Site review threshold - let's nuke it

[Test-ok]

As long as you can tell the difference, then nuke the crap and move only the ones that look worthy. And your right it's not hard to tell. Your thinking on, pre-ban complete hemispheres. I hear that!

Being #1 has it's disadvantages, which lures what were calling 'those types'

fathoms idea sounds interesting.

I would nuke "basic site reviews" and start focusing on devaluation recovery... as these are the people that need our help and when you get someone with a problem... and help fix that problem... they will likely stay here to grow their SEO abilities. (well that the theory of it anyway).

We could launch icon 3 quick videos for Manual Review, PANDAized, and PENGUINized.

nuke the basic reviews...good idea
launch quick videos for Manual Review
pulls in the people we need.

Nice filter fathom

added: just took a look at that category, I must not see the majority of them coming in through the Get New Posts link. There's a lot more crap there than I thought there was...lot's more..Your right...too much work...my mistake.

[dzine]

I think it's a fab idea to provide in-depth site reviews. But we'll always have newbies asking for a "basic" one.

Maybe the site reviews thing can be combined with the 'trusted pros' idea mentioned earlier. Maybe the standard forum thread rating system can be rigged to trigger all sorts of things including fancy site reviews, closing/moving/deletion of threads, special attention and/or other actions </wild idea>

But as things are now, we really need to help those who come in and ask (in the G. Opt. forum most likely). Or not. I think we do. Should I have added a poll?

[fathom]

My take on this: when the rules and forum structure are made SO clear and easy that a 6-year-old (with a language problem even) can get em, then the ones who don't comply can go and take a flying .... .. . ....... ..... IMHO

Power is perception!

Should you not ban yourself?

The rule is no sock-puppets and you are wit sockpuppeting dzine because you what... refused to post back in 2005 - right?

I had to start an aka fathom account just to post that a mod thought they could "break the rules"... that sock puppet got banned... why do you get to keep yours?

Since we are all on the moral high ground why don't you ban dzine (as it should) and be your original wit account? ...since the rules and forum structure are made SO clear and easy that a 6-year-old (with a language problem even) can get em, then the ones who don't comply can go and take a flying .... .. . ....... ..... in your honest opinion.

The one truth I've learn in the past 'almost 10 years here' is "EVERYBODY LIES!"

[gazzahk]

Once again... deviating from the topic of the thread and more than happy if this post along with others I have made which are not relevant to this thread are removed…

I did not think retiring one persona and coming back with a new one was the meaning of sock puppet. ie Dazzlin Donna has just come back with a new name. As have others before and I hope will again. Many have been forced to do it because of password problems also. My understanding the rules about dual identity were to stop a) People who have been banned coming back as someone else and b) People agreeing with themselves with posts or supporting themselves in threads where there are disagreements going on. I would really hate it if the forum bans a person because they decided to retire a persona and start a new one. This would be a massive blow to trying to get back old members ie Does anyone here really believe dazzling donna should be banned for coming back and not wishing to use her old persona. I personally do not think this breaches the spirit of seochat rules and would be extremely sad if this was the view taken by admins or moderators.

Common sense needs to prevail with rules. I also think it is a bit harsh to claim everyone lies. Many will be insulted by that (not me as I certainly have been known to stretch the truth in the heat of an argument) but there are probably quite a few members here that have never lied here.

The mods here have a tuff job. I am far too lazy to spend my time cleaning up other peoples crap. I applaud all those both past and present who have donated their time to the largely thankless task. I really hope the new owners speed up the software upgrade to help make the mods job easier…

[Test-ok]

Rules are kind of like stop lights...if you stop at a Red and there's no one coming in any direction...it's ok to run it. Rules are like everything else in this business..it depends...IMO

[fathom]

Rhetoric, colorful or otherwise, is useful at times, but it does come with a price tag.

If you need to hide something because of pride, embellishment, or just plain old stupidty, you can with anonymity. But complacency and the desire to make a point e.g. "I play by the RULES"...

Come on... we bend, break, blow out of proportion, boast, brag, build up, corrupt, distort, exaggerate, fabricate, falsify, fudge, go to extremes, heighten, hike, hyperbolize, inflate, intensify, lay it on thick, magnify, make too much of, misquote, misreport, misrepresent, overdo, overemphasize, overestimate, pad, pretty up, puff, put on, romanticize, sortof scam, stretch, and (you get the picture) because we need to make ourselves feel more important.

Can we agree here?

I slam people because for one... they are not without flaws themselves and we all need a wakeup call on occasion. ...and when I do... I take the risk of getting hammered by all but I don't need to reinvent a new persona to hide the fact I did something possibly shameful, immoral, or unethical and don't wish to face the music, real or imagined so my pride can take a thrashing (real or imagined) for saying or doing something I don't want to admit "I didn't really think about at the time".

Obviously wit NEVER wanted to leave... he just didn't want to be ousted for staying (IMHO) the principle was more important (at the time) so dzine I apologize for "ousting you"... I enjoy dzine more than wit.

Go figure!

[labatt]

I apologize for making a somewhat on topic post

I'm wondering (and I'll look in to)... if someone submits a new post that contains a link... perhaps we can pop up a box asking if they are posting in the right section and highlighting common forums where links would be included (like site reviews). This is kind of along the lines of what I'm hoping to do with first posts - pop up a box reminding people to read the forum rules, make sure they are posting in the right spot, make sure it's relevant content, etc.

[dzine]

....ousted....

Hehe I never did anything shameful IMHO. Back then I said that the member "Wit" would no longer post because the admins back then were mocking the mods and I got fed up big time. I even kept on modding (in a nice way) after I stopped posting. Until of course 'someone' pulled the plug on that

I had already picked up the nickname 'dzine' as a joke, after someone else (a well-respected member with a tendency to change nicknames every year or so) had dropped it.

And yes I DID want to leave, and I did, but let's say that SEOChat still had ...umm... potential for me.

I wouldn't call this sockpuppeteering BTW. I don't answer Wit's questions, there are no mutual rep exchanges. Nothing. So I'll probably be safe there

</soz labatt for going off-topic again>

[fathom]

Back then I said that the member "Wit" would no longer post because the admins back then were mocking the mods and I got fed up big time.

Wrong thread to have this debate but:

Forgetting old news for the moment ownership isn't "mockery"... you were wrong then and you are still wrong today.

The issue then was "all sig links nofollow"... what a mockery... all those people left did what... "started a forum and added precisely what cause them to leave"... did everyone leave there to? I suppose it was debated over and everyone got an equal say.

Devshed (standalone) may not have been SEO Practitioners but they were #1 & #2 for SEO and search engine optimization phrases back then because they were brilliant they put their ranks first - you would do no less to deliver ranks for yourself - even if I protested... and all those people that left here (including Rand) thought the name of the game wasn't to make money... it was to listen to a bunch of whiners that don't put $$$$ into their decisioning power.

MN, just like, Ziff Davis Enterprises, DevShed (Standalone), and Darren Ward prior to that are business owners they are not just people without any tax, complaints, abuse, and other other liabilities at state that you do not put up your $$$$ to pay for no matter how much of a player you think you are here.

Today, if MN decides something it is THEIR BUSINESS DECISION... I'm sure if you handed Jim a million or two I'm sure he would give you the power but you cannot claim they are wrong as you don't flip the bills.

You can disagree and leave and maybe that bites hard enough that they decide to re-think their strategy... but mockery?

I call it employee mentality! ...or losing money isn't my concern.

[NathanielB]

I apologize for making a somewhat on topic post

I'm wondering (and I'll look in to)... if someone submits a new post that contains a link... perhaps we can pop up a box asking if they are posting in the right section and highlighting common forums where links would be included (like site reviews). This is kind of along the lines of what I'm hoping to do with first posts - pop up a box reminding people to read the forum rules, make sure they are posting in the right spot, make sure it's relevant content, etc.

It must be possible because I'm sure I remember seeing a popup here before when you post more then x links in a post? I think we had a thread about it some time back asking what the point was in but I can't remember tbh.

Either way, if not, it would be quite simple to write some php code to show a popup if in contains a link with what ever message.

[dzine]

... write some php code to show a popup if in contains a link with what ever message.

Gotta be careful with custom code. SEOChat is absolutely swamped with custom code. Which is probably why we still haven't updated from vB 3.0.

[NathanielB]

Gotta be careful with custom code. SEOChat is absolutely swamped with custom code. Which is probably why we still haven't updated from vB 3.0.

Good point but...

When I add custom code to scripts such as VB, shopping carts and wordpress etc, I tend to make a new folder and place the code in its own files in that folder and then simply use php includes on the main site pages where xyz file should be.

It makes it a lot easier when you come to do upgrades and you can add a text file to the folder with a map of where each file in it needs to be placed.

For example say you had link-popup.php and you wanted that to be included on newreply.php you would put that in the text file so you can easily put all your includes in the right files should you need to redo custom code after an update etc.

[labatt]

Well, the good thing for us is that I have a team of developers here who are writing PHP and Perl code to support all of our internal applications and public tools. We have a pretty good infrastructure for development and management of applications. We'll be taking those best practices and applying them here.

[dzine]

Well, the good thing for us is that I have a team of developers here who are writing PHP and Perl code to support all of our internal applications and public tools. We have a pretty good infrastructure for development and management of applications. We'll be taking those best practices and applying them here.

Maybe we can be saved from the curse of vB3.0 pretty soon after all.

</fingers style="crossed">

[labatt]

Just so there's no misunderstanding, especially on timeframes... all of the sites are still comingled with the Ziff Davis properties... so step one is getting a new infrastructure secured and the sites moved to it. That will be in approximately 4 weeks. Within 2-3 weeks after that, I expect we'll have VB4.2 sites ready for testing, with rollout soon thereafter. The back end, like the front end, has not been updated for years so this is an "interesting" process. But... we're pushing hard and perservering, and I'll keep everyone updated as we move forward.