CakeAlexS
Of course the forum software is going to flag it when people link to lottery sites..! Totally legit in my view. Not much different from viagra spam. Am I missing something? Did I miss the Microsoft lottery? Ta.
First off, there's no need for the sarcasm mush. There's a paying customer here with a genuine moan about how these forums are functioning. The first rule of business is that the customer is always right, you'd do well to remember that when you're representing Cakewalk in an official capacity.
I won ten quid on a completely genuine and legitimate free-to-enter UK postcode lottery site. As part of my post, I saw no harm whatsoever in including a link, should other UK members want to see how and where I won my tenner.
Let's be absolutely clear about this - I would never in a month of Sundays dream of littering this place with spam, or including any link to any site that I didn't have the utmost confidence in. To compare what I posted to "viagra spam" is lazy moderation. The super-sensitive and completely unfit-for-purpose forum filter may not be able to differentiate between a
bona fide website and "viagra spam", but a human being tasked with performing that very job
should be able to.
I wonder if it's occurred to anyone that,
as usual, it's the completely honest, non-spamming regular members of these forums that always suffer when inadequate measures are taken to prevent arseholes from posting unwanted ads and other junk?
How on earth can it be right that, because of these so-called safeguards, regular members have to go through the rigmarole of contacting a host and asking that they then go and rescue their flagged posts from the forum recycling bin?
How is that somehow better than a few spam posts getting through?
If you're serious about preventing spam and deterring spammers, then simply moderate the forums properly; i.e.
actively, as opposed to passively reacting to members requests to resurrect vanished posts. Or just make the criteria for joining the forum and posting here significantly stricter.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy the argument that we had some kind of a massive problem before these changes were made. A problem that's necessitated cranking up the forum defences so high as part of the solution.
I recall one of the Cakewalk guys saying he was previously tied up with deleting spam posts instead of doing something more productive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that why one or two staff members have effectively been replaced by a significantly larger number of hosts? Surely with the manpower that now exists to remove spam and follow up flagged posts, I can't see the need to have the filters set so aggressively.
Finally, if linking to a legitimate site in a post or having a YouTube video in one's signature is in contravention of the COC, then I have absolutely zero problem with any of my posts being removed. If not, then I believe I have every right to expect that they are not removed, either automatically or manually.
Ta.