0
6

[–] astarkey12 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Where do you draw the line between "content creator" and "spammer" though? Reddit demarcates it at 90/10, meaning 90% or more of your posts and comments must not be self-promotional in nature (extremely difficult to enforce due to a lack of tools), and this topic is going to be even more important as the site experiences serious growth and becomes a target for people looking to exploit it.

0
5

[–] doesitmakesound [S] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I think there is also a difference between online marketers and people that truly use a website. I'm thinking of something more broad where even users can sign up and have a link to their RL stuff. It's subtle and open to anyone like this: http://i.imgur.com/pJ85QyZ.png. Are you on /v/fitness all the time and people love your stuff? You could post on there with a little thing acknowledging you're the OP and potentially start building something real. I have a history of trying to help entrepreneurs get going, so I really would love the site to support people breaking out of the rat race. Email lists are great and only people that want to sub to something like that will. This also promotes people to make seriously awesome content.

Typically the people that I've seen banned over the years are regular users that also created something cool. You can easily see a spammer by looking at their user submissions. The 90/10 rule is fake. The decisions made by moderators and admins are mostly based on someone becoming popular and they want to just remove them. There could still be a 90/10 rule in place but also make it acceptable to be affiliated with the things you make. Generally user votes do a good job at downvoting people that are just blatantly posting their stuff. I think the aggression towards anyone being well-liked or popular on reddit is because moderators aren't liked and get nothing besides the power they use. Jealousy or something.

So, to answer more specifically:

  • I think users do a very good job at finding and downvoting spammers.
  • You can look at a person's history to see if they're a real account or spamming stuff (this is a serious problem in the political subs and they don't care since it is in line with their political agenda). Speaking of which, fairness in posts on subs like that could be promoted with a good affiliate ruleset.
  • I'm not promoting advertisement posts are standard. I'm saying to create more openness and tools so people aren't pitchforked by moderators / admins for their attempt to post their creation.

0
0

[–] lofalexandria 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The 90/10 rule may have been good in theory on Reddit but it was implemented and enforced in an absurdly shitty manner. I once lost an account because I posted like 5 links to my blog over the course of a week because I incorrectly assumed the rule equally considered links and comments. Wrong, my 5 links flagged me as a spammer and got me shadowbanned despite well over a hundred comments over the same time frame, most in the subs the links were posted to.

If there are going to specific rules limiting the posting of your own content then they need to be explicit, evenly enforced, and include tools for tracking this, for example, how the would I know my exact ratio of my content to other links on Reddit without going through my history and explicitly counting it out?

I agree the floodgates can't be just left wide open but I think the op is right that there needs to be some degree of focus on supporting and enabling content creators.

0
1

[–] Haredeenee 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Reddit just recently closed redditgifts, essentialy deleting an entire community made of content creators.

Their reason was "not the direction we want to go"

There was ZERO warning to either the customers or creators. The community is scrambling to regroup, with no resources to look back on and see where they got their favourite products from, or even look at their wishlist.

I urge you to read the comments, and laugh at the admin dancing around questions.

0
2

[–] doesitmakesound [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I see a trend... removing us, redditmade, redditgifts. Some transparency would be nice. They keep saying "new direction".

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] doesitmakesound [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

This is a great step and I like the team's efforts here but I think it's the wrong approach.

Giving someone the ability to collect emails, followers, or whatever else is more long-term & powerful for someone wanting to build something over taking revenue directly from Voat. If reddit is any example, it is difficult to become profitable on a format like this too, so I'd rather they keep it. I would be very willing to pay a monthly subscription to have a designated link of what I do and remove some worries about moderators making their own decision rather than voting users. It'd be a business development program that Voat would have to officially run.

0
0

[–] doesitmakesound [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Maybe these users get a Creators Page or something instead of choosing where the link goes. On that page, much like a subverse (or it could be a subverse) you have a page like a bio or company bio. That way you don't get people using affiliate links all over too.

0
1

[–] Vladimir_Komarov 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It's certainly a fine line to walk, but the community may be able to self-regulate. I certainly don't want to promote the old double standard, but the alternative is an all or nothing standpoint. I agree that as soon as you open it up for anonymous and free promotion, you'll get the worst of the worst in with the good stuff. I'm just glad that the conversation is being broached.

0
3

[–] doesitmakesound [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I think the unacceptable approach is Reddit's. Moderators decided what is okay or not and that usually is just whether they personally like you or not. This is part of the root issue of why Voat was created. Voat actually needs more top-down oversight to accomplish their goal. Unchecked moderation power is a serious issue.

0
1

[–] Vladimir_Komarov 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I don't disagree, I just think that would require capital to do. Sadly, capital usually comes with an agenda, or at least a "say what you want as long as it's not about me" caveat. I like what you guys are doing on SWC though. Leading by example, and opening up the topic here should put the community to work on solving this. May not be overnight, but it's the way I would want to see it done.