Is This Considered Spam?

[Reverend Jim]

We are getting a burst of posts all from IP 180.188.224.184

Wouldn't be a concern except they are all similar in content but from five different usernames (they come in pairs). Anything to be concerned about? If it was on the up-and-up, why use multiple accounts?

Jason_54    How do I choose a router for my home?
Jason_54    How do I setup my tp-link router for the first time?
aaron_30    How do I log into my Roku account?
aaron_30    Why You Must Experience Orbi Login At Least Once In Your Lifetime?
jos_387     The Millionaire Guide On Dlinkrouter.local To Help You Get Rich?
jos_387     What I Wish Everyone Knew About Router.asus.com.
david_229   Learn From These Mistakes Before You Learn Re.rockspace.local.
david_229   The Biggest Contribution Of Tplinkwifi.net To Humanity.
james_161   How do I setup my Amped Wireless Extender?
james_161   5 Common Mistakes Everyone Makes In Myrouter.local.

[rproffitt]

While my view is this is all spam, why not leave it there and see what Dani does? For now I'm stepping back to deal with a rental property and see where Dani is going next with Premium and spam.

What many of us call spam, Dani seems to think "this is good for SEO" therefore the message to me is this is a spam friendly place.

Dune - Let the spice flow.
Dani - Let the spam flow.

[Dani]

I just woke up and I’m still groggy in bed. In a few minutes, I’m going to migrate to the computer desk to see what’s going on and give my take.

However, I did delete a post rproffitt made calling out two users for having the same IP. It is a direct violation of privacy to publicly publish someone’s IP address. It’s something we could actually get in legal trouble for because it directly goes against our privacy policy.

Imagine if a moderator on Facebook or some other social media platform called you out for something and publicly posted your IP.

[rproffitt]

On top of that we see some shilling going on. Dani once wrote that this is OK since it's "Fake it till you make it." That's typical for companies and people like Theranos. We see where they usually land. Also:

How do you get yourself to a point of believing? Start make-believing. Be like a child, and make-believe. Act as if you have it already. As you make-believe, you will begin to believe you have received.
— Rhonda Byrne, The Secret (2006)

Let's see where this goes from here.

[Dani]

I finally made it out of bed.

My #1 rule is that moderators only take action when there is a direct rule violation, otherwise it is an abuse of power. I simply have faith in our existing rule set.

The posts have been deleted because they consist entirely of excerpts stolen directly from other websites, and therefore a direct violation of the "Keep It Legal" rule that "Do ensure you own intellectual property rights to what you post". Additionally, each post is ended with a link to the blog they're trying to promote on a new line after the excerpt, with no context around the link. That is a direct violation of the "Keep It Spam-Free" rule "Do not sign your posts instead of using the signature facility".

For example, for the now-deleted post at https://www.daniweb.com/hardware-and-software/threads/536207/how-do-i-setup-my-tp-link-router-for-the-first-time the contents of the post were simply:

Sometimes, the IP address of the router automatically changes. The default IP address of the Tp-link router is 192.168.1.1 with which a user can access the web interface of the tplinkwifi.net window. If for some reason the IP address has changed or your network manager has changed it, you can assign a new IP address to the router using the web management window. Sometimes, a user fails to interact with the web interface of the router through the tplinkwifi.net link, he can also type 192.168.1.1 as an alternative to access its web interface.
https://tplinkroutersetup.net/

The paragraph is a direct copy of a quote from tp-link.com/support, and the naked link thrown at the bottom with no context around it is a "fake signature". Both of those things are direct rule violations. What I'm against is just using intuition to decide whether a post should be deleted or not, because that is a recipe for adding subjectivity when moderating. It's also caused a problem in the past where some moderators thought something should be allowed while others thought something should not be allowed, and each acted on as such. Members had no idea what was expected of them because even moderators didn't know. Rules and rule violations should always be treated objectively. Otherwise, NO MEMBER will ever understand what is expected of them.

Imagine if a policeman can just come up to you and arrest you at any time because he, personally, thinks whatever you're doing could be perceived as being done with bad intentions. Allowing that kind of arbitrativeness is off-putting for community members to feel welcomed and feel free to contribute. As it is, studies have shown there's a huge barrier to forum members participating (across all internet-based forums) because many new forum members feel judged for their posts and therefore choose not to post at all, even if what they have to say would actually be very well received. I want to work towards eliminating that stigma, and not encouraging it.

[Dani]

I want to also add that every single post that I took moderator action against violated those exact same two rules in the same way. I treated each post on its own and infracted/deleted each based on its own merits.

[Reverend Jim]

It is a direct violation of privacy to publicly publish someone’s IP address.

Even if it is in the private Moderator's forum where I thought I was posting it? I'll assume it is private since it wasn't redacted. As you can see, instead of doing anything with the posts I just pointed them out semi-privately and asked.

[Dani]

Yes, posting IPs in the Moderator's only forum is fine.

However, I still urge mods to judge a post by its own merits and not to judge it by who the poster is, what else they've posted, where they live, etc.

[Reverend Jim]

Fair enough. To be clear I made the call based primarily on the fact that he was posting under multiple accounts. No reason to do that unless he felt he wasn't being kosher.

[Dani]

To be clear I made the call based primarily on the fact that he was posting under multiple accounts.

That's exactly my point. That isn't against the rules. I have multiple accounts. Happygeek always had multiple accounts. Narue always had multiple accounts. Having multiple accounts never was against our rules. Please don't make any mod-related calls based on things not against the rules. Just judge a post by the rules. If they aren't being kosher, then it's only a matter of time (and quite often, a short amount of time) before they break one of our rules.

[rproffitt]

That post went beyond posting under multiple accounts. It was spam and worse.

[Dani]

My point is that it was deleted for the blatant rule violations and not for any other reason. :-P