[OT] Is "via JavaKB.com" spam?

[David Segall]

I think an advertisement in the Author line is spam. Andrew Thompson,
who uses it in his Author line, also thinks it is. He says "I have
been in contact with the JavaKB staff and they have already indicated
an interest in making further changes to their WITUN, in exchange for
me promoting it over GG."

Does anybody disagree?

 

[Jason Cavett]

I think an advertisement in the Author line is spam. Andrew Thompson,
who uses it in his Author line, also thinks it is. He says "I have
been in contact with the JavaKB staff and they have already indicated
an interest in making further changes to their WITUN, in exchange for
me promoting it over GG."

Does anybody disagree?

I think if it's just one line and the author is a normal person (AKA -
not a bot), it's not a big deal. So, no, I guess I do not consider it
spam as it's unobtrusive and does not affect my ability to read the
message.

 

[Oliver Wong]

I think an advertisement in the Author line is spam. Andrew Thompson,
who uses it in his Author line, also thinks it is. He says "I have
been in contact with the JavaKB staff and they have already indicated
an interest in making further changes to their WITUN, in exchange for
me promoting it over GG."

Does anybody disagree?

That's an (unintentionally?) sneaky phrasing: it makes it easier to
(falsely) conclude that if nobody responds, nobody disagrees.

Everybody has their own definition of spam. Mine (in the context of
newsgroup postings) is a post for which the author has no intention of
reading any replies. So for example, someone who posts "Check out my cool
website on J2EE", and then never visits the newsgroup again is a spammer.
Someone who posts "Check out my cool website on J2EE" and then reads any
"feedback" he receives on his site is not a spammer. Someone who writes "I
wrote this shareware Java app. You can download it here. Tell me what you
think" and then reads the constructive criticism and adapts his
application appropriately is not a spammer. Someone who writes "I wrote
this shareware Java app. You can download it here. Tell me what you think"
and then never reads the newsgroup again is a spammer.

Under my definition, Andrew's posts are not spam (since Andrew reads
the replies to his post). Also, my definition doesn't really allow the
possibility for a part of a post to be spam, and the rest to be non-spam.

I don't expect everybody to adopt my definition.

- Oliver

 

[Andreas Leitgeb]

Everybody has their own definition of spam. Mine (in the context of
newsgroup postings) is a post for which the author has no intention of
reading any replies.

While it's a definition, that hits the nail on its head,
it's unfortunately also a indeterminable-in-time definition.

Only, after a certain time (a month or so) has passed after
first followup, one can speculate that the author seems not
to come back to read the answers. (or he might even read the
responses, but for some technical reasons be unable to answer,
or even be unable to even read the answers.)

So, we'll have to adopt some definition that might perhaps
not be 100% correct, but best effort, and base the classification
on previous experience. If a posting looks like spam but comes
from a regular, then it's experience that we can expect him to
come back. If it's advertising fake rolex', then experience
tells us, that the poster most likely is not coming back.

just my $0.02

 

[Andrew Thompson]

I think an advertisement in the Author line is
spam. Andrew Thompson, who uses it in his ..

(automatically generated)

..Author line, also thinks it is. He says "I have
been in contact with the JavaKB staff and they
have already indicated an interest in making
further changes to their WITUN, in exchange for
me promoting it over GG."

You quoted so much of that post, I feel it
worth linking to the thread, for the context.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/browse_frm/
thread/d88e319cc0465bf1/ea4770a582a7806c?#ea4770a582a7806c>

Since seeing /this/ thread, I have asked
JavaKB to remove the auto generated addition
to the Author field, and I think that has
happened just recently (note that I am
posting through GG on this reply).

Couple of notes.
- JavaKB has expressed in interest in
hearing my suggestions, no more promised
or expected.
- They had scheduled changes to their WITUN
to occur over the next 3-5 months.
- I will make my decision about how much,
and in what form, to support JavaKB, as
the final form of their alterations
emerges from that process.

...for now, I am simply 'giving it a go', to
get a feel for its strengths and weaknesses,
which was one of the reasons I first started
posting through Google Groups.

HTH

Andrew T.

 

[Oliver Wong]

..Author line, also thinks it is. He says "I have
been in contact with the JavaKB staff and they
have already indicated an interest in making
further changes to their WITUN, in exchange for
me promoting it over GG."

[...]
- They had scheduled changes to their WITUN
to occur over the next 3-5 months.

What the heck is "WITUN"? It seems for this particular query, Google
is not my friend... (http://www.google.ca/search?q=WITUN)

- Oliver

 

[Ian Wilson]

What the heck is "WITUN"? It seems for this particular query, Google
is not my friend... (http://www.google.ca/search?q=WITUN)

Web Interface To UseNet

 

[Oliver Wong]

Web Interface To UseNet

Thanks.

- Oliver

 

[Andrew Thompson]

..Author line, ...

[...]
- They had scheduled changes to their WITUN

...
What the heck is "WITUN"? It seems for this particular query, Google
is not my friend... (http://www.google.ca/search?q=WITUN)

My apologies. I usually express the entire
phrase before using the abbreviation I use
(came up with) for it. Luckily Ian has
either noticed me using it, or is naturally
clever with these types of things - thanks Ian.

Andrew T.

 

[Greg R. Broderick]

I think an advertisement in the Author line is spam.

Fortunately, there's a much more content-neutral definition of spam within
the context of Usenet postings. It is called the Briedbart Index (usually
abbreviated "B.I."). See <http://www.stopspam.org/usenet/mmf/breidbart.html>
for a description of how the B.I. of a posting is calculated.

Traditionally, postings with a B.I. > 20 are considered to be cancellable
Usenet spam.

Cheers!

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg R. Broderick (e-mail address removed)

A. Top posters.
Q. What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Oliver Wong]

message

Fortunately, there's a much more content-neutral definition of spam
within
the context of Usenet postings. It is called the Briedbart Index
(usually
abbreviated "B.I."). See
<http://www.stopspam.org/usenet/mmf/breidbart.html>
for a description of how the B.I. of a posting is calculated.

Traditionally, postings with a B.I. > 20 are considered to be
cancellable
Usenet spam.

So this definition considers two newsgroup articles to be
"substantively identical" if they both advertise the same service. If
Andrew decides to go with JavaKB, and if JavaKB changes the author line of
all of Andrew's post to "Andrew, via JavaKB", then *ALL* of Andrew's posts
will be "substantively identical" according to this definition.

Therefore, this definition is basically saying every post Andrew makes
are identical to each other, and the more newsgroups he posts in, the more
he is "spamming". As soon as he posts to more than 20 newsgroups, a
complaint canceller will cancel every post he makes from then on, until he
(and/or JavaKB) stops advertising the JavaKB service.

In other words, I don't think the author of the definition had
conceived of this particular case, and so that definition may not be apt
here.

- Oliver

 

[David Segall]

(automatically generated)


You quoted so much of that post, I feel it
worth linking to the thread, for the context.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/browse_frm/
thread/d88e319cc0465bf1/ea4770a582a7806c?#ea4770a582a7806c>

Since seeing /this/ thread, I have asked
JavaKB to remove the auto generated addition
to the Author field, and I think that has
happened just recently (note that I am
posting through GG on this reply).

Couple of notes.
- JavaKB has expressed in interest in
hearing my suggestions, no more promised
or expected.
- They had scheduled changes to their WITUN
to occur over the next 3-5 months.
- I will make my decision about how much,
and in what form, to support JavaKB, as
the final form of their alterations
emerges from that process.

..for now, I am simply 'giving it a go', to
get a feel for its strengths and weaknesses,
which was one of the reasons I first started
posting through Google Groups.

HTH

Andrew T.

 

[David Segall]

(automatically generated)


You quoted so much of that post, I feel it
worth linking to the thread, for the context.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp...9cc0465bf1/ea4770a582a7806c?#ea4770a582a7806c>

Since seeing /this/ thread, I have asked
JavaKB to remove the auto generated addition
to the Author field, and I think that has
happened just recently

Thanks for the clarification Andrew. I could not have known that "via
JavaKB.com" was automatically generated and I am pleased that you
share my objection to commercial advertising in the Author line.

I think that anybody is entitled to include (almost) anything,
including a site advertisement, in the "sig field" but repeated posts
in the heading or content field represent commercial advertising which
is, in theory, not permitted in this group.

I refrained from arguing against the posters who, irrefutably, argued
that "via JavaKB.com" was not strictly spam although I felt that your
Author line was "commercial advertising". I shared their feeling that
your posts were valuable and that you should be encouraged to keep
posting even if you included a full screen advertisement for Microsoft
Vista.

 

[Greg R. Broderick]

message


So this definition considers two newsgroup articles to be
"substantively identical" if they both advertise the same service.

Not by my reading -- neither post's substantiative content (or intended
purpose) is to advertise javakb.com, rather the substantiative content of the
post is an answer to a question or a contribution to a discussion. This
substantiative content is significantly different from one post to another,
so you've got two posts that are 99 percent different and 1 percent the same.
This isn't "substantiatively identical", IMHO.

Moreover, the footer that is automatically added by the posting software at
javakb.com is analogous to the signature that most news readers can be
configured to add. It has long been accepted Usenet culture that one can
'advertise' an URL, web site or other resource in one's signature without
spamming, as long as the signature itself isn't "too large" (four to five
lines seems to be the accepted size) and so long as the body of the posting
contains some contribution to the subject of the news group (as Andrew's
posts generally do).

So, IMHO, javakb.com (and by extension Andrew) is not spamming by appending
those two lines to the ends of posts made through their service.

Cheers!

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg R. Broderick (e-mail address removed)

A. Top posters.
Q. What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
---------------------------------------------------------------------