When is it appropriate to link to your own paywalled website from your answers? [duplicate]

Question

I've encountered this answer on SO.
At the end of the answer the user has placed a link to his article on a 3rd party site that requires paid subscription before reading articles. This makes the link totally useless. The answer by itself is useful, however.

After my downvote with comment why I did so, there was a bit of flame that ended up with a phrase, the paywalled link is useless only for penniless freeloaders, hence the title.

Worse than that. I'm a curious guy, so I went the user's profile and looked at the recent answers. Out of five most recent answers, three contain links to the same site: one, two, and the least one is useless without the content of the article.

I did not look in older answers (others did), and the pattern makes me thinking that the misleading link was not an innocent mistake, but the entire reason this user's presence on SO is promoting a paid site. Again, by itself there's no crime if the links are attributed well.

I've read carefully several articles here on Meta:

• Ban/mark/decorate external links requiring paid membership - I don't think it should be banned.
• How can I link to an external resource in a community-friendly way?
• How do I mention my own products in answers?
• Limits for self-promotion in answers
• Should the posts of this user be considered spam?

But I'm still confused. It is more surprising for me to see not a newbie like myself doing that, but someone with 3 years membership and 14k rep (I'm not kidding!).

---

So, considering the fact that removing bad links is against the major user's goal here, I'd like to know:

1. Should I flag the answer (and comments within) as spam? If so, what formal reason to be there? "Soliciting"?
2. Should such links clearly say don't go there unless you have a paid subscription?
3. Am I too sensitive, and it's just an innocent bad habit, or "penniless freeloaders" is a real horrible offense?
4. Am I required to submit my own answer before being eligible for downvoting this particular user? :-)

One more thing. I don't care about the personality of this user simply because you can't bring everyone to reason; legio mihi nomen est, quia multi sumus. What I want is just an ability to distinguish misleading links from valid ones.

---

UPD After reading the answers and comments, I would like to direct the discussion in the following manner:

If you tend to prevent any paywalled links:

What to do with really good answers and a decent reputation that people make while answering? SO can't just throw it away;

If you're up to a free speech paradigm:

@Chris: this sets a precedent that changes the way I regard SO, so it was important to fix in my mind the feeling toward this type of action. I had scrupulously avoided it, previously.

@Widor: So, is it ok for us all to put up a satisfactory answer and include paid links with even more info for the curious (as long as they pay)?

Also, how these links are to be attributed?

Answer 1

k; my thoughts:

• the answer itself has value; it isn't a "pure spam, delete on sight" scenario
• as part of an answer that has value, linking to something that costs money, but may prove useful to the reader is not particularly objectionable; when linking to an article (rather than a book or product) it is perhaps expectation that is it available, so it perhaps would be courteous to set expectation accordingly - I have thus edited it to mark it as such
• voting on Q&A is for marking an answer as helpful or not; I suspect, despite the objections in this case, that it actually does have usefulness
• being obnoxious in comments ("penniless freeloaders") is not OK; I have edited that (update: looks like the comments got purged, too)

Answer 2

Having done a quick review of the first four pages of answers (sorted by newest first) there are 20 answers out of 120 that mention his resources which is about 16% of those posts.

Of these around seven or eight answers contain links to paywall articles. The remainder link to articles that are not behind a paywall and appear to be entirely relevant supporting material to the main post.

So what we have is around 6% of answers pointing to paywall articles. However in a great many cases these links are only being used to support what are quite detailed contributions (just like linking to a paid-for book).

We see a hell of a lot worse from componentware vendors.

I think you're witch hunting the wrong guy here folks.

NB: this analysis was done on the original versions of the answers BEFORE so-called offending/spamming links were edited out

Answer 3

The important part when providing links to resources that are not freely available is that the content of the answer must be a complete answer on its own. Linking to additional information that is behind a paywall is acceptable in my opinion. But a link-only answer that leads to a paywalled article is not acceptable, it is useless to most users.

A pretty uncontroversial example are scientific journals, they are often behind a paywall, but prohibiting links to them would be a very bad idea. On Skeptics, where most users likely don't have access to the papers, we usually rely on the freely available abstract or short quotes from the article.

The point where adding such a link becomes spam is when it isn't really strongly related to the question. Here the whole history of the user becomes important, if he posts his answers mainly to be able to add a link to his paywalled content, he might be crossing a line.

This is a decision that needs to be made on a case-by-case basis, I wouldn't flag it as spam, but with a custom flag explaining a bit more detail. The spam flag leads to auto-deletion if enough users flag the post, and a -100 reputation penalty. For more complicated situations than plain and obvious spam I'd use a custom flag. In those situations a moderator needs to look at the history of the user and make a judgement call.

Answer 4

After going through some of his answers, I'm thoroughly disgusted.

I went through his answers with 10+ upvotes. There were 24 answers as of this writing.

What I found is that 13 of these answers (54%) contain a link to a paid article or one of his websites. This to me looks like abuse, regardless of whether the rest of the answer stands on its own.

From https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/59302/147645:

Also, if a huge percentage of your posts include a mention of your product, you're clearly here for the wrong reasons.

Even worse, the links to ffconsultancy.com seem to have some kind of referrer in the URL so they know how many hits they are getting from Stack Overflow.

Example:

Should I choose F# to develop a distributed server platform?

Contains this link: www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_for_numerics/?so (emphasis added)

Furthermore, the answers seem to steer discussion towards his business and/or clients.

Answer 5

What worries me is that StackOverflow is a high page-rank site in Google, so the behavior looks like it's aimed at getting his site ranked on Google. He's found the edge of a fuzzy line, and I'm leaning toward calling it abuse, especially in this case:

https://stackoverflow.com/a/4419172/1015495

I don't think it's always abuse to post a pay link, but the frequency and single-mindedness of it puts it across the line for me in this case.

Answer 6

If a majority of one user's answers all include a link to the same site, I generally flag one such answer for moderator attention with the Other option to note that it's possibly 'serial spam'.

In this scenario where you say the answers are good, but the link adds nothing then the poster won't mind you removing it. If he objects, suggest he provides an explanation of the content that is behind the paywall so that it is a self-contained answer and us "penniless freeloaders" can also benefit.

If he still objects, I see no value in keeping him as he's then evidently a spammer.

Answer 7

Seems this is getting personal.

I don't think I've seen anyone I recognise from the F# tag participating in this discussion (though I haven't read absolutely every comment), which is a shame.

I know Jon (and others, myself included) have already been annoyed by people coming along deleting quality content because it was deemed to be off topic. It would be a shame to disgust Jon to the point that he stops contributing here on SO. Because, despite his sometimes abrasive manner (he is not alone...), he knows his stuff, and does consistently add value to SO (and help out people like me).

Personally, I believe that even if he is linking to his own content slightly more than I might do myself, he earns leniency by the effort he puts into answering the questions.

And his content is good. And I say that as apparently the only person here who is not a penniless freeloader :)

Answer 8

Should I flag the answer (and comments within) as spam? If so, what formal reason to be there? "Soliciting"?

The kicker here is that the answer itself is actually quite useful, but the link at the end adds no value. It would be better to suggest an edit to the answer instead, removing the link. If that becomes contested (i.e. the OP reverts the edit), then you should flag for moderator attention.

Should such links clearly say don't go there unless you have obtained a paid subscription?

I'm not a fan of link-to-paywall answers anyway, but truth be told, caveat emptor. If you're going to click the link, you're not sure where it'll take you - it could take you to a useful blog post, a less useful blog post, or a paywall.

Whether or not you're warned doesn't change the quality of the answer.

Am I too sensitive, and it's just an innocent bad habit, or "penniless freeloaders" is a real horrible offense?

I'd take that as a bit of flame bait. Don't give into it.

Am I required to submit my own answer before being eligible for downvoting this particular user? :-)

No. You may vote as liberally as you wish. He may not like the downvote, but that doesn't mean he can lash out at others for doing so.

Answer 9

I say remove the links.

Look -- we could all do this. There's a fine line between consultancy and HELP. I am here offering what I do, yes for money, for free. The expectation is that I am doing so among peers that do likewise.

How many times could I have "went to chat" with someone asking a question, then advanced my for-profit consultancy services? How many questions indicate that the company the OP is working for would be hiring if they realized that their developer might not know what they're doing?

Monetizing your answers here is anathema to the stated purpose of the site, and is insulting to the rest of the people that participate here for free. My expertise is not worth less than his. We are all here doing pro-bono work, essentially, and to allow one guy to turn it in to profit is poison to the system. If he can, why not I?! We're on a slippery slope to ODesk or experts-exchange here.

As I've mentioned in comments, I think adding links to free, relevant documentation is an important part of a thorough answer. The links serve as citations, credible support that demonstrates your answer as factual. You could remove them and not ruin the answer, but adding them supports the answer via outside, neutral authority.

The links in question here are not credibility-adding citations, rather they're driving traffic to his paywall, enhancing his Google ranking, and pointing the question-asker AND future visitors to his consultancy. This is commercial activity.

Answer 10

After taking a look at everything, I can only come to this conclusion:

I write code for a living, mostly on a contract basis. Yes, I get paid to do it. Yet still, I come on Stack Overflow and provide some of my knowledge for free. Why would I do this? It seems irrational seeing as I could get paid for the same thing. The key is that I would want people to do the same for me. If everyone started requiring me to pay money for their help, I would leave in a heartbeat.

I think this these links ought to be removed. The links promote activity that I don't want to see spreading on the Stack Exchange Network. Best put out the embers before they start a wildfire.

Oh, and for the record, I don't consider myself a penniless freeloader for using Stack Overflow, and I get the impression that few people do. You shouldn't either.

Answer 11

What I'm seeing here is that there is a line, and he's crossed it ^{(probably not, see below)}. Unfortunately, the line is hard to spot. One link every now and then? Fine. Links on more than 1/2 his posts to his own site? It's a problem.

Where we need to be careful, is that I think we need better guidance on where the line is. What makes a post/link okay or not okay? After we have a better guideline for why, exactly, this is wrong, we can ask the user to alter his behavior.

Now, on to what that better behavior might look like.

I wonder if we could ask the user to do something similar to how (gasp) experts-exchange handles it. Experts exchange allows anyone to view an answer (sort of)... you have to come from google and scroll way down. Since he's obviously using a Stack Overflow -specific link, we could ask him to do something similar and drop his paywall... if the user is coming from Stack Overflow. If he's worried about a public link making his paywall completely worthless he can add a referrer check.

Update: Or has he crossed the line at all? Some good detective work by JeremyBanks in the comments above shows that overall, it's only one post in 5 that links back to himself. That's a lot, but I'm not sure it qualifies as a "huge percentage". What I'd still like to know is if that percentage is increasing? Has most of his work from last month linked back to himself? Two months? How often does he link elsewhere vs to his own site?

Finally, has anyone been able to check the content of these links? If these "posts" are just single-paragraph snippets where he then links on to MSDN, another blog, or if there's plagarized work back there, this is still a problem. There's the rub: we just don't know.

Answer 12

This makes the link totally useless.

No, it does not. Unfortunately you have in some sciences only paid access to papers. I mostly try to find the same article via Google Scholar or use BugMeNot.com. Some active colleagues which are members can access the article. It nerves, yes, but it is not useless per se.

On the other side I would at least indicate that this is a paid subscription and say that I am sorry for that. He is a bit abrasive, but as Makoto said, do not go for it.

Am I required to submit my own answer before being eligible for downvoting this particular user?

Of course. You are also obliged to pay me some expenses for reading your answer. Or non-sarcastic: No.

Answer 13

Is SO for penniless freeloaders? Linking to paywalled websites

Wow, even in your title you've expertly twisted my words to make it sound like I was insulting the entire Stack Overflow community by calling them all penniless freeloaders when, in fact, what I actually wrote was that people who cannot see the value in providing links to more detailed external content unless it is free are penniless freeloaders, i.e. people who expect everything to be given to them for free.

At the end of the answer the user has placed a link to his article on a 3rd party site that requires paid subscription before reading articles. This makes the link totally useless.

Do you not see the value of that link to anyone who wants more detailed information on the subject and who is willing to buy a book or subscription?

Out of five most recent answers...

I've written over 460 answers on Stack Overflow. Why did you base your entire analysis on a sample size of 5?

Am I required to submit my own answer before being eligible for downvoting this particular user?

From my point of view, there are some highly-regarded SO contributors commenting here and they all say the same thing: I'm not evil. There also seem to be dozens of people on here whining about non-free literature, talking about how they would contribute to Stack Overflow but don't because of content like mine and lots of other bullshit. None of them have over 3k rep. None of them have any expertise in these subjects. For example, JimmyPena says he is "disgusted" by my actions but he has only 2,269 rep on Stack Overflow and his most upvoted answer has just +5 votes.

Believe it or not, I used to be one of the penniless freeloaders. As a student, I believed that everyone else should give me everything for free and that the world would be a better place if that happened. After all, living off everyone else was working really well for me. When I grew up and realised that the dream doesn't work. Such systems inevitably decay into people taking more than they give and just sitting around whining about everyone else not doing enough for them. So I made a concious decision to get off my ass and make a real contribution by building a self-sustaining for-profit company to promote the ideas that I believed in. I've been doing it for 7 years and I love it. I help lots of people for free via sites like Stack Overflow. I do mention that we offer more detailed literature in products and consultancy services. Many people appreciate my contributions. We have over 1,000 paying customers. Thanks to the revenue this generates I am able to spend more time contributing.

For anyone who enjoys helping others in this way, I would not hesitate to recommend this approach to turn your hobby into a business so that you can afford to spend even more time doing what you love and helping other people. In point of fact, Stack Overflow only exists because its creators recognized the value of turning their idea to help others into a self-sustaining business.

EDIT

Interestingly, Chris' comments below just descended into exactly the kind of behaviour that led to my choosing to stop contributing to Wikipedia. Specifically, the attack is turning towards anyone with expertise.

I think this is a really interesting and important point. Wikipedia has a massive problem with non-experts eroding quality because they scribble over high quality content previously submitted by experts. Stack Overflow neatly sidesteps this problem by allowing anyone to contribute but encouraging contributions to be independent. Ideally, higher quality answers get more upvotes and rise to the top and everyone wins. In my experience, this usually works. For me, this is what makes Stack Overflow so much more alluring and I really hope this is preserved. In fact, I would go so far as to question the value of any kind of moderator intervention at all. In particular, I think the recent push to close and delete many questions and answers was hugely counter productive and, frankly, I don't understand why the owners of Stack Overflow let valuable content be destroyed in that way.