Message One
 

I just answered an outstanding question to a user here in this forum and got the message back I had to post at least 3 msgs in advance.

So this useless message may be the first one ;-)

The back button effected my answer was deleted
from the text area :-(

--Reto

To help combat spam, you must have at least 3 posts in order to include a URL in your post.

--jeremy

cheer up! It used to be 5 posts!

Please don't spam the forums with meaningless posts to get your post count. Thank you for trying to help someone even though you are just new here- it's a sad fact that evil spam is forcing us to make things a little difficult.

titanium_geek

Welcome to LQ!

So either answer two more posts without using a URL (I have an unanswered post), or answer that one and be creative -- munge the URL so that the user can type it into his browser.

We need people with intelligent answers here. ;)

Er... I already made my three posts. In fact I made them consecutively; all the while stating in those very posts that I was making those posts so that I could post URL's.

I posted my message with the URL's the other night. I just tried to answer a thread with a post that contained NO URL's in it and it STILL gave me that very same message.

Why would that be?

*blinks*

Umm... I just noticed after asking that question that I now only have 3 posts. I had four the other night after making my posts. I must've been knocked down to only 2 posts then. I think I see what happened. They must've set me back down to 2 after I circumvented the 3-post rule by posting three times consecutively. (While clearly stating that I was doing it for the sole purpose of enabling myself to help someone else, mind you! LOL!)

Wow... Ok. Check this out, kids.. Let's make THESE two posts useful for the new people of the future.

DON'T DO WHAT I DID! It makes the admins mad and they take posts back from you! LOL!

Now... Excuse me while I go post that NON-LINK-CONTAINING post I was trying to make. (Wierd.)

Later!

First of all...

HOW many times do I need to be reprimanded? And by how many people?

I believe ONE with 'root' status was SUFFICIENT.

Second of all...

The link I posted was informational. Check it if you want. It gets the point across. I don't have the time to sit here and type a long-winded explanation. So...invariably...

LINKS IT IS.

And... As for THIS:
No, 'b0uncer'. I didn't THINK why. I KNOW why...and I DON'T CARE why. The reason is simple. I check the links and am NOT posting broken links, spam or any links leading to malicious material. I've been in enough forums to know better.

Plus...I'm just not the malicious type. So...having checked my own moral state and found it to be of 100% sound mind.. I posted a link.

And...Jeremy:
I do sincerely apologize. It was not necessarily my intention to undermine the security process. That is why I made it clear as to why I was doing it as I posted. I was simply very tired that night, had only an ounce of brain juice left to go on before I passed out at my bedside system and REALLY wanted to help the poor guy. After all, I had compiled a wealth of information that well-explained what he was wanting to know. It didn't seem like the other explanations were getting through to him.

But I do apologize for circumventing. THANK YOU for being polite in your correction, though.

But I do admit, titanium_geek:
You are welcome. But if there is a supposed 'ban' on links...then why are you able to post them at all? I suppose that a cushion of 3 postings before one is able to make mass-postings containing spam is sensible. (Especially to prevent bots, etc.) But after only three links...? As I have [obviously] displayed here, it is not hard to circumvent this tactic. I guess the site is simply set up to do what it can without completely limiting the capabilities of it's legit users. Aye?

Perhaps I could offer a suggestion? Is it possible to engineer the forum so that only members reaching a certain forum rank could post? These types of individuals would have shown by then that they are legit and competent; their intentions known. It would obviously take more postings to reach this level. (Hopefully it would be a reasonable number so as to NOT discourage them from continuing their efforts.) Thusly it would discourage other creative individuals *grins in spite of self* from undermining the security? Just a basic suggestion. (Which now makes this post relevant to this thread, no less. )

And YES. SPAM IS EVIL. No disagreement there.


All in all I didn't mean to cause a ruckus. I just HAD to get the information out of my head before I could no longer force my sleep-deprived brain to send the typing signals to my fingers. I should also make it clear that while I could have copy and pasted the information from the sites into the posting... I have been banned from two other forums for doing just that. They stated that the posting was too long because of it and that it made the thread "uncomfortable to read the thread" and such.

I'm here to help where I can. I won't sell myself short, nor will I make myself out to be a guru. But I do have a lot of experience with hardware, software and OS in general. There are far too many people out there who need help but don't get competent helpers.

I just want to do my part.

Once again, I apologize for my tactics. I found the means necessary to accomplish my mission and proceeded to that objective. I doubt I severely ruined anyone's day/night and figure that I might've helped someone in the process. That's all.

See you all later.

Edit: my comment is withdrawn after viewing another thread in this forum. Overall, I'd just like to note that the LQ Rules apply to all members equally, all the time, and that intentionally breaking them is not viewed favorably. Thanks

cyryl_the_wolf- wrong thread?

I've merged the posts from a different thread, as XavierP points out I think they were meant for this one. As for the rule, it has proven itself remarkably effective. I'll lower the limit to 2, which I don't think will impact its effectiveness (it mostly catches automated bots, which are not smart enough to try posting without the URL's) while making it easier for legitimate members.

--jeremy

To be honest, wouldn't you:
a. make it impossible for new people to prove their reputation?
b. circumvent the essential rule that is all around this forum?
You know, the one on the main page:

Nah. Not the wrong thread. In fact... The relevancy of that rather long-winded post of mine is cut by half in this thread now; being that much of it was directed at users in the thread it was originally in.

I suppose that the content however...could be relevant in EITHER thread.

Your choice. :)

At any rate... Like I said.. Sorry.

Off to bed with me, now. Believe it or not I am also learning to work on vehicles now that I actually HAVE one. LOL. Have a long day of parts and money spending ahead of me tomorrow...

Night all! :)