn't even know which button to press to report)

Particlularly the 'I'm going to quit internet marketing' posts.... they annoy me big time.

awsome stuff Paul.


p.s. I know Paul spoke about how most of the spammers are too short term to read and 'benefit' from this post... was just wondering if they would read it if it became a sticky.

[Paul Myers]

Simon,

I could add it, along with a summary, to the "Being a better member moderator" sticky. Not a bad idea. Thanks.


Paul

[MikeRogers]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

We go through cycles here, just like every other forum. Ours has traditionally involved the need for occasional fumigation, to get rid of the one-line wonders and other virtual vermin.

I wondered why I had been feeling a bit ill lately

But, I completely agree with the rest of what you had to say...

And, sometimes we need to hear (read) it to reinforce what we should already know.

Mike

[Paul Myers]

Mike,

I wondered why I had been feeling a bit ill lately

Bottle flu, dude. You got some bad ice.


Paul

[skyward]

Paul,

Thank you. We haven't met, but your "Need to Know" report is my standard reading, having downloaded it 2 weeks or so ago.

This post is an education for me in itself. I can be very naive, and there's no doubt that I have been lured into reading posts here that have been deceptive in nature.

Thanks for your help in bringing this information to light!

Jeff

[Loren Woirhaye]

Well, we all must cope with life's circumstances I reckon,
even cockroaches.



.
.
.
.

[MichaelHiles]

I am going to assume the real problem with "one liners" is just the push to get to the WSO posting level.

Aside from that, it's always better to get your point across in as few words as possible.

Nobody likes a rambling blowhard. Those who require pages and pages of text to present a basic concept simply love to blab.

[tommygadget]

Originally Posted by MichaelHiles

I am going to assume the real problem with "one liners" is just the push to get to the WSO posting level.

Well, if you buy a wso from someone with exactly 31 posts who has a history of 30 one line posts before the wso, then what can I say?

Paul - Yes, it's true, many may push the button with nary a thought to the legitimacy of the post. So for most, I'll withdraw the recommendation

TomG.

[BIG Mike]

Originally Posted by tommygadget

Well, if you buy a wso from someone with exactly 31 posts who has a history of 30 one line posts before the wso, then what can I say?

Paul - Yes, it's true, many may push the button with nary a thought to the legitimacy of the post. So for most, I'll withdraw the recommendation

TomG.

You nailed it Tommy - as a community, we make the choice to perpetuate this by readily buying from 30 post wonders or starting a culture of change by just saying no until those folks make more of an effort to contribute to the quality of the forum.

As lucrative as the WSo Forum can be, it's not the primary purpose of the WF - I've always seen it as a privilege for regularly contributing members to use.

That's not to say that every new member is here to exploit the WSO Forum, but the word on the street can be changed from, "Make thirty posts and run a WSO and a fortune" to, "Don't even think about it unless you're willing to put some effort into your membership."

Now there's a novel concept

[Paul Myers]

Jeff,

Glad you're finding the book useful.

Reading deceptive posts isn't nearly as big a problem as acting on them. That does raise an interesting point... Should there be a separate category for the person whose subject lines are sneaky or misleading?

Loren,

[chuckle] Another great moment in literature.

Michael,

I am going to assume the real problem with "one liners" is just the push to get to the WSO posting level.

The side effects of that push are the problem, but yes. As a rule, the posts add nothing but noise to discussions. They also promote an attitude of "Do whatever you need to do to get the money," which isn't conducive to developing a sense of community.

Nobody likes a rambling blowhard.

Not true. I have many friends.

TomG and Big Mike,

That's doable, actually.

All it would take is a few people who occasionally post something politely bringing people's attention to the circumstances around the poster. Maybe something like:

"This person has very few posts, many of them contributing little to the group. You may want to consider whether you wish to encourage that sort of behavior by rewarding it."

Of course, the sneaks may use multiple user accounts to get such comments nuked, but that would just tend to expose those accounts to the mods. And there's nothing preventing one from posting such a thing again. If it catches on with even a few people who frequent the WSO forum, that could work.


Paul

[Steven Fullman]

Anyone who believes they need exactly 30 posts (no more, no less) to achieve an adequate level of trust to start peddling (yes, I mean peddling) to this forum...needs their head read.

Of course, there are exceptions. But not many, and the exceptions always shine through, anyway.

I could've written that so much better, but hopefully you get my point...

Cheers,
Steve

[ExRat]

Hi Tommy/BigMike,

we make the choice to perpetuate this by readily buying from 30 post wonders or starting a culture of change by just saying no until those folks make more of an effort to contribute to the quality of the forum.

As lucrative as the WSo Forum can be, it's not the primary purpose of the WF - I've always seen it as a privilege for regularly contributing members to use.

That's not to say that every new member is here to exploit the WSO Forum, but the word on the street can be changed from, "Make thirty posts and run a WSO and a fortune" to, "Don't even think about it unless you're willing to put some effort into your membership."

I agree.

I think it's worth pointing out to some of the newer people here that if they look at the people who feature heavily/continually as WSO sellers and those who feature heavily/continually as contributors in the rest of the forum, there is actually quite a large disconnect between the two.

I see some permanent WSOers (none of them have posted in this thread (or many others for that matter )) who barely exist elsewhere in the rest of the forum.

Obviously, it isn't a requirement to post elsewhere in any way, and I'm not suggesting that someone who doesn't run WSOs must be an angel.

What I am suggesting though is that in some cases, in my experience as a buyer, it appears to me that it's a lot less likely that someone is going to 'take the money and run' if they have a certain feeling of belonging to the community, giving at least a **** about the welfare of it, and also having friends within it that have a similar attitude.

These are the type of things that can more than likely only be experienced after spending some time within it, acknowledging that the experience within has helped them to grow and progress, and therefore feeling a social responsibility to give something back (in whatever way is suitable for that individual) in order that other people who come along needing something can ALSO have the same kind of beneficial experience - as well as continuing to maintain the standards that have been set previously by the owner and anyone who was here before themselves - the oldies, like Paul :-)

For me, without that experience I have had here, the internet would be one lonely, inhuman place.

[Steven Fullman]

I want to go to 'Roger School'...

Great post, mate.

Steve

[ExRat]

Hi Steven,

I want to go to 'Roger School'...

How do you rate on the 'hard knock' scale?