Gadgets & Tech – "We’re adding some new language to the Netscape FAQ, so that everyone knows where we stand on people gaming the site. Today, we placed a 14 day ban on any stories submitted to Netscape that came from ..."
C.K.:
In case you're a website owner and you want to know our policy, here's what will be added to our FAQ soon:
Why was a link on one of my stories changed by a Netscape Anchor?
In order to ensure that there are not multiple duplicates of the same story, it is important that Netscape community members always link to the original source of a story. Whenever the Netscape Anchor team spots a story that is not linked to the original source, we will change the link and leave a note in Anchor Commentary noting the change.
For example, if you have posted an AOL UnCut Video, YouTube or Google Video video to your personal blog and you wish to submit the story to Netscape, unless your blog post presents substantial analysis or discussion of the video, you should link directly to the source video.
This same rule should apply to any stories—regardless of whether they are audio, video, pictures, or text—that you submit to Netscape. We want to avoid cluttering the system with rehashed stories, and we appreciate your help in this matter.
Netscape is not accepting submissions from a specific URL, noting that the site has been banned or is under investigation for spamming when I try to submit a story from that URL. What gives?
In order to prevent duplicates, we permanently ban sites like TinyURL.com or other URL aliasing services online. We also permanently ban URLs from sites that clearly violate our Terms of Use (this includes links to pornography, sites which are abusive, or sites that promote crimes).
If sites are reported by users or our anti-spamming algorithms for spamming the system with stories, we place a 14 day ban on the site while we investigate and as a warning to the possible spammers. If there is a repeat second offense the ban will be reinitiated and extended for 90 days. If the site has been reported and temporarily banned multiple times and shows evidence of actual spamming tactics, Netscape will ban the URL permanently.
What do you mean by spamming?
You're more likely than not familiar with spam from email. It's unwanted content that is often trying to sell you something. Besides eliminating actual spam stories in the system when they are reported by Netscape members and our anti-spamming algorithms, the Anchor team watches for spamming behavior.
For example, if a group of individuals (or a single individual registering multiple Netscape member accounts) only post links to sites with which they are affiliated (more likely than not profiting from any traffic coming to that site) and only vote and comment on stories with which they are affiliated and all these actions are clearly a coordinated effort to push the stories to the Netscape Homepage, these individuals would clearly be trying to game the system and spamming Netscape with their stories.
That being said, if you and your friends have similar interests and tend to vote on the same stories or on each other's stories, but this clearly isn't done as a concerted effort, then that would qualify as normal social behavior, which we not only approve of, but encourage.
If you want to make sure that you aren't setting off either community of computer alarms, we recommend that you participate fully in our community, submit stories from multiple sources, avoid group voting, and clearly announce when you submit stories with which you are affiliated.
2006-08-09 13:44:47
Masked Protester, I think the issue is that we have more liberal stories submitted by liberal users than conservative stories being submitted by conservative users. If there were more people submitting conservative stories there would be less of a slant. Encourage all your conservative friends to join.
I disagree with your example of youtube. The truth is if you post a video to youtube on your blog - YOU, Netscape will simply embed it on your site...Netscape. I know, because you did it to one of my stories.
It's your site, and you can do as you wish...but, I think if you want to compete with other social news sites, why punish people for trying to get traffic to their blog? If you really got it, you would realize that's what people want. TRAFFIC. So someone embeds a video on their blog. Who cares?
Hmm..I'm not sure why I'm giving you this advice. I should start my own social news site that doesn't pay people directly...but pays them indirectly by giving them traffic...which is what almost everyone wants.
ipod, the comparison to YouTube is valid. What possible purpose does the user have to go to an intermediary site? Unless they are providing relevant commentary, NONE.
Think about it this way, you want to go somewhere. But first, you have to go out of your way somewhere else, listen to someone else tell you where to go (again), before you can leave again.
Worse still, this sort of thing leads to linkfarms, which anyone will tell you are bad. Why not just steal content from around the web, post it on your blog, and link to your blog? Because you didn't create it! You contribute nothing but stealing it. UNLESS there is thought put into it-- as you find on Listable pages...
The idea is to go straight to the source. This is why courtrooms do not allow hearsay. If it's just about "getting traffic," there are lots of unethical ways to do that... As many as just "getting money."
The basic concept is ADD VALUE. If you don't add value people will vote you off the island for breaking the "middle man rule."
So, if you do a YouTube post on your blog and don't want it redirect to YouTube add enough value that people don't complain that you're breaking the "middle man rule."
You can do this by listing three related videos, doing an interview with the person who made the video, writing about the video itself, transcribing what was said in the video, giving more context to the video, etc.
This is not just something for Netscape Anchors and Navigators to deal with, it is also something for the community to work on.
I might comment on a story but not even go there because the story line might not sound appetizing to me and I don't want to support the site with my traffic. Your Netscape blog sounds fine. I've had to sort of figure out what has happened to 'my netscape' piece by piece. Also, how to get the post through. As far as the people posting here, I think they are ok but no doubt some will think of ways to use this outlet to their advantage in monetary and other ways. Finally, often everything has been said, just not everyone has said it yet. Thanks for the new format. I am enjoying it.
PS. Do you check the URL's that people have in their posts too. Not only for SPAM but for other malicious type stuff?
I agree with Netscape on this one.
What can Netscape do to keep posters on topic?
Post an article on rubber baby buggy bumpers and in no time people are bashing others or have gone to the far side of politics. Original topic be damned.
Netscape took the leap to reality "news" and we have delivered. It would be beneficial to keep on topic OR have a place to bash it out outside of the original story.
Maybe this can be a story?
Does anyone agree?
I'm amazed that Netscape isn't getting it. Also glad at the same time. This is a perfect opportunity to seize... and start my own site.
Anyway, I agree - with stories it is kind of dumb to read an intro to a story and then see a link to the original story. But, the funny thing is Weblogs Inc. does this all the time...which is owned by AOL. Kind of hypocritcal, perhaps?
My point is that a person submitting a story took the time to find the story/video, write up a hopefully creative headline and submitted it. What's wrong with throwing a little traffic to him as a reward for his work?
Here is my point. I agree with this decision by netscape, However I seem to always see a "but wait a minute" to everything. Let's say you create a lot of videos, maybe 20 of them. You don't have the bandwidth to host all your videos because your site is reasonable popular, but can't afford the bandwidth. So you decide to host the videos on youtube. Then you embed them on your site, no words just videos. With that being said why shouldn't you get the traffic, you created the video. According to the policy Youtube gets the traffic, instead of the original creator. Just food for thought!
Alright...I'm full of it. I really doubt I'll start my own social bookmarking site, so I want to give you this idea, Netscape...that would truly kick ass and blow the competition out of the water.
Create a traffic reward system for your users. That would motivate me to submit more stories. This could be done in a simple way - such as have a direct link to my web site from my username. The way it is now, my username goes to a site such as netscape.com/members/blahblah
You need to do something different to stand out from the competition. Some kind of traffic reward system would get my attention. Perhaps put an additional link next to the user name that goes to their home page.
Anyway, just a suggestion. Two key things are give users traffic, and make it significant enough and not just 1 visit a day. Just an idea...
I agree with shane above. If you think about it, YouTube ISN'T the original source anyway. YouTube is full of copyright violoations and the original source is whoever ORIGINALLY created the video.
I think everyone likes to directly link to YouTube because they are so popular right now. Kind of an ass-kissing thing if you ask me.
PART 1
I have to say I am somewhat concerned yet agree with such at the same time.
Now one might consider some of what I submit then as spam... Yet it is not by my definition. I take raw press releases and enhance and publish the content. I would not consider the material in the form I receive it as always ready for publish. Now I do, now and then comment on other articles and have on very few occasions published articles not from our agency. If Netscape wishes me to cease then say the word. But I don't not think worthy content no matter where it comes from should be banned... Let me state that again, worthy content. Now since we at Scientific Frontline maintains and hold approval from our sources to disseminate the information. I would be very offended about an URL being changed to our original source. Just about all information comes from another source somewhere down the line.
CONT.
To many other newspapers and news agencies quote us as source. So whom is the watch dog and decision maker on this matter. Do we place our articles for traffic... well yea! Dumb question I would say and I'll be honest about it. But that is what you are providing to all... a source to traffic, someone is getting it. But I am also very proud of what my team and I provides for content. It is not ever worthless material. Even dear Google lists me as a source in the Financial section regrading Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc etc... Interesting I would say. Now if you want quality material to vanish, then say the word. Then you can keep what is on the from page now "Disney Looking to Dump Mel?" as your hot stories rather then a possible cure for Parkinson.
I do hope Netscape is wise about their choices. I have spoken nothing but positive words about Netscape, I hope I can continue to do so.
Sincerely,
Heidi-Ann Kennedy
Scientific Frontline.
Disclaimer http://www.sflorg.com/disclaimer.html
When this format went active, I accused a moderately active "contributor" of pumping stories only from a single source. To "prove" that I was wrong, he then submitted three Reuters stories. Since then he has gone back to his old ways. Currently the score is Reuters--3, Blogcritics.org--117, others--0. Is this considered "gaming" your site? If it is, then why haven't you done something about it before now? Surely you knew enough about this sort of site to expect such shenanigans.
Incidentally, I have learned here that Webhosting is an amazing business, requiring no real qualifications or prior success, and executed with little or no planning.
Breathlessly awaiting August 19.
Yours truly,
1-2-Oscar
I think a little gaming could be used for direct political response. A politically directed group could issues a candidates statement, and then one of the member post the even as news. They then as a group of 'friends' vote the statement into prominence to place it forward onto the front page, then their own staff post full supporting information the candidate wishes to bring into the public discussion. The Democratic National Committee or the RNC could find this site, a clear platform for candidates information. This also could be the simple formula for a marketing team, to deliver product information. It is gaming but it also offers groups a platform for open discussion. At some time you will want a candidate to step up and off his position.
WOW!!All this is over my stupid old head. I use a computer for enjoyment and contacting family, friends and of course, news, but this is to "geeky" for an old fossil like me. Beside, my Netscape Browser quit working all of a sudden since all this new stuff came about, I have uninstalled and re-installed twice. NoGo, so I guess it's so long Netscape. Shame I like it too. I wonder if AOL had something to do with screwing up a good thing. Never cared much for AOL. Kinda liked the new format and being able to comment, but...oh well back to IE, no trouble accessing anything through there.
Can still access this site through IE. How come we have all these anti-american, foreign news services represented here and ones I haven't even heard of. We all know what they are about and the liberal side/slant thingy is something else and do they realy think they are going to convince someone with their "raw and enhanced" versions. Isn't enhancing a story what used to be referred to as "yellow journalism"? Report the news with the true unvarnished story and forget all the stuff about enhancing, or giving an opinion. That's why most Americans don't trust what they read and definitely not what they see on news shows, at least I don't. I'm not interested in what the English, Germans or French think, they don't pay my bills, in fact with our foreign aid give away programs, maybe we as taxpayers pay most of theirs...
Well if you get the story from a reporter, why add graphics, videos and whatever you do. Just say what the person reporting the story says or what information the story contains without "enhancing". And as far as understanding and commenting, I didn't just fall off the melon truck and have been around a long time and have the right to speak my mind whenever and wherever I please. I fought for that right in my country and as long as I don't advocate the violent overthrow of the United States and attempt to do so, then I can say and comment as I please. If you're going to add videos, graphics whatever, say that. "Enchancing" in my dictionary means that you add to something to make it better and most of the people I know don't want your kind of "enhancments" in their news; just the facts ma'm, just the facts. Being straight forward and honest that's my understanding of how things are done and that's my comment on that.
Here is the best part of Netscapes forums-
an article is submitted, hopefully read, and then commented on.
Anyone can post a story. I have.
There is so much info out there that there are sites you've never heard of. Great! Go visit that site and links.
You get to comment on the article. So instead of a blanket statement like "liberal/... leaning story" discuss the facts. Back up your statements. Provide links.
Make the discussion better for everyone.
You may just be surprised at the feedback!
I agee with you whosay. Just submitted my second story. It's out there. From a local paper but addresses national issue like are we ready to vote out the incumbants in Congress and why shouldn't we check out their opponants who might be a really qualified person. We just keep on with keeping on. Sort of if its not broke don't fix it. Our current congress person is not that bad etc.... Anyway I'm off from the topic.
Ipod,
you apparently CAN'T cancel your "membership"? They will count you regardless. Some of us were forced to register on the site just to protest the very non customer oriented web page/format change. They Still Count US! Many of my friends are long gone!
Good People like JimEspo (hi Jim!) rah rah 36,000 registered users when many aren't real. You still have some well-intentioned wannabe journalists but much of this is the chronically under-employed.
You CAN ping their advertisers and say you you resent them supporting a site that forced people onto it to register their displeasure without a way to cancel membership. Same thing with the current dinosaur policies. Vote with your feet. Go somewhere else, but HIT their advertisers, they charge them based on this fake membership. What were they thinking? Why are we here?
Vote!
HERE'A TOPIC!
How Can You Resign Membership on the "Gamed New Netscape"?
Would it cut member
hsip in half or by 3/4's? (Jim, maybe less than 9000?).
If the Netscape TOS says that links to "pornography" sites are not allowed, how come Scott-O-Rama has consistent front page articles that take you to a blog filled with pornography and foul images? It seems to me that the rules are bent a little here...Comments? It seems to me that this might be Digg worthy...
What can Netscape do to keep posters on topic?
Post an article on rubber baby buggy bumpers and in no time people are bashing others or have gone to the far side of politics. Original topic be damned.
Netscape took the leap to reality "news" and we have delivered. It would be beneficial to keep on topic OR have a place to bash it out outside of the original story.
Maybe this can be a story?
I always try to think of the big three (which includes digg, reddit and netscape) and my only point of reference is comparing them. Here's some--
Netscape Goods: not too narrow in content...so sick of all the stories submited on other sites about Linux
Netscape Bad Here: who on earth thought of the inane Channels here. Some are just so random.
Netscape good and bad: time a story stays on the homepge. I think is the only one to have the traffic to have meaninful stories make it to the homepage, RE: a lot of rotating. That is GOOD, but it may bump things off the homepage that should be there all day. Once big prob with Netscape and it's leaving stories on top for 24 hours usually, is that a story may be BIG but then the facts change and it stays there!
Not a member? Sign-up today!
notucevi
bop4ik
RickyGervais
y7vkv2adr
uhm3z87imf
ne1ylkf3
Jeweler
sertalesa
uadesign
littleduck
Alexey
GrantMay
Doxtar
gregcap
Kristella
kirill_vas
musicant
yayyi
contradiction
uncogito
Erast
Janizz
Hullios
Wrabbit
suzie2009
Rizeman
drthy_dowling
dunduk777
lovingu
pushkin
poeben
kocheregka
korsetter
briks
spouk
smeli
jessicabouch
Alex7x
alexahamp
fred_lolo
aesculapius
camions
techgeeck
lonelycarle
Divad
downbeat
scotsworth788
Gabe_Damage
stuntdubl
weirdscience
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
47)
Vote
I am glad you clarified this incident, at the same time it shows how popular netscape.com is becoming for delivering traffic.