TR Forums

The rules that govern discussions in the TR forums and comments haven't changed in over four years, but today, we've decided to update them in order to address a growing problem known as stealth viral marketing.

We've had a pretty confident suspicion for quite a while that a subset of the people posting here have alternative motives and agendas, even if you account for the fanboy phenomenon. The "contributions" these folks make to discussions tend to worsen the signal-to-noise ratio of many threads and to distort the priorities expressed in them. If you've sometimes thought certain discussions seem like a weird echo chamber filled with more marketing concerns than traditional PC enthusiast concerns, you know what I'm talking about.

Trouble is, definitively identifying and reining in stealthy viral marketing activity isn't easy. Still, we have decided to take the small step of adding a forum rule explicitly banning it. Here is the text of the new rule:
--
13.) Although we welcome the participation of representatives from industry firms, stealth viral marketing activities are strictly prohibited here. Participants who are employed in the PC hardware industry, either directly or via an arrangement with a third party, must disclose their affiliations up front, either in a public post, a note in their signature, or both. Note that "employed" in this context extends to those who are compensated in the form of product samples, attention, and other means. If you engage in stealth viral marketing activity, you may be banned, and you also immediately forfeit your protection under the TR privacy policy. You have been warned.
--
Our goal is to make clear that TR is not a hospitable place for stealth viral marketing activity.

We are, however, very open to participation from folks in the industry. We're just asking that participants adhere to the standard most good corporate social marketing policies already require: that you actively identify yourself as affiliated with the company you represent.

Also, please note the last part of the rule, where those who engage in stealth viral marketing lose the protections of our privacy policy. (That policy has been updated to reflect this change, as well.) We don't collect much in the way of personally identifiable information—e-mail address, IP addresses, and usernames is the extent of it—but if you engage in stealth viral marketing at TR, we may choose not to afford you the same protection we do everybody else.

In other words, stealth viral marketers may want to close their accounts now, because this rule change is going into effect. Consider this post fair warning.

Let me be clear: we are not going to post the email and IP addresses of obnoxious fanboys or suspected stealth viral marketers as a matter of practice. But if we conduct an investigation and can make a link between you and a viral marketing operation, we are giving ourselves leeway to make the results of that inquiry public.

For the vast majority of you, even the hopeless fanboys, the only effect of this rule update should be better interactions. Our hope is that we can maintain the discussion quality that has been so good here at TR for years. This step is just a small one, but we think it's necessary at this point. Please bear with us as we continue working to maintain the integrity of our community.

I would suggest a minor change for clarification:

Note that "employed" in this context extends to those who are compensated in the form of product samples, attention, and other means.

Would slightly rewritten to:
Note that "employed" in this context extends to those who are compensated in the form of product samples, attention, and other means not just monetarily.

(This should be obvious from the previous sentence, but you will always have those people who want to fudge it.)

Perhaps my brain is just working a bit fuzzily tonight (it's been an especially long Monday) - but to be clear this is directed at marketing personnel only, yes? I write for OCC from time to time but make no mention of it here. I'm not swayed by free product and if there's a fault with something I make it known.

Oh look, Waco, you just did your disclosure, so there's no issue now.

Damage wrote:

Oh look, Waco, you just did your disclosure, so there's no issue now.

I submitted a article once to Heatware.net (as opposed to heatware.com - same owner though)
He was supposed to proof it and post it, and that never happened - so much for my writing career. lol

However, I now feel "disclosed" but telling you this

Damage wrote:

Oh look, Waco, you just did your disclosure, so there's no issue now.

If this is really all there is to the new rule change then this is a joke. Post in a forum thread that will eventually be buried?
How about requiring them to enter something into the "Occupation" slot in their profile so their marketing affiliations will be displayed below their username in every post they make?
(not directed toward Waco or Dposcorp, I don't think either of you fit into this rule change)

DPete27 wrote:

(not directed toward Waco or Dposcorp, I don't think either of you fit into this rule change)

Yeah, after reading it again it doesn't really affect me in the slightest...but I just wanted to make sure.

I wrote for 2cpu once, but it didn't work out. I'm as biased as they come, and nothing I say can be trusted.

Why the necromancy, Forge?

You can ask him, but nothing he says can be trusted.

flip-mode wrote:

Why the necromancy, Forge?

I realized I'd never declared my previous affiliation. Also, I have never spoken the truth, not even now.

Forge wrote:

flip-mode wrote:

Why the necromancy, Forge?

I realized I'd never declared my previous affiliation. Also, I have never spoken the truth, not even now.

PUI?

SecretSquirrel wrote:

Forge wrote:

flip-mode wrote:

Why the necromancy, Forge?

I realized I'd never declared my previous affiliation. Also, I have never spoken the truth, not even now.

PUI?

I don't need chemical motivation to achieve altered states. I've just shut down the logical parts of my brain for unscheduled maintenance this weekend.

So we need a "report user as spammer" button to go with the "report post as spam"

Chrispy_ wrote:

So we need a "report user as spammer" button to go with the "report post as spam"

That happens automagically when a mod gets the first report.

Chrispy_ wrote:

So we need a "report user as spammer" button to go with the "report post as spam"

One and the same. Luckily I had to be up early to meet my contractor so I nuked it post-haste.

Is there a way the system can be set to identify a spam poster and auto block them from additional posts, say prior to mod approval.

ShadowEyez wrote:

Is there a way the system can be set to identify a spam poster and auto block them from additional posts, say prior to mod approval.

This is already done through the "Hammer of Banning (HoB) +4", but only Super mods and Admins have access to that. The HoB auto-nukes all the posts and automates the house-cleaning that we are also required to do. Please post further ideas on spam-fighting in the multitude of threads in the Back Porch. The topic is almost discussed to death.

URL posting has been disallowed for the first few posts as of recently. That has some effect. However, the most effective is still to use the "Report Post" button. All mods can clean spam posts and the coverage is really good. Yes there will be gaps because we have lives, but please don't think for a second that the mods are slacking and intentionally let the spammers run wild. Just report the posts and sooner or later one of the mods will get to them.

Flying Fox wrote:

Yes there will be gaps because we have lives, but please don't think for a second that the mods are slacking and intentionally let the spammers run wild. Just report the posts and sooner or later one of the mods will get to them.

The only systemic gap right now is about 2AM to 6AM Eastern Time. On work days, I'm usually first in and clean up that night's love help spam (hey, it's better than fake passport or unlocked cell spam).

Flying Fox wrote:

Please post further ideas on spam-fighting in the multitude of threads in the Back Porch. The topic is almost discussed to death.

Should one of those threads be stickied? It seems that we have renewed spam-killing dicussions every so often, so it might be a good idea to contain the dicussion in one place, complete with a "How the Hammer of Banning +4 Works" post.

Good to know this is monitored (and I know you guys have lives) - lots of spam on the 'net.

Flying Fox wrote:

ShadowEyez wrote:

Is there a way the system can be set to identify a spam poster and auto block them from additional posts, say prior to mod approval.

This is already done through the "Hammer of Banning (HoB) +4", but only Super mods and Admins have access to that. The HoB auto-nukes all the posts and automates the house-cleaning that we are also required to do. Please post further ideas on spam-fighting in the multitude of threads in the Back Porch. The topic is almost discussed to death.

URL posting has been disallowed for the first few posts as of recently. That has some effect. However, the most effective is still to use the "Report Post" button. All mods can clean spam posts and the coverage is really good. Yes there will be gaps because we have lives, but please don't think for a second that the mods are slacking and intentionally let the spammers run wild. Just report the posts and sooner or later one of the mods will get to them.

Well... I better disclose that I've written for a website called htpcbeginner before. Done.

Well, since this thread got bumped anyway, I had a thought - what about blocking new users from creating more than X new threads in a certain time period? Most legitimate ones wouldn't need more than one or two new threads anyway. At least as of late, I keep seeing tons of new threads, all with similar contents, from one or two new users.

One of those has form for the same thing on the Ars forum a couple of years back, with the same sorts of threads

As of June 26th, I am now an employee of Asus.

Per rule 13 here at TR I am making my affiliation publicly known.

Per Asus CoC, it is also important for me to state clearly, that all of my written content here on TR does not represent or reflect the views of Asus or frankly any reasonable human being. Everything I say is exclusively my own personal inflammatory opinion.

Just to try and head this off a potential issue as well. I do not work in the hardware engineering, software engineering, QA, RMA, or customer service related departments of Asus. Do not ask me for help. I do not have that power. I am not Jonney Shih.

To be explicitly clear. I can't help you with hardware flaws, UEFI flaws, bundled software flaws, feature requests, troubleshooting by providing beta UEFI, software, or drivers, getting a product returned, getting you out of customer service hell, getting a refund, or any thing remotely related to any of the previous examples. Any such requests, in clear defiance of this post detailing not to ask me for such things, will be ignored.

Well spoken, and good luck.

Ryu Connor wrote:

Just to try and head this off a potential issue as well. I do not work in the hardware engineering, software engineering, QA, RMA, or customer service related departments of Asus. Do not ask me for help. I do not have that power. I am not Jonney Shih.

So you must work in HR, and people should hit you up with requests for job interviews, right?

Ryu, can you pass on user concerns and user advice on how ASUS can improve their products? Not that I own any ASUS products currently, but thought this forum may be good way for you to inform the powers that be over there about any issues user are having about products.

whm1974 wrote:

Ryu, can you pass on user concerns and user advice on how ASUS can improve their products? Not that I own any ASUS products currently, but thought this forum may be good way for you to inform the powers that be over there about any issues user are having about products.

That would fall under "xxx flaws" or "feature requests", which he specifically indicated he can't do anything about. So no. Did you actually read his entire post?