Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

Timeline for Limits for self-promotion in answers

Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5

93 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 25, 2022 at 16:41 comment added Ira Baxter @Gabriel: Thanks for the compliment. This was a rough patch. We collectively seem to be past it; I haven't had a lot of trouble with SO. OTOH, I've posted a lot less over the last several years, partly because there are still a remarkable number of people that downvote for nontechnical reasons.
May 25, 2022 at 4:23 comment added Gabriel @IraBaxter As a noob when it comes to building parsers and compilers, your answers have been extremely valuable for me, and I'm glad that you're willing to share your knowledge. It's embarrassing to see the ill-treatment you get from some high-rep users on this thread.
Apr 11, 2022 at 22:53 history wiki removed V2BlastStaff
May 23, 2017 at 12:36 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
Mar 20, 2017 at 10:31 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
Apr 23, 2014 at 13:38 history edited CommunityBot
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
Apr 23, 2014 at 9:13 history edited CommunityBot
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
Jan 21, 2014 at 19:36 comment added Adi Inbar @PascalThivent I'd agree with your objection to the partial answer referring to his tool if it were the first answer, maybe even the second, because having answers reduces a question's visibility relative to questions with no answers (likewise multiple answers vs. one). So, early answers need to be complete. However, it's common practice to post answers that provide additional relevant information after a question has other answers. As long as he provides an actual explanation rather than just a link, I don't see the problem--especially in cases where there's already an accepted answer.
Aug 31, 2010 at 22:26 comment added George Marian @kellyfrench I was referring to way he defended himself not the amount of energy he put into his defense or the simple fact that he was defending himself. You are correct that just because one defends oneself strongly does not make one guilty. That said, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
Aug 31, 2010 at 20:38 comment added Kelly S. French @George, your comment of "Especially because of the way he defends himself." bothers me. Do only the guilty fervently defend their position? When I read your comment I thought of the Salem witch trials where the only proof of innocence was to die. In this case, we can infer from your comment that you feel he's guilty because he's defending himself so strongly. The alternative would be providing no defense which would lead to the charge of 'If he were innocent, he would defend himself.' No wonder the man feels like he's between a rock and a hard place.
Aug 6, 2010 at 18:18 comment added Brad Larson Just throwing my two cents in here (a little late), but I was disappointed to see Ira's posts keep rising to the top of the spam flags. He seemed to have conducted himself well in the individual answers I saw, with his affiliation disclosed and with the product being very relevant to the question. I agree with the others who have stated that he's contributed to the site not with money through advertising but with his own time in providing quality content.
Jul 28, 2010 at 4:32 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
added 220 characters in body
Jul 26, 2010 at 22:46 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
added 2 characters in body
Jul 24, 2010 at 17:08 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
added 2 characters in body
Jul 24, 2010 at 16:30 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
added 188 characters in body
Jul 24, 2010 at 16:24 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
deleted 5 characters in body; added 28 characters in body
Jul 24, 2010 at 16:19 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
added 135 characters in body; added 121 characters in body; edited body
Jul 24, 2010 at 4:02 comment added Ira Baxter @Pascal: I will say you gave a nice answer to a question I asked about Hibernate before we got crossways here.
Jul 23, 2010 at 23:58 comment added Ira Baxter @Pascal: You appear to object if I don't provide a Whole Complete Answer to Every Aspect of the Question as Asked, and Only to those Asked Aspects, Every Time. I simply don't believe you yourself do that (nobody I know does that). So, you insist I Do, but You Don't Have To. I'd call that a double standard.
Jul 23, 2010 at 0:48 comment added George Marian @Pascal He just keeps digging a bigger hole. The more he defends himself, the more I think that he has an ulterior motive. Especially because of the way he defends himself.
Jul 22, 2010 at 21:41 comment added Pascal Thivent @Ira What makes you think I have a double standard? I don't, bad is bad. However, recommendations from a product owner are "special" answers and I might be less tolerant with them, especially if I have the feeling that the author is somehow gaming the system. And the more we discuss, the more I think the answer I'm referring to is borderline.
Jul 22, 2010 at 3:08 comment added Ira Baxter @John: The OP didn't say he was going to buy, wanted to buy or didn't want to buy. He wanted to know what was used. Other answers had previosly provided a a collection of a list of tools. Ours were not mentioned, but they are used. I gave him a short list of our tools. Now he has a longer list. What part of "I answered his question directly" doesn't serve the exact purpose of SO?
Jul 22, 2010 at 2:13 comment added John Saunders @Ira: you remind me of a drug addict who denies he has a problem and doesn't understand why nobody believes him. Seriously, "My product exists, but I'm not recommending it to you. I thought you should know about it so you could buy it, but I'm not recommending that you buy it." I'd be insulted that you think I'm that stupid, but it strikes me that maybe you can't help yourself, and don't realize what you're doing. Get some help, Ira.
Jul 21, 2010 at 23:43 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
added 309 characters in body; added 77 characters in body
Jul 21, 2010 at 23:28 comment added Ira Baxter @John: I didn't recommend the product. I only stated its existence, and considering that the OP wanted to know what ones were used (they are all used), the answer is/was reasonable. I changed the response to say "Our" in accordance with the "consensus" that seems to be building here. It is so breif that such now-present attribution can hardly be missed.
Jul 21, 2010 at 23:19 comment added Ira Baxter @Pascal: He wanted to know what tools were used, as part of his question. Do you feel compelled to answer everything requested by the OP every time, or do you judge and answer what you can add incrementally? I suspect the latter. Do you insist that everyone else always provide a full answer? I doubt it. Why do you have a double standard?
Jul 21, 2010 at 14:00 comment added Pascal Thivent @Ira I don't consider you gave the OP exactly what he wanted, you gave him only a partial answer, justifying yourself here by the fact others already gave good answers. This is IMO a bad practice and using the work from other to justify a commercial plug only is clearly flirting with the limits of abuse (note that I still didn't downvote nor flagged your answer). As it has already been mentioned, what if every one with a commercial product to plug started searching SO for every opportunity to plug their wares ultimately saying it's ok because others already gave good answers?
Jul 21, 2010 at 3:39 comment added George Marian @Ira In retrospect, that was an ambiguous statement. That said, you should be able to infer from the context, as you stated that several answers were deleted. Specifically, I was asking if a vendetta is the only possible reason for the deletion(s). As for another possible answer, I'll quote myself: For better or for worse, you're under the microscope now. I'm not defending the deletions nor speaking to their validity. However, just because those answers weren't considered problematic before doesn't mean that's the case under a new light. You seem to be selective in your reading/arguments.
Jul 21, 2010 at 2:32 comment added John Saunders @Ira: my only problem with your answer is that you need to edit it to show that you're recommending your own product. I suggest you do more than just add "our" in front of the product name. FYI, I neither flagged it nor downvoted it - if I do either of those, I'll update my answer to say so.
Jul 21, 2010 at 1:34 comment added Ira Baxter @Pascal: The poster already had a number of very good answers to the first two parts; there was no need to answer them yet again. He explicitly asked for available tools. I provided some additional ones, that were not listed by another answer. I gave him exactly what he wanted, and you think it is spam?
Jul 21, 2010 at 1:21 comment added Pascal Thivent About the answer shown in your EDIT (64 hours after the original) : nothing personal but this is the perfect example of the kind of answers I dislike. The OP is posting a question with 3 parts and it's like you only see the third point and jump on it to push your tools. This is exactly what I don't consider as a good answer but a commercial plug only and I'm indeed extremely tempted to flag it as spam.
Jul 20, 2010 at 22:58 comment added Ira Baxter @George: If you mean "is it the only plausible inference", maybe not. Have you suggestions for other plausible inferences that explain the facts?
Jul 20, 2010 at 22:57 comment added Ira Baxter @George: The only one spam tagged/removed? No, judging by my rep drop in the last 24 hours, some 10 or 12 of my answers have been spam removed. See my edit (48 hours) for one that looks spam-tagged is CLEARLY a direct answer to (at least part of) the OP's question.
Jul 20, 2010 at 22:52 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
added 310 characters in body; added 5 characters in body; added 39 characters in body
Jul 20, 2010 at 22:17 comment added George Marian @Ira Is it the only one?
Jul 20, 2010 at 14:05 comment added Ira Baxter @George: Automatically assuming? Its a plausible inference given the evidence.
Jul 20, 2010 at 10:21 comment added George Marian @Ira Why are you automatically assuming a vendetta? For better or for worse, you're under the microscope now. I'm not defending the deletions nor speaking to their validity. However, just because those answers weren't considered problematic before doesn't mean that's the case under a new light.
Jul 20, 2010 at 6:34 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
added 1 characters in body
Jul 20, 2010 at 5:15 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
added 631 characters in body; added 2 characters in body
Jul 20, 2010 at 2:09 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
added 146 characters in body
Jul 19, 2010 at 15:15 comment added John Saunders @Simon: that's good. That's what I'm doing as well. Watching his user feed, reading his answers, judging each one, publicly.
Jul 19, 2010 at 11:58 comment added Simon P Stevens @John: I've read a few, admittedly some have been edited in the last day to include words like "our". Some specific ones that have been cited here as negative examples have been corrected too. I think it's just best to monitor on a case by case basis. If I ever see poorly disclosed, or unrelated spam links I always edit/flag them anyway as I'm sure most people do. He has now declared his position, (which I'm fine with). If in the future Ira goes against his now stated position he can be called up on that.
Jul 19, 2010 at 10:30 comment added John Saunders @Simon: I suggest you read more of his posts, then you may feel differently about his position. I support that position in general, but having read many of his posts, feel that Ira is an exception to his own rule.
Jul 19, 2010 at 9:42 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
added 2 characters in body
Jul 19, 2010 at 8:40 comment added Ira Baxter @Arjan: "Your definition of spam doesn't matter." meta.stackexchange.com/questions/56223/…
Jul 19, 2010 at 8:40 comment added Simon P Stevens @Ira. It seems you've taken a bit of bashing here. I haven't gone back and read all your posts, but for what it's worth I support your position. I don't see anything wrong with suggesting your own products in an answer (provided they are in the context of the question). I don't see how quantity of links changes anything, provided the answers are in context and useful I don't see a problem with it. Clear disclosure is of course a good thing that I would encourage. I think your efforts to go back and bring your old posts into line with new [proposed] policy are admirable.
Jul 19, 2010 at 8:21 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
added 186 characters in body; Post Made Community Wiki
Jul 19, 2010 at 8:11 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
added 37 characters in body
Jul 19, 2010 at 7:27 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
deleted 152 characters in body; edited body
Jul 19, 2010 at 7:16 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
added 152 characters in body
Jul 19, 2010 at 7:09 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
added 326 characters in body
Jul 19, 2010 at 6:52 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
added 826 characters in body; added 74 characters in body
Jul 18, 2010 at 23:36 comment added John Saunders @Ira: as to when the policy is decided, it was already decided, and is already in the process of being decided, and will in the future be decided. The Community decides, and as the Community is a living, fluid entity, the decision will be living, and fluid. It will be enforced, as has already been done, by Community members voting on your answers, and maybe flagging them. That's all the process there is, here, and that's all the process that's needed by most users here. Some others need to wait until they're banned.
Jul 18, 2010 at 18:54 comment added Ira Baxter @John: I think I got the community-chooses-policy concept. I didn't understand why you chose to step in and make a remark about my compliance to the "new policy", when I fact I have clearly stated earlier in the thread that I would, and in fact have already started doing. I worry about "policy being decided" as a stable state; it appears subject to ongoing re-deciding (witness answer started by Shog9). One can argue that the discussion isn't old enough to be stable. Fair enough. So... when is the policy decided?
Jul 18, 2010 at 17:50 comment added John Saunders @Ira: you really seem to not get how things work here. Yes, what the Community decides is pretty much "policy". And I look forward to seeing your new answers under this policy.
Jul 18, 2010 at 4:07 comment added Ira Baxter @John: I've already agreed to label my posts, according to a policy(?) that has been hashed out here. Is that policy not adequate?
Jul 18, 2010 at 3:58 comment added John Saunders @Ira: 412 answers is free advertising. Either start paying for it, or at least announce your relationship to the company in the answer. Even "see my profile for my relationship to this company" would be enough for me.
Jul 17, 2010 at 22:39 comment added Ira Baxter @Gnome: thanks for the pointer. I'd already fixed about half of those, during the discussion last night.
Jul 17, 2010 at 22:05 comment added Gnome @Ira: You might want to focus, initially, on flagged posts. (I see 7 of yours there now.)
Jul 17, 2010 at 20:56 comment added devinb @Ira, (+1) Even though your answer here is somewhat defensive (reasonbly, you were being attacked), it is obvious from your comments that you're going to be very reasonable and adult about all this, and make an attempt to fix the "problem". Well done!
Jul 17, 2010 at 17:50 history edited Ladybug Killer CC BY-SA 2.5
deleted 25 characters in body
Jul 17, 2010 at 17:38 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
added 26 characters in body
Jul 17, 2010 at 17:14 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
added 833 characters in body
Jul 17, 2010 at 10:58 comment added George Marian @Ira Fair enough, though there's no need to apologize. Simply stating that you misinterpreted the question is enough. (Now who's splitting hairs?) ;)
Jul 17, 2010 at 10:47 comment added Ira Baxter @George: I'm sorry, you'll have to forgive me for reading the phrase in the original question "are the spam flags accurate?" and believing that this discussion was about spam.
Jul 17, 2010 at 10:46 comment added George Marian @Ira Yes, that would be good enough for me.
Jul 17, 2010 at 10:43 comment added George Marian @Pekka I'm not trying to beat him over the head with a policy that is not actually in existence. I take issue with his defense and arguments. He's claims not to be playing semantic games, yet he's posted a link to a definition of spam. He argues that he's not a spammer, when the point of this discussion is self promotion.
Jul 17, 2010 at 10:34 comment added Ira Baxter @George: Are you satisfied with Pekka's recommendation? If so, I'll follow it, and even, as time permits, go back and adjust answers where the affiliation was unclear. (See revised answer to stackoverflow.com/questions/203376/…)
Jul 17, 2010 at 10:34 comment added Pekka @George it would not be enough under the policy I am suggesting, but that policy is not in place yet. As far as I can see, Ira's contributions were made in good faith, and never with the intent of hiding his affiliation. It's fine to talk about this and criticize him and work out better rules, but let's save up our indignation for real spammers.
Jul 17, 2010 at 10:33 comment added George Marian @Ira So, if this issue has come up in the past, why haven't taken to full disclosure? Note, I don't think that would prevent all such discussions, but you would be in a better position to argue that you're not being sneaky.
Jul 17, 2010 at 10:21 comment added George Marian @Pekka That would not be enough to satisfy the policy you yourself have suggested in this very question. It should be obvious that I don't believe it's enough. I loot at user profiles, just out of curiosity, quiet often. That said, I don't want to check every user profile for their affiliation. Let me put it this way: If I do check a user profile and discover an undisclosed affiliation to a product they recommended, I would not feel very good about the recommended product. There's a reason used car salesmen are despised.
Jul 17, 2010 at 10:19 comment added Ira Baxter @George: I'm not interested in semantic games, and I didn't mean to misinterpret your answer (its 3am here). I'd be happy to do full disclosure, in the manner that Pekka has suggested. Up to this point in time, the policy was not clear and reasonable people could disagree about what was reasonable to write. Your turn to read my comments. I don't want to have this discussion again, which is why I'd prefer an official policy. Pekka's suggestion is great. But will stop the discussion? One answer is to try it for awhile. I'm game.
Jul 17, 2010 at 10:06 comment added Pekka @George yes, full disclosure would have been better, no doubt. But he has shown his affiliation with the company in his profile from the start, and provided meaningful input on the question, and I can't bring myself to seeing this as too problematic. This is not somebody leaving "Hi use www.xyz.com itz great thx" posts by the truckload, of which there are many on all trilogy sites.
Jul 17, 2010 at 10:00 comment added George Marian Here's a good example of a suspicious answer, that would've been better had you fully disclosed your relationship with the product you were plugging: stackoverflow.com/questions/203376/…
Jul 17, 2010 at 9:59 comment added George Marian What about my comment led you to believe that I'm voicing an objection to clueless/useless responses? You are correct, I do object to such response. However, that was not the point of my comment. I suggest you read that again and stop looking for any angle that you can argue. If you're not objecting to full disclosure, then why do you want an official policy? The very fact that this issue has been brought up should be enough to motivate you to full disclosure. Instead, you want to play semantic games.
Jul 17, 2010 at 8:51 comment added Ira Baxter @George: You'd object if people with useful answers, although commercial, added them to asked questions? I don't understand the objection. I think you're objecting to clueless or useless responses, and there I agree. (I'm not objecting to full disclosure, but I'd like SO to make the policy on this whole topic explicit).
Jul 17, 2010 at 8:47 comment added Gnome @George: Exactly what I just tried to say. Free-as-in-beer projects/products seem to have a lower requirement on disclosure because it's much harder to ascribe that self-serving motivation.
Jul 17, 2010 at 8:43 comment added Arjan I think this question is not about the definition of spam. The only reference to "spam" is that the option to flag posts is labeled as such.
Jul 17, 2010 at 8:33 comment added Gnome @Ira: Regarding spam, all posts on SO are bulk (covered better elsewhere on Meta). The beautifier answer mentioned above does sound more like marketing than answering; that distinction isn't always clear, but you do ignore half of that question (everything about Maven). A simple change from "Check out SD PHP Formatter" to "Check out my company's PHP Formatter" should be enough to make your relationship explicit (in the answer itself, your bio often isn't sufficient).
Jul 17, 2010 at 8:21 comment added Ira Baxter @Gnome: Thanks for the compliment on the poll-answer. As usual with SO, you are welcome to up or downvote the question, too :-}
Jul 17, 2010 at 8:15 comment added Ira Baxter @Arjan: The Internet community settled on the (wikipedia-quoted) definition of spam that it did after long and painful argument just like this, including the argument "I really feel different". I get a lot of hate from people coming to my site because my tools aren't "open source" or some version of free, I get a lot of complaints about "spam" from people that object to noting the existence of something that isn't free. But if it were free and the text were the same, how would that change the utility of the answer, even if self-promoted?
Jul 17, 2010 at 8:09 comment added Gnome @Ira: Regarding the discussion poll, I think your answer is much better than others there, but the question is problematic in the first place.
Jul 17, 2010 at 8:07 comment added Arjan I really feel different. In my opinion, a recommendation by somebody who's not involved is totally different from a recommendation from the product owner. (Also, discussions about the definition of spam are, in my experience, a knee-jerk reaction of many people who're self-promoting in some hidden way.)
Jul 17, 2010 at 8:03 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
added 9 characters in body; added 3 characters in body
Jul 17, 2010 at 7:59 comment added Ira Baxter @Arjan: And the OP's question was, "Does anyone know of a good tool for cleaning up/formatting PHP files?" which it directly answers, including additional information about what happens with most PHP formatters that I have encountered (being thrown together by PHP folks who are really lousy at parsing code reliably). What part of my answer isn't a useful response to the question? You seem to be enumerating my responses and objecting, as I suggested as a challenge in my response above. Fine, quote the original question and then your objection to my answer.
Jul 17, 2010 at 7:58 comment added Gnome @Arjan: That's a much better example.
Jul 17, 2010 at 7:56 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
added 283 characters in body
Jul 17, 2010 at 7:55 comment added Arjan I guess my bad about misunderstanding that answer proves my point: in a long answer suddenly there's a link to a product you sell, where "The consequences are" implies that you're referring to something of your own? Anyway, going down the list" Check out the SD PHP Formatter. It formats both PHP and HTML code in the same script. Unlike many formatters, it will not break your code as it reformats. It acheives this by using a full PHP front end. Plain spam to me.
Jul 17, 2010 at 7:49 comment added Gnome @Arjan: That example isn't particularly hidden when the sentence before (of which the "consequences" are) is "I've followed that idea into the software reengineering space, and bet the last 15 years of my career on it."
Jul 17, 2010 at 7:45 comment added Ira Baxter @Arjan: My definition of spam? I took it from Wikipedia for heaven's sake. Regarding your "first answer listed": the specific question was, "What most influenced your career?" I responded specifically with a technical work that is NOT mine (and which is a seminal work in software engineering, sheesh!), and went on to explain that work has made me commit about 20 years of my life to that approach, which resulted in a particular piece of what I think of as spectacular machinery to implement the original paper's ideas. What, this didn't address the OP's original question smack on?
Jul 17, 2010 at 7:39 comment added Arjan Your definition of spam doesn't matter. It's just that the option to report what the community feels is abusive happens to be labeled "spam". I only read the first answer listed, and sentences like "The consequences are a commercial program transformation tool DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit that is useful for [..]" are very much spam (even worse: hidden spam) in my definition.
Jul 17, 2010 at 7:37 history edited Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
added 595 characters in body; added 18 characters in body
Jul 17, 2010 at 7:30 history answered Ira Baxter CC BY-SA 2.5
toggle format