As the owner, I have deleted the spam and banned the perpetrators. I
also gave you and Arjan manager privileges, so that you can do the
same thing.
So how do we tempt the others to migrate to here?
A.
On Dec 17, 8:26 am, Beliavsky <beliav...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 4:45 pm, Terence <tbwri...@cantv.net> wrote:
>
> > I was under the impression that this had been SET UP AS A MODERATED
> > Forum, in which case the Forum owner has the ability (and duty) to
> > remove unpleasant postings before thay are visible too long.
My understanding is that in a moderated newsgroup, all posts must be
approved by the moderator before they appear. That would cut down on
traffic in this group even more and impose a burden on the moderator.
>
> As the owner, I have deleted the spam and banned the perpetrators. I
> also gave you and Arjan manager privileges, so that you can do the
> same thing.
I do not see the spam. Sorry I missed it [smile].
Kevin Rhoads suggests in openwatcom.users.fortran that the spam is a
form of "SEO". It is meant to drive traffic to the spamvertized
website by increasing its Google ranking as the result of links to
that site.
This explains why these junk posts are not fit for humans to read.
-- e
By posting content so good that they will want to come here.
There is a problem. Many of the regulars in CLF use a regular
newsreader and newsfeed instead of Google and its web interface. So
for them this group is invisible.
--- e
> > So how do we tempt the others to migrate to here?
>
> By posting content so good that they will want to come here.
>
> There is a problem. Many of the regulars in CLF use a regular
> newsreader and newsfeed instead of Google and its web interface. So
> for them this group is invisible.
I know Elliot has suggested using a reader elsewhere, but my opinion
is that any persons seeking CLF or other forums intended for those
interested in Fortran such as this, are going to find any such forum
via Google and Google Forums (like it or not).
And as I in particular have interest in about 12 forums, it is
convenient for me to switch via Google in two clicks.
So the use of the word "many" is probably accurate, but not
quantitative, where a free choice exists.
Nor do I want a stream of e-mailed postings 'a la Lahey', but to be
able to select among postings.