[COMM/JCC] 'Spam' vs. 'Fluff' - A Critical Distinction

Vertical,

i love you.
you read my mind and put the thoughts on paper better than i ever could have possibly done. you deserve a cookie.

and like deltron, i somewhat still stand by my own statement saying- there is no such thing as "spam". (i'm referring to the "unnecessary or irrelevant" versions of the pseudo-definition people have thrown around in the past.)

and as i said in another thread the other day:

people need to move away from the "spam" concept and judge things for what they really are. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "SPAM." it's a completely fictitious boogeyman like thing, and a way of classifying a plethora of things- some of which are simple to grasp and easy to define, and some of which are so vague that you half to wonder about it's credibility. people often use the words "unnecessary" and "irrelevant" as a way of describing this "spam" nonsense in some cases. just call it what you think it is, don't call it some imaginary word/concept like "spam". if you think it's irrelevant or unnecessary then just say that, and explain why for that case, instead of calling it "spam." people need to label things as they actually are, not as some imaginary concept. spam is unsolicited advertising, not this cluster**** of ambiguity that no one can consistently define. you can't define it because it doesn't exist. it's a lumping together of things that are definable and things that you just make up or mold to fit some other concept as you go along. this "spam" nonsense is a perfect example of subjectivity spun out of control.

 

Gee Vert, I would hate to be your grandkid. You ramble on like Grandfather Simpson!

Anyhow,

QUESTION: What is "spamming"?

ANSWER: The act of filling the forums with unnecessary or irrelevant posts is considered "spamming". It is also considered spamming to advertise excessively for other websites. Posting unnecessary posts for any reason can be considered spamming and will get you a warning, and after that: banned.[b/]

If a post or thread doesn't match the intention of the forum or topic, and is a first time post, I thought it was considered 'off-topic.'

Repeated 'derailment' was spamming.

Repeated 'derailment' in multiple forums was trolling.

?

 

farraday -

You said:

---

[color=blue] I'm reminded of the Green Apple thread, oh so long ago. Member after member would just post "Green Apples!"(or something to that effect).

Is it harmful? Not really, but as a mod or a member, how do I explain the difference between that and spamming to some newbie I pulled over for consecutive posting?

Going by your definitions, as I understand them, it would have been classified as fluff, yet if it showed up today I would hope it would be locked.[/color][hr][/blockquote] Personally, I'd hope it simply wouldn't gather any responses. As much as I don't understand the point of a thread like that, I think, at least initially, it should just be let go on its merry way. If it continues on page after page of nothing but absolutely the same post? Then take it into consideration.

I was going to expand upon the fact that overloading on fluff [i]could[/i] actually wander into spamming, if you posted too many new fluff threads in too short a time (thus, you'd be 'flooding' the forum with 'fluff'... but that has less to do with its being fluff and more to do with simply flooding the forum... if you flooded the forum with legitimate, thoughtful, insightful, thought-provoking threads, you'd still be flooding the forum) I don't want to try and quantify that right now, though, as, at the moment, my only object was to simply clarify the difference between 'spam' and 'fluff'.

Yes, the thread you mentioned would be classified as 'fluff', as would each reply. I don't think the thread should be locked. As I said, I think spam [b]necessarily[/b] requires more than one post from one user.

A thread itself should never be referred to as "spam", unless it is part of a larger occurrence of forum-flooding multi-posting.

Anyway, the example you gave is an interesting one, but does not contradict the definitions I've set forth here... rather, it simply questions what to do about specific extreme examples, and I wasn't intending to get into that just yet, as I've said. Once we can all relatively get used to the distinction, then I think we could benefit from doing 'case studies' on examples such as this one.

Just a comment, though - I don't think we're going to come up with a universal clause like "fluff, under any circumstances, is allowed". Obviously, there will be subjective circumstances which would require special consideration, and I think you've hit on one. But in all honesty, I don't see these threads as a majority, but rather a very small percentage of thread, enough to leave to case by case judgement.

With regards to "posting just to up your post count", I agree - it's an out-dated worry. I don't think it really happens to the degree that it did in the past.

[b]Ternian[/b] -

Regarding "derailing" a thread... I think that falls more under "trolling" than anything else... I think people only called it "spamming" by default, or for lack of a better term. I think determining whether something is 'de-railing' also requires knowledge of the 'nature' of the thread.

Vertical

 

I generally agree with your comments.

I would suggest focusing on clear, practical definitions that are easily enforced instead of trying to derive a definition more appropriate for a dictionary.

 

Of all the things listed as "spammy posts" the one I have seen most often are the sarcastic ones. Whether someone is upset, angry, saying goodbye, or just posting some funny picture, there is almost guaranteed to be someone waltzing into the thread and make some comment about how pointless the thread is and how much they don't want to hear about it. This also ties in with the whole "every thread is a personal call to me" view of the JCC posters, in which even if someone does not know/care about something they feel compelled to tell everyone that.

In terms of posting only to up post counts, I have not noticed that, and in fact, if anyone wanted to, there are basically specific threads that are non-spammy and still lend to you doing that, such as any "[This Movie] Line By Line!" thread or say the Psychology Word Thread in the JCC. With things like this, people easily can up their post count easily and minutely without bothering anyone else, and it seems to me they do. I have not noticed many people hopping from thread to thread posting short, random things just to up their post count.

*sigh* The things you'll spend multiple minutes talking about when putting off typing a paper.

 

Vert, it's good to see you posting in public forums again.

I agree with Kyle.

I would think most of the sensible JCers can distinguish between the two. The fact a thread like this has started, and has generated such overwhelmingly positive response, tells me, that most don't get it.

As with most issues that come up in comms, this seems to deal almost exclusively with the JCC, and the way mods enforce the TOS in that forum. And since this long-drawn out post is seeing its first light of day, it makes me ask myself two questions.

Are the JCC mods capable of distinguishing between fluff and spam?

And if not, what was the purpose of this thread to begin with?

 

Are the JCC mods capable of distinguishing between fluff and spam?

honestly, i really don't think they are. simply based on the threads they lock. nine out of every ten threads they lock for what they think is "spam" are really just fluff. either that or they think "spam" is at least partly based on their own taste, as in if they don't like it, think it's funny, or get it, then they call it "spam."

 

OK, everyone, hold onto something...I'm about to agree with Deltron on something

Spammy Replies:
1. Mindless chit chat
2. The "spam" labellers
3. Lost in their own little world
4. The derailers
5. Thanks for sharing

I agree with this. Too often members come in and purposely disrupt threads for their own reasons. This is spam.

I dont mind fluff...I see it as maybe people going with a side issues in a thread...it taking a little harmeless temporary detour.

Where I draw the line in my head, is when people go into a thread and have a go at the author, or purposely take the thread off topic, or something like that. I think this sort of posting has become more accepted recently, and it really should be stopped.

Harmless fluff is fine....getting in there and purposely posting off topic rubbish is not.

Of course, then we have the problems of what people call 'harmless'...but thats a different story altogether

 

Regarding "derailing" a thread... I think that falls more under "trolling" than anything else... I think people only called it "spamming" by default, or for lack of a better term.

Trolling would be multiple off post topics - deliberately. Spamming could be done accidentally.

I think determining whether something is 'de-railing' also requires knowledge of the 'nature' of the thread.

I think it would be easy to get the idea of the 'nature' of the thread...however, wouldn't the forum's mods know the nature?

 

Dagsy said:

---

[color=blue]I agree with this. Too often members come in and purposely disrupt threads for their own reasons. This is spam.[/color][hr][/blockquote] While I agree that this is something the Administration should keep in check, I would suggest we try to come up with another term other than 'spam' for this particular type of posting. I don't really think what you're talking about classifies as 'spam' (in the 'new' sense of the word we're trying to go with here). It's definitely something that should be addressed (and [b]Ternian[/b] touched on it with his 'derailment' comment), but I don't think it's 'spam'. [blockquote][b]Ternian said:[/b][hr][color=blue]Trolling would be multiple off post topics - deliberately. Spamming could be done accidentally.[/color][hr][/blockquote]True.[blockquote][b]Ternian said:[/b][hr][color=blue]I think it would be easy to get the idea of the 'nature' of the thread...however, wouldn't the forum's mods know the nature?[/color][hr][/blockquote] I wasn't suggesting this was a 'difficult' thing to do. I think it's fairly easy. I was just pointing out that each thread might be a different situation, so there couldn't really be a 'blanket' policy regarding 'de-railing', unless it were in a very vague sense of "deliberately trying to disrupt the natural flow and interaction in the thread".

Vertical

 

Vertical,

Great idea for a thread. I think that a more solid defintion on what 'Spam' or 'Fluff' is would make a much easier job of Moderating for those amongst us that do it. I like what you have achieved here so far, though I would suggest not to go any further.

To cite an example where you replied to farraday:

I don't want to try and quantify that right now, though, as, at the moment, my only object was to simply clarify the difference between 'spam' and 'fluff'.

I believe this is the point where this discussion should no longer progress from. The problem between Moderators and Users is simply that, Moderating, just like exam marking or work reviews in the office place is entirely subjective. One Mod can enter a thread and see one thing, while another can enter the same thread and see something to a degree, different. This is an inescapable issue when you have more than one Moderator. However, I feel that this is not an entirely hopeless situation.

With this clarification/distinction that you have posted, provided most people agree with the general definition we have a clear outline of the exact types of posts that are being addressed. If a Moderator now goes into the JCC, for example, and locks a post they are able to lable the reason for closing it against an established parameter. For example, 'This is excessive fluff, please PM me if you think it should be reopened.' or 'This thread has degenerated from harmless fluff to trolling and spamming, this is why I have closed it.'

I believe that using these distinctions, possibly with more for trolling and other such activities, the Staff has a way of explaining (more thoroughly than is often done) to the users exactly what logic has lead them to closing the thread. If a user disagrees, all they have to do is look at the critera that has outlined for a post being 'Fluff' or 'Spam' etc. If we take this any further, and attempt to do things like quantify exactly how much 'Fluff' is enough, or disallow 'Fluff' from a forum, because no matter how hard we try we can never reach a definition that will be satisfying to even a tiny majority of posters on exactly what type of 'Fluff' or how much should be allowed. There are always grey areas but within reason, and provided the Moderators act within reason, there shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Tayschrenn

 

I think writing up distinctions such as that presented by Vertical take us one step closer to reducing subjectivity and setting a clearer picture for all of us. It's all about continuous improvement and consistency.

 

Agreed.

But if you get to the stage where the distinctions become board-wide policies, they are going to need very narrow definitions which specify exactly the type of critera a thread must contain for it to be locked. In my opinion, if these distinctions remain at a level in and around where they are now, they could be used as simply a point of reference, allowing for grey-areas to be handled by Mods directly.

 

Speaking of defining fluff, when is it going to be added into the FAQ threads and the WNU JC dictionary (can't think of the exact name)??

I think that after nearly 5 months of this thread's existance, something on the subject needs to be added into the more important index/FAQ threads.

Any thoughts?

 

Up. It's been pointed out to me that this is suddenly relevant again.

 

To those who say that the term spam only applies to commercial email, I hate to say it, but most computing authorities disagree with you.

The Free On-Line Dictionary of Computing defines spam as:

1. <messaging> (From Hormel's Spiced Ham, via the Monty Python "Spam" song) To post irrelevant or inappropriate messages to one or more Usenet newsgroups, mailing lists, or other messaging system in deliberate or accidental violation of netiquette.

Then, we have Eric S. Raymond's Jargon File:

2. To cause a newsgroup to be flooded with irrelevant or inappropriate messages. You can spam a newsgroup with as little as one well- (or ill-) planned message (e.g. asking ?What do you think of abortion?? on soc.women). This is often done with cross-posting (e.g. any message which is cross-posted to alt.rush-limbaugh and alt.politics.homosexuality will almost inevitably spam both groups). This overlaps with troll behavior; the latter more specific term has become more common.

These are common definitions (other than the meat-related one) that are recognized by two of the biggest authorities in the computing industry (ESR is a recognized expert on the history of hacking and computing).

Not to say that Vertical is wrong in saying that his original definition was wrong, but it was correct. Spam can be either irrelevant or inappropriate.

Kimball Kinnison

 

vertical is sorely missed around here.

 

Spam can be either irrelevant or inappropriate.

And the sheer broadness of those terms is exactly why it's ridiculous to lock threads under that basis. The entire JCC forum is pretty much irrelevant to a Star Wars message board, as is the Senate, and the Amphitheatre. The use of "spam" as a reason to lock threads ends up being sorely abused, because mods just start throwing it out there whenever they don't feel like giving an actual reason for locking a thread.

Amazing.

 

> To those who say that the term spam only applies to commercial email, I hate to say it, but most computing authorities disagree with you.

Put aside the semantics please, and concentrate on the issues Vert raises, as they are what actually apply to posts at the JC.

 

The use of "spam" as a reason to lock threads ends up being sorely abused, because mods just start throwing it out there whenever they don't feel like giving an actual reason for locking a thread.

Well, they are the first authority when it comes to it, and if they're actions are questioned, Kinnison has already told you the proper way to appeal.

 

The use of "spam" as a reason to lock threads ends up being sorely abused, because mods just start throwing it out there whenever they don't feel like giving an actual reason for locking a thread.

Seems to me that the definition of "spam", in how it relates to the boards, and whether or not it is a valid reason to close a thread, still needs to be clarified further. Vert's post is a great start, but it's not all the way there.

 

Believe it or not, this thread by Vertical completely changed the way I moderate and look at threads. I honestly judged so many threads to be spam when others wouldn't. I'm referring to MS discussions when a mod would ask if such and such a thread is spam. I rarely mod in the JCC unless I'm in there and something really bad and obvious needs immediate editing or I receive a PM to help because no JCC mod is online.

I used to look at things from a movie spoiler forum perspective only. That was great as a spoiler mod. When I became the Comms admin and then head admin, I no longer represented that forum alone. I represented all forums. As such, I needed to change. When a mod tries to change the users, there's going to be trouble. The amount of trouble is directly proportional to the time it takes for the moderator to unlearn what he has learned from his non-JCC forum. Notice I said that in most cases it's the mod who has made a mistake in judgment.

Let me say that all of the things that follow is not about any mod in particular, nor was I thinking of anyone who was in my mind at the time. What follows is my own personal attitude of how I think things should and could be.

A mod needs to remember they are a user who can edit and nothing more, no matter what level they're at. The pitfall is to be everything to everyone all the time. What inevitably ends up happening is mod burnout, user resentment, and bad feelings all around. Remember we were all regular users. Even head admins should put as much of their regular user personality and opinions into their posts because that behavior is what was recognized and got them the position in the first place.

Users will respect mods more if they say they don't know the answer, they're sorry, or they made a wrong call. That goes further than anyone would imagine. A mod post that says that's the way it is, always has been, and always will be because I'm the mod and that's why pisses off everyone and perpetuates bad relataions. When mods start pulling a two-face, forget where they came from, mod with an iron fist, and start to post in a self-important style, it's all over folks. Why? Because users can detect it and smell it.

Just be yourselves. But this public thread is an extension of Vert's PM's to me and MS threads of the same nature. He taught me to be a better moderator, a better Communications administrator, and a better head administrator because of this.

A mod needs to look at the individual post when making a determiniation. The JCC is a fun forum and represents where we all are, what's on our minds, what we think about when not discussing films and such.

I'd say nearly everything is acceptable in that forum. Sure, most is fluff. But even that term is subjective. Remember mods, look at the post itself. Is it really problematic? Even if it's about a turd? If people are offended, they won't post in it and it will sink. If the thread stays active because of only one or two members upping it, then the individual posting activity is spamming as they are upping their own threads. My advice is to listen to Sean Connery at the end of The Last Crusade.

Let it go, Indiana. Let it go.

 

Great definitions, KK. I'm glad you understand that in the YJCC no subject is spam. A post within a topic can be spam, but no actual new topic is spam, unless it's a repeat of other recent topics.

With that in mind, unlock my thread, please.

 

Ignant...Even though you said "please" somehow I just don't see your thread being unlocked. Depressing.

 

Now I would disagree with the statement that nothing is spam. Occassionally there are spam threads and they should be locked.