Timeline for Is answering to a software recommendation request considered spam?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:04 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:12 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.superuser.com/ with https://meta.superuser.com/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:12 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.superuser.com/ with https://meta.superuser.com/
|
|
| Sep 28, 2016 at 7:52 | comment | added | Wildcard | @DanHenderson, agreed. :) | |
| Sep 28, 2016 at 7:40 | comment | added | Dan Henderson | @Wildcard I wasn't suggesting that one shouldn't be allowed to indicate a lack of affiliation, but rather that one shouldn't be obligated to do so. | |
| Sep 28, 2016 at 7:28 | comment | added | Wildcard | @DanHenderson, while this is true, it is a Catch 22 if you aren't allowed to say you aren't affiliated, but you can be flagged as spam for not disclosing your affiliation. Reminds me of a book featuring witch hunts. "If one is deemed guilty because he denies the accusation, how can an innocent man defend himself?" There's nothing wrong with saying, "I'm not affiliated, but I've used the product briefly and it seems to do what you want," or similar. | |
| Sep 8, 2015 at 15:55 | comment | added | Sathyajith Bhat Mod | @DanHenderson crux of the matter is that if you're going to bother to put in only a bare link and nothing else as content, it will be considered as spam. With this in context, I mentioned "you weren't explicit enough in disclosing that you aren't the author." | |
| Sep 8, 2015 at 15:16 | comment | added | Dan Henderson | "You weren't explicit enough in disclosing that you aren't the author." I'm pretty sure the "must disclose" rule is only directed at those that actually are affiliated with the product or service they're linking to. I've seen plenty of posts with text like "Full disclosure: I work for Company X" but I don't think I've ever seen one that said "Full disclosure: I am not affiliated with Company X in any way". I think things would start to look very silly indeed, if every recommendation post required such a disclaimer in the negative case as well as the positive. | |
| Sep 2, 2015 at 11:12 | comment | added | Ramhound | @NickVolynkin - The very fact you were making a software recommendation, and not making it a good answer, is the entire point. If you are going to post an software recommendation, you better know, how to do it the correct way or simply don't do it. As others have pointed out, the question was a bad question, best to leave low-quality questions to the fate of the review queue. Of course there is the entire problem, the question wasn't even asking for a software recommendation, so you answer B when the the author of the question asking for A. | |
| Sep 2, 2015 at 8:55 | vote | accept | Nick Volynkin | ||
| Sep 1, 2015 at 21:12 | comment | added | miroxlav | @NickVolynkin - where you see software recommendation request in that question? It is asking for reasons of (not) creating Total Commander at OS X. I found and posted the reasons, not a software recommendation. There is a different StackExchange site for software recommendations. If someone asks for software recommendation at the Super User, flag the question as off-topic and recommend that person to ask at softwarerecs.stackexchange.com | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 16:36 | comment | added | Nick Volynkin | I actually found that the question was deleted by posting a "thank you" comment to David Postill. It's very disappointing that you assume bad intentions and do not allow me to thank for pointing at my mistakes and to fix them by myself. | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 16:29 | comment | added | Nick Volynkin | "if you want a model answer that would not have been spam flagged, look at the other answer." — I don't see where it is better than mine. How does in answer points 5 and 6 of the guideline?. Does it disclose affiliation? No. It just has more text. | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 16:24 | comment | added | Nick Volynkin | You deleted the answer in around 7 minutes from the time when I read the comment. How do you expect me to read the guide, gather information and improve my answer in this time? If you wouldn't intervene, I'd have time to make an edit or delete it by myself. | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 15:18 | history | answered | Sathyajith BhatMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |