BEWARE Snake Oil Salesmen!

Pugsy wrote:

palerider wrote:
I think it'd be a good idea to obfuscate the URL a bit, so that search engines don't pick it up and increase the rankings of crap...

I can do that but then people can't read the crap....what do you all want?
Maybe copy the message and post it and then block the link or simply remove it??

I can do that easily or . could do that himself.

I see PR's point and like I said...I am a bit torn about giving them free air time...what do the rest of you want?

I think that if you just break it up, like putting in a couple of spaces, so it doesn't LOOK like an URL to the search engine spiders, then that'd be fine, and if someone wanted to go there, they could just paste it in, and take out the spaces...

The same way that you were telling guests to paste imgur links. like, remove the http:// and put in a couple spaces in the domain name (first part before the first slash)

You’re the mod, not us.

You were given the job because you are able to do it, so make your decision based on what you think is best. If you later change your mind, that’s not really a big deal.

ColinP wrote:You’re the mod, not us.

You were given the job because you are able to do it, so make your decision based on what you think is best. If you later change your mind, that’s not really a big deal.

Yeah and I let it stand originally but I do see PR's point as I had the same thought go through my mind.
Damned it you do and damned if you don't. The lines aren't always black and white and that is what makes the moderator job so hard.
If it was easy it wouldn't be a "job" would it?

My job doesn't include moderating what Google does ....my job is just the forum here and the people here.
PR feels more strongly about this than I do but it's not that I don't feel the way he does...he just feels more strongly about it. I am more wishy washy in my feelings about it.

Since I am still on the wishy washy side of the fence I will think on it some more and again ask others how they feel about potentially giving air time to a website that we don't think is a good idea to be giving it air time. Mainly more to get a feel for how others feel in situations like this...not so much for this website but in general....do we really want to be censors for air time and google hits? Is that our job?

I am sure that I am the least qualified person here on cpaptalk to have an opinion on this topic. I almost feel like apologizing for commenting but of course anyone who doesn't want to read this can easily skim right over it, or may even have me blocked from view completely? (which is totally cool with me)

I think it is far more important for the smart people to simply teach/protect by commenting, by debunking, by refuting bad information and also (ideally) to teach others *by example* and out in the OPEN about critical thinking. It's seems almost dangerous to simply hide this information? To assume that others cannot see 'shiny pretty' internet misinformation and learn discernment for themselves?

Like tricking all children with a secret door to the kitchen so that they can never enter and get near to a hot stove.

The stove will still exist.




*Note* ... however as a professional *I* can completely understand taking out one's competition in anyway with which you have the power. So I suppose it depends on one's POV and goal ~~~

I tend to lean towards how Grace feels and while I do understand the desire to limit crap stuff air time hits on Google...I think that education here is a better goal. Not my job to legislate what people choose to read or not read.

But it would be really easy to do both (educate and limit the free air time)...like PR says...just modify the link a bit so it won't get air time but people wanting to read the stuff can easily work around it.

It's not like I would be totally removing the link...just fixing it so that it won't get free air time on Google.

It is easy to do...just like how we would have guests post the links to their imgur reports when they couldn't post links.
Use (dot) instead of . and tell people to put the . in place of (dot) and the link would work...and Google wouldn't be able to pick it up.

What I am asking...is how many of you feel as strongly as PR about doing this sort of thing in these situations???

Pugsy wrote:. . . doing this sort of thing in these situations???

Slippery slope.

Only do what you can imagine Johnny doing if he had the time to do it.

Only my personal opinion, that. I will respect your choice(s).

jnk... wrote: Slippery slope.

Only do what you can imagine Johnny doing if he had the time to do it.

Slippery indeed.

Here's the deal...I already know how Johnny feels about censorship in any form...plus he has already told me that I get to form my own opinions about where the "lines" are. I think his words were "judgement call" . He's real big on "judgement calls".
He didn't make it easy for me at all.

Pugsy wrote:

jnk... wrote: Slippery slope.

Only do what you can imagine Johnny doing if he had the time to do it.

Slippery indeed.

Here's the deal...I already know how Johnny feels about censorship in any form...plus he has already told me that I get to form my own opinions about where the "lines" are. I think his words were "judgement call" . He's real big on "judgement calls".
He didn't make it easy for me at all.

IMO, the best mods modify and moderate their modding by attempting to reflect the judgement of the owners of the forum. That is a legal protection to the moderator, who otherwise could be held solely responsible for everything.

The police make judgement calls, yes. But only within the structure handed down to them by the state, not according to each enforcement entity choosing his or her own framework. If enforcement start to believe they are the state, they take on more power than they can effectively wield in practice. Especially when it may be another guy on the beat tomorrow or the next day, as seems to be the plan here.

Make judgment calls, yes. But judge what you would imagine the owners doing. So if you know how Johnny feels about censorship, use your judgment only to decide how best to reflect that, instead of using your personal judgment to figure out what your preference is or what our collective preference is.

I don't feel strongly on the issue at hand or anything I just wrote above. My primary interest is your keeping your sanity, my friend. We need it around here.

Pugsy wrote: What I am asking...is how many of you feel as strongly as PR about doing this sort of thing in these situations???

Every time you censor, you set a precedence that that adds oil to the slope.

As for my feeling(s) re: PR, I'm sure you already know ... and you don't want them repeated right?

Pugsy wrote:I tend to lean towards how Grace feels and while I do understand the desire to limit crap stuff air time hits on Google...I think that education here is a better goal. Not my job to legislate what people choose to read or not read.

But it would be really easy to do both (educate and limit the free air time)...like PR says...just modify the link a bit so it won't get air time but people wanting to read the stuff can easily work around it.

It's not like I would be totally removing the link...just fixing it so that it won't get free air time on Google.

It is easy to do...just like how we would have guests post the links to their imgur reports when they couldn't post links.
Use (dot) instead of . and tell people to put the . in place of (dot) and the link would work...and Google wouldn't be able to pick it up.

What I am asking...is how many of you feel as strongly as PR about doing this sort of thing in these situations???

I agree with PR. The link would still be viewable for those that want to see it but it would reduce promotion for these kinds of scams. Although my understanding is even visiting the site promotes it. Which is why I won't even go to that site, if someone has already spoken about it.

From Mayo Clinic re: Resperate
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-con ... Q-20057998

jnk... wrote:Make judgment calls, yes. But judge what you would imagine the owners doing. So if you know how Johnny feels about censorship, use your judgment only to decide how best to reflect that, instead of using your personal judgment to figure out what your preference is or what our collective preference is.

I hear you...but part of the reason I am here is that the owners want my own opinions to be a factor in addition to their own. Otherwise I wouldn't be where I am and they already pretty much know where most of my thoughts tend to lean and for the most part they lean with Johnny's idea of how to "manage from a distance". Notice I said "for the most part"... He also knows where I differ with his thoughts...not much but some differing is there.

Most lines are going to be fairly clear to me within my own opinions...this one here in this thread is not one that is so clear because I can see it both ways. I can see the good and the bad side but I can't pinpoint which outweighs the other in my mind anyway.

I keep going back to the forum health and mission as the backbone for my considerations. What's good for the forum as a whole type of thing. That's my job here.

Johnny would leave the link alone and since I can't come up with solid reasoning to do something different (yet anyway in my mind) it will remain for the time being as it is. Now maybe later I might modify it a bit and quit giving them free air time but not just yet unless I markedly change my mind...but hey...I am a woman and that's what women do best..... "change their minds".

Most of the women I work with excel at recognizing competing/conflicting protocols and applying the most appropriate one without setting a precedent.

But if mods will change and each mod acts according to each mod's preferences, something may be lost in community stability and continuity. It is difficult to combine a benevolent dictatorship with mob rule without a clear constitution. That could quickly become even more confusing than the previous anarchy. So if the User Agreement doesn't address it, and the only basis for changing it is "I don't like it" or "other people don't like it," things could get tricky and confusing and stressful for you in a hurry.

End of my comments. My opinions are on the record. I will henceforth do my utmost to maintain strict neutrality in all future political discussions concerning board maintenance.

I see that some of you posted after I started to compose my latest reply.

So here are some replies to those posts.

DreamStalker wrote:Every time you censor, you set a precedence that that adds oil to the slope.

As for my feeling(s) re: PR, I'm sure you already know ... and you don't want them repeated right?

Understood and I agree about the oil to the slope which is why I have held off in this situation.
And yes..there is no need to go down the road with your feelings about PR and I appreciate your not going there. It serves no useful purpose to go there.

To Everyone:
When people start making things "personal" it actually detracts from an otherwise useful discussion of ideas and just leaves a bad taste in my mouth and makes things worse instead of better...so why go there. When people do that...make it personal with personal attacks...in my mind their opinion value drops.
It all goes back to "attack the message if you feel you must but not the messenger"...We don't have to agree with them but there's no need to get nasty and hateful while disagreeing.

Marillion wrote:I agree with PR. The link would still be viewable for those that want to see it but it would reduce promotion for these kinds of scams. Although my understanding is even visiting the site promotes it. Which is why I won't even go to that site, if someone has already spoken about it.

And I see your point as well which makes this a slippery slope to get on. I thank you for your input.

Marillion wrote: I agree with PR. The link would still be viewable for those that want to see it but it would reduce promotion for these kinds of scams. Although my understanding is even visiting the site promotes it. Which is why I won't even go to that site, if someone has already spoken about it.

I also agree with palerider. That site would benefit by having users of this site link directly to it. Simply make it not be a clickable link. Anyone who wants to go there can copy/paste and remove spaces or whatever to visit the site.