Webworkshop article

Did anyone see one of the latest articles from webworkshop.net?
In one of them says that this forum (the admins) deletes posts that may be considered as "unethicals". Is this true? I don't think so anyway.

No i cant imagine that, and i haver never seen this here!

We actually have a policy of not deleting posts. We only delete posts that are SPAM (i.e. promoting Web sites that are not relevant to SEO). For example, if someone here posts the same thread in every forum about a Web site on something he or she is selling on Ebay, we will delete it. Why? b/c it wastes our members time.

We take pride in our members and we respect your posts.

I've seen it happen here a few months ago. It was supposedly due to "flaming". I don't think it hapens very often though.

People are entitled to their own opinions, but since I have been here I have never seen any threads removed.

I personally have removed a few posts... simply because the matter being discussed was a private one and should be discussed privately.

Beyond that - open discussions are just that "open".

The author of that article posted in a thread on this forum. One of the mods deleted a few posts in the thread without explanation and the discussion of deleted posts went from there. http://forums.seochat.com/showthrea...=&threadid=2103

It is obvious that the policy of deleting posts has been clarified since that incident, as fathom has noted. It is also worth noting that the author of that article has had similar disputes on WW... so consider the source.

I think very "silly Threads" should be deleted. I think nobody can learn about them.
Right done Mods!

I'm sorry to bring this up again so long after the last post but I've only just seen it. Some of you will know that I am the author of the article that was mentioned. The reason that I made the comment about this forum in the article was because of the deleted thread a couple of months ago. If I may, I'll explain what happened.

A decent sized thread was underway when I joined it - I think it was big enough to be on the second page. In my post, I defended the use of doorway pages and shortly afterwards the entire thread (not just a few posts) was deleted. I may have posted twice by then - the memory is a little rusty.

Straight away a follow-up thread was started (the one that's linked to in an earlier post above) to question why the thread had been deleted. jason owned up to having deleted it, saying that it was full of flames. It wasn't. One person flamed in a post and he apologised in the follow-up thread.

I believe that some of the people in that follow-up thread got it right - that it was deleted because somebody defended the use of doorway pages - a so-called spam technique. To me, it was censorship, and ugly.

Kirby made an excellent point in the follow-up thread - that debates between different opinions are educational. They give people the opportunity to hear the arguments from both sides, and to make up their own minds.

Kirby also said something in this thread that I'd like to mention - that I had a similar problem at WMW. That's true. Unfortunately, the thread was deleted because of the problem, but I can assure you that the administrator was in the wrong, and that Brett Tabke agreed, although he wouldn't overrule the other admin. If you know Brett, please check it out (if he remembers the details).

I can also add that I've recently had a similar problem in another forum. That thread is still there at http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=3446. You can read it if you want to. The moderator, fathom, locked the thread at the place on the second page where he said, "Nothing more here, time to move on". He did it because he simply didn't care for the discussion any more, but he made sure that he got the last word in, of course. An administrator didn't approve of what he did and she reopened it.

I sometimes have problems in forums because I have different views to those of many people, and I do sometimes get into some good debates. When you have moderators with different views, they sometimes get a bit heavy-handed. It's a shame because they deprive people of information - entirely the opposite to what forums are about, I think. The WMW occassion was nothing to do with my views though. The admin there jumped to the wrong conclusion that two of us were trying to pinch their members. It wasn't true.

PhilC,

I am glad you posted this.

I feel it is important to discuss SEO methods that people might feel are "non-compliant seo". I personally would like you to discuss them here.

What happened to your threads in the past is the past. Lets not bring it up. Please post SEO related topics and lets keep it at that.

Phil, you have views that are enlightening and at the same time controversial. They are bound to start a heated conversation. As long as we can keep the convo SEO related and not discuss personal issues, I believe no one would be insulted.

Sound good?

We are all human.

FYI - I have moved this thread to a more appropriate forum (suggestions and feedback).

Yes Phil, at times mods can make mistakes but I do not think that this forum has been particularly censoring - and perhaps I am biased but I think in general this forum has the most respectful mods in all of the useful forums That is why I gratiously accepted when I was accepted into the fold. And with the way Jon approached it I can tell you that he really cares about the quality of his mods and we all want to make sure the quality of posts is kept high while at the same time maintaining a sense of community that makes us all feel comforatable enough to post any subject.

I also believe that some "alternative" "taboo" subjects can make for very interesting subjects, why just the other day we were joined by a poster from cyber robotics defending zeus which will likely serve "and possibly convert" many a zeus nah sayer.

As long as we are respectful and sticking to webmaster issues I do not feel subjects should be frozen or deleted.

I hope you give this forum a chance as you are a welcome member and we value your contribution.

I was out of line for the "consider the source" line.

You weren't out of line at all Kirby. Sources should be taken into account if necessary. I don't go around flaming or ranting and raving, but I do get into a lively discussion occassionally because of my views.

The WMW thing was about something quite different though. They thought that 2 of us were writing posts that were designed to attract people to our forum. It was a bit of paranoid thinking. I talked with Brett about it and the reason they think like that is that WMW itself was built up in exactly that way, so they are well aware of the possibiliy, and they are on the lookout for it. They even have a phrase for it. I've forgotten exactly what it is but it's to do with tag-teaming - 2 or 3 people from another forum engineer a discussion between themselves that is designed to attract people to their own forum.

Brett said that they often get people doing that. Whether they do or not, I've no idea. I know they thought we were doing it when we weren't.

That's not a criticism of WMW. If it happens to them, they are right to try and prevent it. Anyway, I'm rambling.....

So it's sensible to look at who it is that's saying something, and I don't think you were out of order, Kirby.

You are making assumptions based on mere spectulation, and you would be wrong.



I can't speak for others, but I will speak for myself.

I enjoy forum life, I enjoy discussions, I even enjoy a good debate. The thread in question was lock for 3 facts:

1. The level of discussion was well above that of WPW members. Noting that not one other person had an opinion one way or the other... strange?

2. The debate was of no interest to anyone else, the same view and opinion was simply repeated by you and me. A show of wits nothing more.

3. It was time to get on to other things.

We may not agree, we may never agree - but I do not edit, lock, delete posts or threads just because your views are different from mine.

I welcome your views PhilC - however, the administrator didn't know why it was locked - thus re-opened the thread until she could talk to me. Do not confuse a simply button action as "disapproving".

I moderate there and here. I accepted these responsibilities because I believe I have something to offer forum members.

While members need not be accountable for the conduct of discussions.. I am, and I accept accountability for any actions I take, and I stand by them.

I also have the backing of both forum administrations.

You are welcome to message me any time.

Rod

fathom
Moderator SEOChat

Rod. Locking a thread against the participants is a very serious matter, IMO, and I don't think the reasons you gave are good enough grounds for locking one. I do think that nobody is capable of deciding that a discussion is well above other people and, even if they were, it still isn't a valid reason to lock a thread. Heck, you and I were in the discussion so it can't have been above other people ;)

But I don't want to debate this in public so I'll take up your suggestion and go to PM.

Serious sure... I'll agree to that.

But notice not one other member of 12,000+ has voiced a problem, a concern, another opinion, including others Mods or Admins.

Beating a dead horse, doesn't bring it to life no matter how hard you try.

Here's a possible solution...

Request from Administration my resignation.

Show them that I acted well outside the discussion forums policies, and I have abused my status.

You obviously believe this, thus take action.

I did, and will stand by it.

A single thread deleted or a single thread locked is not the end of the web as we know it.

There was not then and is not now a conspiracy against any member to stop them from posting their views.

I am thoroughly tired of this never-ending discussion, which has no end. It's purpose (in my opinion) is to inflame responses - to get as many members debating a useless debate.

Time for me to move on to helping other members.