That'd probably require backend development work (changing how posts are grouped into pages) on theymos's end and I don't have access over that.

While it'd be great to also preserve the date of the original post, I don't really see a good way to add it to the post in a way that's both elegant and doesn't editorialize too much. Aside from separating posts by lines, adding a mod note and perhaps fixing broken quotes, I (and it seems most mods) generally prefer to keep the content as untouched as possible.

If someone starts reporting old posts for consecutive posting, AFAIK those reports tend to get marked as bad. As for there being months between posts, that's not relevant for rule 32 and especially rule 21. In regards to the bot, as I've mentioned, the bot only does the detection (giving me a list of links to posts) and I go through each detection manually, reviewing and deciding if and which posts should be merged, which I then merge using a userscript, whose results I review after it completes the merge.

AFAIK that's for reports and those weren't reported. I have an automated bot that detects potentially mergeable posts and I've recently started going through its backlog and merging posts that violate rules 21 and / or 32.

There is no such exception, though consecutive posts by OP are simply considered bumps and thus limited to once per 24 hours. Once that post is no longer relevant as a bump (e.g. someone else posted something, a new bump was posted), rules 21 (old bumps should be deleted) and 32 (no consecutives except bumps and OP's reserved posts) kick in.

While the detection of potentially mergeable posts is automatic, I personally approve and review every merge. Good idea in regards to the additional clarification - will add that to the template.

IIRC I was the one who merged the posts (currently going through a large backlog).

If there are 24h+ gaps between posts, it's fine to post them consecutively as they become bumps. However, once those bumps are no longer new, they will be merged together - no action required on your part.

And you're free to do so once every 24 hours. Once more posts have been made, the old posts serve little to no purpose notification-wise.

As consecutive posts and bumps generally should not be considered stable (as in they might be merged with previous posts), my suggestion would be to have a single dedicated posts where you collect historical statistics with the bumps / update-type posts serving as merely updates with new stats to those actively keeping track of the thread.

While I'm generally not against the concept of exceptions to the consecutive post rule for topics where it especially makes sense, IMO the seemingly small inconvenience of simply editing in the stats or whatever info you want to regularly post at the first of several consecutive posts (that is if the stats you wanted to post would become a consecutive post instead of already being sandwiched by other users' posts) warrants an exception.

Thanks for the heads up, moved the FAQ question to legacy questions. I'll probably remove it after a while (once it's no longer relevant) just like with the previous legacy question.

Fixed, thanks.

Added 2 more new rules:

---

Added and added you to the credits as well, thanks for the heads up.

AFAIK rel="ugc" sends the same signal to Google as the old rel="nofollow" - "I don't endorse or vouch for this website". The only difference is that the signal has more granularity (identifiying the particular reason as to why the website doesn't vouch for the URL). Anyone still spamming with the effective nofollow-like links on their SEO spam is most likely doing one or more of the following:

• Doing it as a hired marketing agency and partially deceiving their client who expects dofollow links.
• Hoping to rank up to where their links become dofollow
• Are fine with getting nofollow backlinks (e.g. if the link is visible, to entice potential visitors)
• Havent bothered figuring out or monitoring if their links are dofollow

There's other reasons, but in general, those that are still spamming links that have been nofollow for 2 years now are probably not going to stop as those who do care have already figured it out and directed their efforts elsewhere.

While the discussion seems to have expanded beyond just site-wide technological solutions (to detecting, catching and discussing larger cases of SEO / link spam), rel="ugc" attributes on links posted by Newbies (so essentially anyone without any merit points) are already being added since around January, 2021:


Someone did notice the rel="ugc" attributes on signature links but I haven't seen the change to newbie links mentioned here (hence this post). Nevertheless, do keep reporting any cases of SEO spam you notice - especially if posted by non-newbie users.

The answer is "it depends". If a user has not indicated that he's open to certain (or all) commercial communication, sending such PMs would be considered as unsolicited. When it comes to non-commercial or ambigous types of communication, if it's not something the user expects nor something a regular user (as per the moderator's discretion) would expect, that would count as unsolicited. So while thanking a user due to the helpfullness of their post via PM would be unsolicited, as with all rules, a moderator's discretion applies (see rule 23).

Yes, that's ban evading. A person posting or sending PMs in the forum while one of the accounts they use has been banned is considered as ban evasion.

Appreciate the repeated feedback. It's been a pleasure working with you as well.

Bump

Bump

Bump

Bump

Bump

Bump

Bump

Bump