# Links to Other Sites (Split)



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

Good grief...it was just a simple question. I still don't have any idea what you're obviously upset about, but with my schedule now, I'm not keeping up with everything as well as I used to. 

All I wanted to know is if you did better than upper 60's for SS for the dish that you installed. I certainly wasn't trying to offend.


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

I think that Simon is refering to a comment made by Scott about how some of his posts were edited/deleted over at AVS concerning the Verizon FIOS stuff.

Quite frankly, I really wish the crap that floats between the 2 boards would just end. Scott's stated goal is that he intends to be the first with everything he can find out, and hey, more power to him. I, like Simon, and others, are here to help. Sometimes we get a little testy, but we are human. This ill-will is not something we care about or try to conribute to. 

Ok, rant over. Hopefully, I helped to clarify. If not, Simon, set it straight. Thanx


----------



## RandallA (Feb 4, 2005)

I've also seen posts deleted in this forum just because they have links to the "other" site. :eek2: 

Some guys like Larry and Simon come here to help and offer their professional expertise for nothing. They don't need to be dealing with the crap that's going on. It's just ridiculous to be deleting posts just because they have links to the "other" site. :nono2:


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

Simon and I also try to keep post sites updated with what we are doing or asking about, which is quite frankly, a huge pain. Just keeping up with that thread about the 61.5 between both sites and trying to keep it updated and corrected kept me busy. I enjoy taking part in these sites and trying to help out and share the information that I have.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

RandallA said:


> I've also seen posts deleted in this forum just because they have links to the "other" site. :eek2:


To be honest, the few posts I have seen removed did little more than link to another site. There are recent threads around with links to Scott's site ...

Nevertheless, content contributed to this site is appreciated.

JL


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

Nevermind...all I wanted was a little advice from someone with experience who I thought was a friend of mine.


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

Mark Lamutt said:


> Nevermind...all I wanted was a little advice from someone with experience who I thought was a friend of mine.


Mark, I don't think Simon was targeting you directly. All of us get a little annoyed sometimes and don't mean to come across as rude. I'm sure Simon will be back around soon and this will blow over.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Yes, Mark - the guys in posts 27-30 have it right. Certainly NOTHING against you.

This crap between the two boards really sucks.

But for those of us here providing help and not being able to point at the other site's good threads is totally wrong. I've never heard of a post over there being delted for links to the various good threads here.

P.S. Sorry I didn't get back sooner, but this is the #3 board I post at. It used to be #1.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SimpleSimon said:


> Yes, Mark - the guys in posts 27-30 have it right. Certainly NOTHING against you.


Since I wrote post #30 I'm glad to see I had it right. Perhaps I should clarify in case it was misunderstood.

_"The few posts I have seen removed did little more than link to another site."_

If I see a post linking to DBSForum or even AVSForum that says "already being discussed in this thread" or "see this thread" with an off-site link and no information for DBSTalk members, 'delete post' will quickly come to mind. If content on another site comes up for discussion here I'll stay away from deleting that post. I'm not the only mod here and I'm not speaking for the moderators or administrators in this post, just reflecting my personal opinion of posts linking to _any_ other discussion site.

I feel the same way about posts linking to other sites like press releases in the E* forums and news stories in Potpourri. I've seen a lot of posts that are simply an off-site URL. Does that inform DBSTalk members or just create hits on the linked site when readers wonder what the link is about? In those cases I would visit the link and quickly post or post edit a few paragraphs of content from wherever the link is to let DBSTalk members know what the link is before they click.

There are some sites that would not want ANY content copied and pasted on this site ... even if it were to be only a couple of paragraphs and include a link. In respect of _their_ copyright requests quoting isn't possible. Perhaps we are being too respectful. Perhaps if the roles were reversed the other site would have less or no respect for DBSTalk's copyright. In any case, we respect copyright here.


SimpleSimon said:


> This crap between the two boards really sucks.


I don't believe it is between "the two boards". As noted above, it doesn't matter where the off-site link is to when I look at the overall content of a post. The only difference it makes is knowing the policy of the other site and respecting their copyright. And that applies to ALL off-site links that I see.

Back on topic:
Here are Simple Simon's signal strength readings: offsite link

James
_Speaking for me_


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

James Long said:


> _"The few posts I have seen removed did little more than link to another site."_


There have been misunderstandings, like when your posts over at SatGuys mysteriously disappeared and Scott had to fix them. And there have been others times. I have never seen it happen to myself tho.



James Long said:


> I don't believe it is between "the two boards". As noted above, it doesn't matter where the off-site link is to when I look at the overall content of a post. The only difference it makes is knowing the policy of the other site and respecting their copyright. And that applies to ALL off-site links that I see.


There is a lot of problems between the 2 boards. Quite frankly, I don't feel it is neccessary for Scott to brag about how his site has breaking news before the "other site" or how his site is better than the other site. I've told Scott several times that I feel(and note that this is MY opinion) that it is totally uneccessary. I've got 4 times the amount of posts here than I do at SatGuys, but that's not an indication that I think either site is better or worse. I prefer this site's lack of ads and organization tho. I have access to a great deal of insider info, but I don't go around posting it or starting rumors. I prefer to let others do that so I don't burn my contacts.


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

Cool. I have noticed a huge trend lately where the same thread is started on both sites, and it is quit e a pain to try to keep up with it. When I get a chance, I will install the 129 with a D* Phase I dish using an SW64, and then use a dish I will modify to use a DPTwin/DPDual/DP21 to see if there are any differences. Unfortunately, it may take a week or three before I have time.

Also, when my 61.5 thread was added to the EKB by TNGTony, I was asked first and proper credit was given which I appreciate. It is kinda cool being an official part of something when I was just trying to help others out(and reduce the # of times I wrote the same reply..... )


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Just to make things clear. The mods here from what I have read and seen are basically following the same guidelines as JL outlined. If a post is made like "Same Discussion here" with a link over to the another site it is obvious that the intention is to draw eyes over to another site. 

If a user like Simon posts some excellent work and does not want to cut and paste the work at multiple sites, I doubt posting a summary with a link to the details would get deleted. I am just speaking for myself, but I know I would not. I would say it is a gray area and with each post a judgement call is made. But as a general rule I am not aware of any policy change in this regard. 

Simon I am not sure who told you that you are not allowed to mention "SatGuys" on here, but I am not aware of any policy of deleting threads that mention the site or contains a link to the site. 

Personally I welcome your wisdom here Simon and appreciated the information you provide. Thanks for the correction on Voom on 129. Got me thinking.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

I think some people post at both sites because some people visit one site and not the other and want to see if there will be a variation in the discussion or more information that could become available as a result and sometimes that does happen.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Jacob S said:


> I think some people post at both sites because some people visit one site and not the other and want to see if there will be a variation in the discussion or more information that could become available as a result and sometimes that does happen.


Precisely - that does happen - often, and why I disagree with the following:


Ron Barry said:


> If a post is made like "Same Discussion here" with a link over to the another site it is obvious that the intention is to draw eyes over to another site.


It is NOT obviously SPAM.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Ron Barry said:


> If a post is made like "Same Discussion here" with a link over to the another site it is obvious that the intention is to draw eyes over to another site.





SimpleSimon said:


> It is NOT obviously SPAM.


Never said it was SPAM. Maybe I should been more clear and not used the word obviously.

I used the word obviosly to mean in the cases I have ran into. After following the link I have found the link in all of the cases that i have been involved with was designed to direct the user to aother site's discussion thread. And at the time, it was obvsious based on a number of factors that was the intent of the post. One can argue if that constitutes SPAM or not, but that is not the point.

In the cases I have seen, it was obvious there was no intention to clarify or to direct people to more information provided by the user on another site. The post was there for the sole purpose to direct poeple to another site. If it is the case where it is obviosuly there for added value or to provide information the poster already had posted and did not want to duplicate on this site, I personally I would not remove the link as it adds value. I dont' think the other mods would either.

You might be correct Simon that in some cases the intention is to make people aware of other threads discussing the same topic and it might have additional useful information. (if that is why you disagree with my statement. If I have time, I do follow the link and check if this is the case. Like I said, most times it is not.

Just for the record, I recall twice when I have ran into these cases.

Boy we seemed to wonder off here. Well Simon.. Congrats on your first D1000 install. I might be getting one in the near future or might just point my 148 that way if I can get what I need on 148 on 129. Still trying to figure that one out.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Ron Barry said:


> if that is why you disagree with my statement


That is my reason.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

In case you are lost ... this thread started out as part of this thread in the General Dish Network Forum ... the topic of the rules about linking to other sites came up.

The rules discussion portion has moved here to the admin forum.

James Long


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

There is no issue. Links to the "other site" are not banned here, at least not yet. There is a ban at AVS but whether or not it carries over to here is up in the air.

BUT, when links to ANY site are posted, we look closely at the intent of the link. If it's good information that is not posted here, we leave it. Case and point:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=452105&&#post452105

If the link is intended to draw eyes over to another site, it's SPAM and we delete it. We have alleviated much of that problem though because we installed a hack that does not allow new users to post links when they have under 5 posts on their account.

We have a simple policy about linking to other sites and it's based on common sense. We don't just randomly delete links because we don't like them.


----------



## n8dagr8 (Aug 14, 2004)

Chris Blount said:


> We have alleviated much of that problem though because we installed a hack that does not allow new users to post links when they have under 5 posts on their account.


I think this was a very good move...noticed someone complaining about it a while back but it's smart. I would even vote for making the limit 10 but I haven't noticed that much SPAM so I guess you guys do a good job of nipping it in the bud.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Most people who join to spam are frustrated by the five post thing ... it slows them down. It also makes them easier to catch if they decide to make a few posts to get over the threshold. The post limit is the last line of security stopping people from joining to spam.

Keeping the spam and anoyance links (such as a links to ANY site without discussion of why it was linked) off the site makes the site better for all members.

JL


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

SimpleSimon said:


> That is my reason.


And a perfectly valid one, at that.


----------

