back
5 comments
There was at least one statement I disagreed with. It's a fallacy to argue that just because there are no ads and the posts are meant to be informative means it's not spam. Just because there is no direct monetization attached to something does not mean there aren't other reasons why people try to draw attention to their own posts/products/services/whatever. And most would probably argue there is value in the thing they are pushing as well. At the end of the day, your reasoning for why you think something is or isn't spam doesn't change whether it is spam or not nor the notion that in most online communities, constant self promotion (in some cases none are allowed at all depending on the community) is in fact spam, regardless of whether you think it provides value or not.

As a side note, the frequency of offenses does not dissolve whether spam is spam. You can say it doesn't do harm as a whole but that shifts the argument away from the fact that spam is an ongoing effort most people try to avoid from happening at all.

my reasoning of whether something is spam or not does not change other people's reasonong whether something is spam or not, but to claim something is objectively spam is a bit too much. Apparently the notion of "spam" differs.

Twitter is constant self-promotion - you constantly share your thoughts and views. And somehow that's fine and you get followers. Is tweeting spamming? Besides, see the other comment with the chart attached.

You're right that everyone defines spam differently and that you can't give spam a singular objective definition across the board nor was that my intention with what I wrote above. What I did try to say was that every community has a policy of what they define as spam and it's not uncommon for most to share the common view (at least communities I've been apart of) that self promotion is and can be viewed as spam.

Using Twitter as a counter example doesn't fit here because as a company they don't share that view but apparently the subreddit you reference in your original post does

Fun fact: original content (that's clearly identified as such) gets twice as many upvotes on Reddit in average than non-original content: http://i.imgur.com/3iudvZ8.png

Methodology behind the chart: http://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/2rv76z/oc_r...

The 10% rule is archaic, from a time where undisclosed self-promotion was rampant. Now that it's hitting false positives, it needs to be revamped.

when in doubt, consult the data :) Thanks for sharing.