☣ Please remove this opportunity

[Roulette Zeitung]

Good morning,

some time ago if I am informed correctly only people were allowed to have websites listed in their portal subpage here if they are e.g. on the monthly list.

In the last time I see at least once a week one idiotic spammer who used this opportunity to his own favor without caring about the comminity.

They are writing a fistful of spam post but have their websites listed in the portal even if they are brand new here on the forum.

This makes no sense.

The super-lamer example from today:

===> https://www.gpwa.org/member/srindom

His so called "posts":

===> https://www.gpwa.org/forum/search.php?searchid=6674105

7 posts, 16 words.
The "content" nothing but crap.
Any objections?

What about getting a website listed in the portal after at least 50 posts?

Leopold

[wonderpunter]

Im all for 50 posts since the rule was implemented spam has popped everywhere with "Good JoB" Nice Site, Welcome... etc etc.. it hasn't actually made any of these members active, just spam to get a badge and a link.. if we all thought that way there would not be a forum around.

[DaftDog]

Im all for 50 posts since the rule was implemented spam has popped everywhere with "Good JoB" Nice Site, Welcome... etc etc.. it hasn't actually made any of these members active, just spam to get a badge and a link.. if we all thought that way there would not be a forum around.

... and also 40 to 50 words per post.

[MichaelCorfman]

some time ago if I am informed correctly only people were allowed to have websites listed in their portal subpage here if they are e.g. on the monthly list.

Leopold, the situation is different than you were evidently informed.

When someone is recognized on the monthly recognition list, we feature their sites on the GPWA home page the following month.

Listing a website on a member profile page is completely separate. We try to have as complete a directory of portal sites as possible, and so list sites associated with a member on their profile page independently of any actual activity.

That is always the way it has been.

Michael

[Roulette Zeitung]

Thank you for the explanations.

That means, that my misunderstanding was based on the false hope, that spammers have not such an easy way to get backlinks as regular forum members have who deserve it.

Come on, you have absolutely no real competitor on the forum sector in this industry. A free ticket for every spammer is a high price to "complete a directory of portal sites".

Hopefully, you have separate chapter in the directory like "Known spammers".
Otherwise such a directory is a little bit weird, and you can hear the laughs from the spammers behind their monitors from one horizon to the other when they see, that they will not only get a backlink as a fine gift for their spam. They also will be famous, a star in the directory, and the audience is not aware of what kind of lamers are listed there.

As the area says, it's only a suggestion but a suggestion based on what zillions of forums in the internet do with new members and how they find out if they are a one-day-wonder or if they have really the intention for being a regular member.

Leopold

[MichaelCorfman]

All portal sites listed in our directory of portal sites are based on a hand-review by GPWA staff members. When someone applies to be a GPWA member we review the list of sites associated with them, and manually list the sites, when appropriate, after that review. Sure, that provides a backlink, which has value, but it also enhances the directory, allowing other members here to know who to reach out to should they want to get in touch with the webmaster behind a site.

We also tell folks that if they want to be a private member, or obtain a seal, or want to have the restriction on not being able to pm private members lifted, they must first participate in the forum. It is not surprising that such an explicit requirement to post, together with a specific post level requirement, results in some instances of spamming from time to time. But the reason for the occasional instance of spamming is not our portal directory. It is the (perhaps unfortunate) decision that we should require posts a before considering someone as a private member in conjunction with the requirement that one must be a private member in order to be authorized to place the GPWA seal on one's site.

Michael

[Roulette Zeitung]

O.k., I am not completely satisfied, but it was worth a dialog.

You see on many examples like Shay or perhaps with me that a private membership might be some kind of privilege but is not necessary for a personal enrichment.

Years ago I was asked by Paula why I do not apply for a private membership.

My answer was simple. I am writing for the public audience, everything I have to say is for the public audience. A forum for me is a public stage. That was also the idea of the ancient Roman's who created the "Forum". So I am proud for being a public member.

Hidden areas, this is nothing for me, regardless if they may are needful like here or not like in most other cases. But I feel happy for everyone who is a private member here and has fun and perhaps a personal favor from it.

Leopold

[MichaelCorfman]

While it is true that it is a requirement to be approved as a private member to have access to the private forums, that is not really what being a private member is about from my perspective.

To me it is much more about publicly declaring that you are committed to integrity in the industry. Sure, if you do that, and members here agree that you are a person of integrity as far as they can tell, then one of the benefits is having access to the private forums.

I don't think the private forums are so much about having hidden conversations, but more about safer conversations on certain types of topics. That might be about who a certain payment processor might represent, where disclosing that information in public, and having it indexed in search engines, might be a bad thing.

Michael

[Renee]

Michael I've also noticed these stupid posts and I've been reporting them. Most recently a new member was posting in years old threads which is frustrating because it's a time waster.

Perhaps it would be beneficial to the quality of the forum if new members had to have a minimum number of characters/words in their first 10 posts? That would likely stop spammers posting irrelevant 2 word posts in threads to get their post count up, diluting the importance of/bringing up old irrelevant threads.

Just a suggestion.

[Renee]

Michael I've also noticed these stupid posts and I've been reporting them. Most recently a new member was posting in years old threads which is frustrating because it's a time waster.

Perhaps it would be beneficial to the quality of the forum if new members had to have a minimum number of characters/words in their first 10 posts? That would likely stop spammers posting irrelevant 2 word posts in threads to get their post count up, diluting the importance of/bringing up old irrelevant threads.

Just a suggestion.

Hi again Michael

There was another instance of this over the weekend. 5 year old threads being commented on with one or two words to get user post count up.

Massive waste of time if you're looking at new posts since last visit.

[Roulette Zeitung]

Hi Renee,

one of the most ludicrous examples you mentioned in your last post:

===> https://www.gpwa.org/forum/impressiv...tml#post842674

I am really happy, that in 99% of all cases this idiots don't dirty my diary!

Leopold

[universal4]

Each of these cases have been followed up on Renee

And in cases of folks stating that pictures etc are cute or gave them an uplifting experience, especially in cases where it is the "Fun Diversions" thread certainly are logical.

And when new members join the forum as public members, it should be understood that ALL threads and posts will appear new to them.


Rick
Universal4

[Roulette Zeitung]

I am sure, there is also an explanation for this high quality post from the wonderful country of Malaysia, which by accident landed in the wrong thread, right?

===> https://www.gpwa.org/forum/videoslot...tml#post843868

Leopold