Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As the subject mentions, those types of posts are one of my pet peeves. I come to dakka to read content ON dakka and, over the past year with the rise of the increasingly amateur blogosphere, I've noticed an increase in the number of threads that are simply "come look at me!!" links to other sites. At worst, those threads have more in common with chinese discount fashion purse nike 50% off ipod spammer threads than the normal ones you'd find on a wargaming forum in that they themselves have zero actual content. At best, they're a "free" banner ad for another site and nothing more. I've been suggesting for a while that people who do this post teasers (like the complete first turn including pics in a battle report that is linked to) but it feels like a losing battle. Should this practice be allowed to continue on dakka? I have zero problem with the banner ads (since I'm not a DCM) as they directly benefit the site but I'm most certainly NOT a fan of an ad masquerading as a thread.


edit for effect and a healthy dose of humor/sarcasm (see later in thread):

Since Warboss decided to respond to me here, I'll also respond to him here for the sake of folks who don't read further down. Thanks! ~Manchu

Annoying... isn't it???

I certainly wasn't trying to be humorous or even sarcastic.

Manchu wrote:
Generally speaking, I agree that OP should include some kind of preview in their post (excerpted text or pic) to help you decide whether you want to read on as a matter of courtesy. I don't think that not doing this is tantamount to spam or other rulebreaking or that it should be considered so.

When I click on a thread on dakka, I expect there to be *some* content in that thread. People who start threads with ZERO actual content hosted on dakka are effectively making me click on a text ad when I view their thread. I'm not asking that people copy their entire blog entry but simply post a meaningful preview (two pics of a mini that they're showcasing or the army lists and first turn of a battle report) to whet viewer's appetites. If someone is interested, they can then follow the link to the full version (which I do frequently if given the option). If they don't do that, they indeed have the same actual content HERE as a shoe/purse spammer or a +1 or emoticon post. That's not an opinion but a fact... The link may be to the best website ever and may completely turn your views of the hobby upside down but the content HERE is zero. In fact, the shoe/purse spammers actually have more content HERE as they do indeed give you a preview of their product lists and prices/discounts, however unrelated it may be to gaming.

That is an opinion rather than a fact. Here is a differing opinion: a link to wargaming-related content is itself content. The example I provide below is when someone asks where they can find PP bits and someone replies by posting only a webstore link.

Kanluwen wrote:

Manchu wrote:

what point is there to letting them post their blog here?

What is the point of not allowing it?

Manchu, I know you're not misquoting me on purpose--but in my eyes there's a contextual difference between someone who posts a few 'teaser' images+a brief summation of what they did, such as a post like "These are my freshly painted Death Guard. I've got more detailed pictures posted here on my blog, if you'd like to check them out." and someone who posts nothing but the link to their blog.

One person is posting within the rules we have here on Dakka(i.e. "Posts must have content") while the other is making a post which goes under the "Spam" category (no content, no context, nothing).

Agreed. Manchu, I think you're addressing/focusing/refuting something that really isn't the point I'm trying to make. I have zero problem with people INCLUDING links in their threads; I only have a problem with threads started solely to post that link.

I don't see a problem with people who post a link by itself. To me, this is like a sign post. It is the equivalent of saying "here is some content." I'm not offended that people would recognize that Dakka is a good place to pick up some blog traffic or that they would use it for that purpose. Also, there's no gun to anyone's head forcing them to click on the link.

I agree with you, Warboss. For the painting and modeling areas, you should post more than a link to your blog. If there isn't at least one picture, the thread should be locked.

I'm all for sharing your work, but at least show a picture or two here. Otherwise, it's just spam.

100% agree, I don't mind posted YouTube videos, but when I'm getting pretty sick of people just posting blog links, actingl like free advertising, and I would gladly welcome a new Dakka rule forbidding this.

I like the idea of at least a couple pictures to go along with posting the link. The link might come in handy for folks who would might strictly want to follow the blog... but there needs to be some introductory content in the post. Not just 'click here'.

I agree entirely, I've seen a few too many threads promising something decent in the link only for it to be rather garbage. Now I don't really bother clicking the links unless I see it's good in the thread itself.

I've seen posts from the spam bots with more content than some of them.

I very stronly disagree with Warboss. To paraphase his arguments (which he can correct me on, of course) and answer them:

"Dakka is just for content."

Completely wrong -- Dakka is first and foremost for discussion rather than posting original content (just ask Kroothawk), although original content is great.

"Links to blogs are like Chinese spammers."

No, they're really not. In any way whatsoever. Those that are even close would be against our rules as a completely separate matter.

"Bloggers are looking for free advertisement."

That's true but there is no harm in it. In fact, that's a benefit: It's nice to use a site like Dakka to discover further resources. That was one of the reasons Dakka is my one-stop wargaming forum before I ever became a moderator. This is mutualism, not parasitism.

Generally speaking, I agree that OP should include some kind of preview in their post (excerpted text or pic) to help you decide whether you want to read on as a matter of courtesy. I don't think that not doing this is tantamount to spam or other rulebreaking or that it should be considered so.

Valkyrie wrote:100% agree, I don't mind posted YouTube videos, but when I'm getting pretty sick of people just posting blog links, acting like free advertising, and I would gladly welcome a new Dakka rule forbidding this.

This is more what Warboss is talking about. If you look in P&M(hell, even the Showcase!) people have been posting just a link to their blog and then saying "what do you think?" here.

They then, usually, never actually respond to the thread--instead addressing it on the blog.

Linking to blogs? It's fine, there's nothing wrong with it, etc.

But using Dakka to plug your blog using one line posts? Please. You might as well be a spambot at that point, because all you're doing is exactly what they do(plug in a URL and a line of text, call it a day).

Generally, it's always seemed like the 'acceptable' way for blogs to be plugged is less of a "Hey guys, check out my blog!" and then letting the thread die and more of a:
Post a bit of the content, then a link and have a link to your blog in your signature.

A link to wargaming-related content is hardly spam. If a thread dies because no one is interested in following a link then so be it. No one is harmed.

Again, I think you guys have a point as a matter of courtesy but not as a matter of punishing people or making new rules. There is a big difference between talking about what is ideal and talking about what should affect users' posting privileges.

Manchu wrote:A link to wargaming-related content is hardly spam.

I don't think anyone said it is?

The point was that the 'posting style' is similar.
They post their links, and then leave.

If a thread dies because no one is interested in following a link then so be it. No one is harmed.

You missed what I'm saying here Manchu. It's not that "no one is interested in following a link". It's that the OP has no interest in posting here on Dakka. They plug their blog, and then reply maybe once or twice to the thread here on Dakka before letting it rot.

People will ask questions to the OP, but get no answers here. They'll be told to "post on the blog", and then it gets answered there.

Dakka shouldn't be a 'captive audience' for bloggers who post stuff here to draw blog hits from, especially if the blog itself is subpar.

Again, I think you guys have a point as a matter of courtesy but not as a matter of punishing people or making new rules. There is a big difference between talking about what is ideal and talking about what should affect users' posting privileges.

Why not make a new rule?

Especially considering that it has happened in the Showcase, where links to blogs sure as heck do not belong wouldn't you agree?

I mean sure: a link to a blog accompanying photos of your miniatures? That's fine. Something like: "Do you want to know how I did this? Well check here, because I did a fairly extensive step-by-step!" underneath all the pretty pictures sounds great.

I see a benefit while you see a harm. The benefit is being linked to a resource you may not have known about otherwise. The harm is ... having to click another link?

OP doesn't own the thread s/he starts and isn't responsible for tending it. For example, I may start a thread posting my opinion of the Black Templar fluff and then never post in that thread again. That's not against any rule. Now what difference does it make if I start a thread about that where the OP is " Hey guys, I wrote a blog post with my take on the BT and here's a link"? In either case, people will discuss the subject or not. It has nothing to do with me posting in the thread beyond the OP.

I agree with the above
You can't be arsed to spend a bit of time to post here I can't be arsed to look

Realise people have busy lives but it seems like a common courtesy to show the content on Dakka.

Not in a position to pass comment on rules so at least for now just ignore the offending thread or post a polite request for pictures, but leave the linky.

Manchu wrote:I see a benefit while you see a harm. The benefit is being linked to a resource you may not have known about otherwise. The harm is ... having to click another link?

You're focusing too much on the 'link' part, I think.

There's absolutely, 100% no problem with being linked to something.
I have an entire bookmark folder devoted just to blogs that I like and follow regularly.
I also tried doing a blog, and came to the realization that unless I'm doing something really special or creative--it's just a waste of time for myself and anyone who clicked my link.

OP doesn't own the thread s/he starts and isn't responsible for tending it. For example, I may start a thread posting my opinion of the Black Templar fluff and then never post in that thread again. That's not against any rule. Now what difference does it make if I start a thread about that where the OP is " Hey guys, I wrote a blog post with my take on the BT and here's a link"? In either case, people will discuss the subject or not. It has nothing to do with me posting in the thread beyond the OP.

I never said that people should be punished for starting a blog and never replying to it.

But what I am saying is that we also shouldn't just roll over and let people use us as a free plug for their blogs. If they can't take the time to copy/paste a small amount of their content to post as a teaser--then what point is there to letting them post their blog here?

what point is there to letting them post their blog here?

What is the point of not allowing it?

Manchu wrote:

what point is there to letting them post their blog here?

What is the point of not allowing it?

Manchu, I know you're not misquoting me on purpose--but in my eyes there's a contextual difference between someone who posts a few 'teaser' images+a brief summation of what they did, such as a post like "These are my freshly painted Death Guard. I've got more detailed pictures posted here on my blog, if you'd like to check them out." and someone who posts nothing but the link to their blog.

One person is posting within the rules we have here on Dakka(i.e. "Posts must have content") while the other is making a post which goes under the "Spam" category (no content, no context, nothing).

Manchu wrote:I see a benefit while you see a harm. The benefit is being linked to a resource you may not have known about otherwise. The harm is ... having to click another link?

This is my response.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/403873/3443508.page#3443508

Now that I think a bit more on it, I think there is one important part that matters to this whole 'frame of reference'.

warboss wrote:the rise of the increasingly amateur blogosphere

It's very noticeable whether or not it's simply a matter of "new" bloggers trying to up their hit count(which I think is sneaky, underhanded, and ridiculous), or if it's people who just are too lazy to include content with their previews--it definitely has a bit in common with what I said about my own experiences doing a blog.

If it's "nothing special", it's not going to garner hits. Dave Taylor gets hits because he does fantastic work AND it's unique work.
CmDante gets hits because he does fantastic work, is receptive to feedback, and goes out of his way to explain how he does things.

... "These are my freshly painted Death Guard. I've got more detailed pictures posted here on my blog, if you'd like to check them out." and someone who posts nothing but the link to their blog.

How about someone who starts a thread with a title "Check out My Death Guard" where the OP is only a link? I have no trouble with that at all.

I do. It's lazy, it's a post that really does nothing outside of plug their blog and up their post count.

If we don't allow "+1" for posts by someone saying they agree with something, why should we allow this?

There is a difference: +1 posts contribute nothing. A link to wargaming-related content is a contribution.

Again, I'm not saying it isn't lazy. But being lazy on the internet isn't enough to merit punishment.

Manchu wrote:There is a difference: +1 posts contribute nothing. A link to wargaming-related content is a contribution.

Again, I'm not saying it isn't lazy. But being lazy on the internet isn't enough to merit punishment.

It's not a contribution unless you actually go there. The post in and of itself is completely empty. So, in essence, you're ok with people posting +1 or emoticon posts as long as they include a link to a more meaningful entry elsewhere on the internet? If someone responds to a thread on comp in tournies with the following:

+1 for comp.

http://www.thisiswhatireallythink.com/dakkapostresponse

You're ok with that? What if they START a thread titled "My opinion on comp" and just include the above as the body of their post? I get the feeling if I started up threads like this that I'd end up with a spam warning in my mailbox despite being on topic about gaming.

It's not a contribution unless you actually go there.

What you decide to do with another posters' contribution does not define the value of the contribution.

What if they START a thread titled "My opinion on comp" and just include the above as the body of their post?

Manchu wrote:"Links to blogs are like Chinese spammers."

No, they're really not. In any way whatsoever. Those that are even close would be against our rules as a completely separate matter.

Manchu wrote:

It's not a contribution unless you actually go there.

What you decide to do with another posters' contribution does not define the value of the contribution.

What if they START a thread titled "My opinion on comp" and just include the above as the body of their post?

Manchu wrote:"Links to blogs are like Chinese spammers."

No, they're really not. In any way whatsoever. Those that are even close would be against our rules as a completely separate matter.

I'm not sure what's going on with your quotes above. So.. are you ok with people starting other types of threads containing only links like the example I gave above? As for the paraphrased part, it's incorrect and more than a bit misleading. "Threads consisting ONLY of links to blogs are like Chinese spammers" would be closer to the point some people (including me) are trying to make; that one word makes a heck of a difference.

I am not trying to obfuscate your point. I also disagree that "OPs consiting ONLY of links to blogs are like Chinese spammers" for the reason I already gave.

Let me try and sort out your example. I'm okay with someone posting a thread entitled "My Opinion On Comp" and including only a link about comp in the OP. And I am not okay with the next post being "+1" by itself. If it says "+1" and a different link about comp, that's okay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In essence, there's nothing wrong with "+1" appearing somewhere in your post. It's "+1" by itself that is spam. A "+1" post contributes nothing of value.

Posting ONLY a link to wargaming-related content, when what is linked does not otherwise break our rules, is perfectly okay in my book. This is a contribution -- it shows you where you can find something that you might be interested in.

We can take it out of the context of OPs and you may understand more clearly. If I post a thread entitled "Where can I find PP bits?" and my OP only says "as per the title" then that is okay. If someone replies to me by posting only a link to a webstore that sells PP bits, that is okay. Can you tell me how that example is not contributing?

Manchu wrote:I am not trying to obfuscate your point. I also disagree that "OPs consisting ONLY of links to blogs are like Chinese spammers" for the reason I already gave.

He's equating it to the fact that they're not adding anything of value. They're not even hoping to get constructive criticism. They just want hits on their links, and they get those hits by shotgunning it.

Let me try and sort out your example. I'm okay with someone posting a thread entitled "My Opinion On Comp" and including only a link about comp in the OP. And I am not okay with the next post being "+1" by itself. If it says "+1" and a different link about comp, that's okay.

In essence, there's nothing wrong with "+1" appearing somewhere in your post. It's "+1" by itself that is spam. A "+1" post contributes nothing of value.

Just like a link to a mediocre blog contributes nothing of value to Painting & Modeling, the Showcase, or P&M Blogs section.
"What constitutes a mediocre blog?", I can just envision you saying it.

It's the quality of the models being portrayed, the blogger themselves (if the blogger spends more time posting "Pics next week" than actually posting pics--it might be a mediocre blog), and the aspect of the "Hobby"(and before someone jumps on me--no, that's not to say that Privateer Press painting blogs are bad or it should be GW centric, whatever. The "H" is to show that there is a "Hobby") that we're seeing. It's the contribution that the blog makes to the community.

Personally, I'd say just make a single thread where every Tom, Dick, and Harry can post a link to their blog. Make it a sticky or something. Anyone who posts the link outside of there, by itself--that's a warning. You can post that you've "updated" your blog, and show a teaser--but outside of that, it's a warning.

Make people ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING TO DAKKA.

Posting ONLY a link to wargaming-related content, when what is linked does not otherwise break our rules, is perfectly okay in my book. This is a contribution -- it shows you where you can find something that you might be interested in.

Posting ONLY a link to wargaming-related content is fine--if you're not posting it for a hit count on your blog.

We can take it out of the context of OPs and you may understand more clearly. If I post a thread entitled "Where can I find PP bits?" and my OP only says "as per the title" then that is okay. If someone replies to me by posting only a link to a webstore that sells PP bits, that is okay. Can you tell me how that example is not contributing?

No, that's taking it out of the context of not only OPs but out of the context of everything we're discussing.

When someone asks "Where can I find PP bits?" it's a self-explanatory title. It's also something which, whenever I answer these questions I'll post more than simply a link.
Why? Because it feels too dang spammy otherwise to me.
Is it spammy? Probably not, but still--it feels like it.

When someone posts "Here's models" and then just posts a link to their blog--it's lazy and quite frankly a tad insulting. What, their stuff is too good to post on Dakka? I need to go give them a hit count?

Yeah, let me do that...by passing on that.

He's equating it to the fact that they're not adding anything of value.

And I disagree with that equivocation.

They're not even hoping to get constructive criticism.

That is an assumption on your part. While it may be more or less true in any given particular circumstance, it does not constitute a policy argument.

Just like a link to a mediocre blog contributes nothing of value to Painting & Modeling, the Showcase, or P&M Blogs section.

Again, posting a link to wargaming related content is a contribution -- it shows someone where they can find something that they might not be able to otherwise.

"What constitutes a mediocre blog?"

This is immaterial. I suspect it reveals more about your position than mine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

When someone asks "Where can I find PP bits?" it's a self-explanatory title.

It's also something which, whenever I answer these questions I'll post more than simply a link.

Why? Because it feels too dang spammy otherwise to me.

Is it spammy? Probably not, but still--it feels like it.

That's it in a nutshell. There is a difference between something being against the rules and a thing that some (even many) users may find slightly irritating.

Except you're using a specific circumstance as an example of one thing rather than the other.

If someone were to post a thread in 40k Background that consisted of just a link to their "opinions" on the thread topic--that would be locked so fast your head would spin.

Yet for some reason, you're saying that in Modeling and Painting, the Modeling and Painting Showcase, and the P&M Blog section it's okay to do the same.

Are you seeing the problem?
Some things can be answered with a single link. But people's armies aren't necessarily going to follow the same rule.

If someone were to post a thread in 40k Background that consisted of just a link to their "opinions" on the thread topic--that would be locked so fast your head would spin.

I don't think so. There's nothing wrong with that. If I wrote up an article on my blog about how BT are dangerously close to falling to Chaos and post a link and only a link on Dakka -- well, probably no one would read it. But it's not spam so it would have to get locked for some reason other than being only a link.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Except you're using a specific circumstance as an example of one thing rather than the other.

No, I'm not. I gave an example of how posting only a link is not necessarily spam. The idea here is that posting only a link is like spam or is spam. My example was a legitimate counterpoint to that. It's unlike what you want to talk about (OPs) because it's an "answer" to a someone's specific question. But there is an analogy. When you browse Dakka for threads on BT background, you are asking a question. And by providing you a link to my blog article, I am preemptively providing you with an answer that you may not have otherwise found.

I'm sorry Manchu, but I think you're just "Not Getting It".

There's no problem with someone posting a link as a response to someone else or whatever circumstances you want to whip out where it'd be silly of someone not to just post a link("Where do I buy bits for Privateer Press stuff?" "<insert URL here>" or "Where can I find basic fluff for 40k?" "<insert URL here>").

But there is a problem when people for some reason believe that's acceptable to do in Painting and Modeling, when all they do is post a link to their blog and inevitably the thread just becomes people debating the merits of "Blog link or no blog link" whilst the OP doesn't log into Dakka for days, until they then show up and post another link to their blog as a brand new thread.

There's also a problem when the SHOWCASE has those threads, but I've been reporting those because if we're moving threads for not having things based entirely--then the simple drive-by blogplugging sure as heck doe snot belong.

To the extent there is a problem, it is a problem of taste rather than rulebreaking.

You need not report these threads until further notice.

Flaming such threads with angry "you're lazy, post some pics/text" posts remains against the rules.

Manchu wrote:To the extent there is a problem, it is a problem of taste rather than rulebreaking.

You need not report these threads until further notice.

Flaming such threads with angry "you're lazy, post some pics/text" posts remains against the rules.

How is that flaming? You're addressing the (lack of) content. As long as you do so in a tasteful manner without namecalling, I don't see that as flaming. I'm not sure how posting nothing is ok with the rules (whether spirit or letter) but discussing that lack isn't.