Naive questions about article spammers.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2014 12:23 AM GMT
    What motivates members without obvious political agendas?

    I thought people started YouTube channels because they were fame whores until I learned they were compensated for "partnering" with Youtube (more views = more $).

    Similarly, does the New York Times pay for New York Times spam links?

    Why did another evolve from obscure gay news to widely reported random fare?

    Are some in fact autobots?

    I'm not a techie and if article spammers ever explained why they do what they do I missed it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2014 12:30 AM GMT
    Some are RSS feeds. Some are trolls just trying to push their agendas. Some just think Realjock is tumblr.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2014 12:54 AM GMT
    I don't mind it. It's not like TV where you have to sit through it till the next commercial comes on. It's nice to have the option to click away from it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2014 1:21 AM GMT
    They think they're doing a service for the rest of the members, by informing them of current news.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2014 1:26 AM GMT
    xrichx saidThey think they're doing a service for the rest of the members, by informing them of current news.

    Translation: they think we're too stupid to get this stuff on our own.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2014 1:43 AM GMT
    Lumpyoatmeal said
    xrichx saidThey think they're doing a service for the rest of the members, by informing them of current news.

    Translation: they think we're too stupid to get this stuff on our own.

    I know, right? My feelings are hurt. icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2014 4:09 PM GMT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2014 5:10 PM GMT
    xrichx saidThey think they're doing a service for the rest of the members, by informing them of current news.



    lol What favor? It's pretty easy to just log in to facebook or Twitter and know everything. That's why I think the News section of this site should get eliminated.
  • blueandgold

    Posts: 396

    Aug 17, 2014 11:34 PM GMT
    xrichx saidThey think they're doing a service for the rest of the members, by informing them of current news.


    I personally appreciate it. It's pretty easy to ignore if you want to and generally more interesting than another thread about attraction to straight coworkers or your favorite summer salad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2014 12:24 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    eagermuscle saidWhat motivates members without obvious political agendas?

    I thought people started YouTube channels because they were fame whores until I learned they were compensated for "partnering" with Youtube (more views = more $).

    Similarly, does the New York Times pay for New York Times spam links?

    Why did another evolve from obscure gay news to widely reported random fare?

    Are some in fact autobots?

    I'm not a techie and if article spammers ever explained why they do what they do I missed it.


    One of our two RJ article spammers could very well be an automated system. Just yesterday "he" posted the usual "headline and link" to the Rick Perry indictment in the "News and Politics" forum, completely oblivious to the fact that the very next topic down the list was about the Rick Perry indictment. I've seen this automated "headline and link" RJ account make this same "mistake" many times.

    The other RJ article spammer is clearly someone on the payroll of The New York Times, as that is the only source he ever posts. However, unlike the automated RJ article spammer, this person's posts are the headline and first few paragraphs of the New York Times article, followed by the link to the article.

    Both of these article spammers though share one common trait: They NEVER comment on what they post.


    Both of these posters are known by us and others. They are not 'bots' or whatever else insulting and incorrect term you can come up with.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2014 12:28 AM GMT
    blueandgold said
    xrichx saidThey think they're doing a service for the rest of the members, by informing them of current news.


    I personally appreciate it. It's pretty easy to ignore if you want to and generally more interesting than another thread about attraction to straight coworkers or your favorite summer salad.


    I disagree. Favorite summer salads are arguably more interesting than the widely reported celebrity deaths that so many members are in a rush to be the first to post. While there's an odd dearth of Robin Williams death threads there remain examples:

    Philip Seymour Hoffman dies, (2/2/14, 1:50pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3663283

    Phillip Seymour Hoffman Dead, (2/2/14, 2:10pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3663321

    Actor Philip Seymour Hoffman died today....., (2/2/14, 2:31pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3663357

    RIP Philip Seymour Hoffman, (2/2/14, 2:38pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3663374

    Paul Walker of "the Fast and Furious" killed in car accident. (11/30/13, 10:11pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3562834

    Paul Walker Dead at 40 (11/30/13, 10:28pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3562860

    'Fast and Furious' star Paul Walker dies in car crash at 40, spokesperson for actor confirms (11/30/13, 10:47pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3562886

    Actor Paul Walker killed in car crash (11/30/13, 11:00pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3562905

    Paul Walker Died in Car Accident (11/30/13, 11:17pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3562928

    Paul Walker Death Hoax Becomes Reality (11/30/13, 11:41pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3562956

    'FAST & FURIOUS' Actor Paul Walker DIES (12/1/13, 2:24am):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3563161

    Amy Winehouse Found Dead in London Home, (7/23/11, 11:33am):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1700177

    R.I.P Amy Winehouse!, (7/23/11, 11:54am):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1700221

    Amy Winehouse found dead in her London home, (7/23/11, 2:20pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1700511

    Amy Winehouse died, (7/24/11, 12:10pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1700254

    Amy Winehouse- it's been two years since her death, (7/23/13, 3:40pm)
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3339967

    "Michael Jackson is Dead" Video Shoots Down Media, (6/25/09, 2:43pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/601068

    Michael Jackson Dead at 50, (6/25/09, 4:58pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/568009

    Michael Jackson Dead at 50., (6/25/09, 5:00pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/568015

    Did'ya Hear? Michael Jackson Died, (6/25/09, 7:46pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/568221

    Heath Ledger Found Dead, (1/22/08, 5:15pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/88479

    DEATH OF HEATH LEDGER, (1/22/08, 5:35pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/88495

    Heath Ledger is Dead! wtf?!?, (1/22/08, 5:44pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/88503

    Heath Ledger Is Dead!, (1/22/08, 7:01pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/88563

    So heath Ledger is dead..., (1/22/08, 8:17pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/88613

    Heath Ledgers funeral to be picketed by sickos!, (1/23/08, 12:31pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/88994

    My Tribute to Heath, (1/25/08, 9:39am):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/90341

    Heath Ledger died of prescription overdose, (2/6/08, 11:05am):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/100692
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2014 12:35 AM GMT
    I figure the two obvious members in question aren't bots but real people who make actual posts and (egad!) share opinions in other people's threads.

    In the event of real people without obvious political agendas what's the motivation of doing what amounts to PSAs of widely disseminated news, whether from one source or many? Is it a means of getting attention and generating views? Is it a form of relaxation like doing the crossword puzzle? A legitimate interest in informing their fellow men? Some or all of the above? It just strikes me as a lot of effort that could be better spent, say, volunteering in a soup kitchen. I'm speaking about RJ spammers in general who never reveal why they do what they do.
  • blueandgold

    Posts: 396

    Aug 18, 2014 1:11 AM GMT
    eagermuscle said
    blueandgold said
    xrichx saidThey think they're doing a service for the rest of the members, by informing them of current news.


    I personally appreciate it. It's pretty easy to ignore if you want to and generally more interesting than another thread about attraction to straight coworkers or your favorite summer salad.


    I disagree. Favorite summer salads are arguably more interesting than the widely reported celebrity deaths that so many members are in a rush to be the first to post. While there's an odd dearth of Robin Williams death threads there remain examples:

    Philip Seymour Hoffman dies, (2/2/14, 1:50pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3663283

    Phillip Seymour Hoffman Dead, (2/2/14, 2:10pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3663321

    Actor Philip Seymour Hoffman died today....., (2/2/14, 2:31pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3663357

    RIP Philip Seymour Hoffman, (2/2/14, 2:38pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3663374

    Paul Walker of "the Fast and Furious" killed in car accident. (11/30/13, 10:11pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3562834

    Paul Walker Dead at 40 (11/30/13, 10:28pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3562860

    'Fast and Furious' star Paul Walker dies in car crash at 40, spokesperson for actor confirms (11/30/13, 10:47pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3562886

    Actor Paul Walker killed in car crash (11/30/13, 11:00pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3562905

    Paul Walker Died in Car Accident (11/30/13, 11:17pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3562928

    Paul Walker Death Hoax Becomes Reality (11/30/13, 11:41pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3562956

    'FAST & FURIOUS' Actor Paul Walker DIES (12/1/13, 2:24am):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3563161

    Amy Winehouse Found Dead in London Home, (7/23/11, 11:33am):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1700177

    R.I.P Amy Winehouse!, (7/23/11, 11:54am):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1700221

    Amy Winehouse found dead in her London home, (7/23/11, 2:20pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1700511

    Amy Winehouse died, (7/24/11, 12:10pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1700254

    Amy Winehouse- it's been two years since her death, (7/23/13, 3:40pm)
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3339967

    "Michael Jackson is Dead" Video Shoots Down Media, (6/25/09, 2:43pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/601068

    Michael Jackson Dead at 50, (6/25/09, 4:58pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/568009

    Michael Jackson Dead at 50., (6/25/09, 5:00pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/568015

    Did'ya Hear? Michael Jackson Died, (6/25/09, 7:46pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/568221

    Heath Ledger Found Dead, (1/22/08, 5:15pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/88479

    DEATH OF HEATH LEDGER, (1/22/08, 5:35pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/88495

    Heath Ledger is Dead! wtf?!?, (1/22/08, 5:44pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/88503

    Heath Ledger Is Dead!, (1/22/08, 7:01pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/88563

    So heath Ledger is dead..., (1/22/08, 8:17pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/88613

    Heath Ledgers funeral to be picketed by sickos!, (1/23/08, 12:31pm):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/88994

    My Tribute to Heath, (1/25/08, 9:39am):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/90341

    Heath Ledger died of prescription overdose, (2/6/08, 11:05am):
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/100692


    Celebrity news whizzes past my head without me even noticing, and I'm happy about that lol. I dont even remember any of these thank god or remember who posted them.

    I celebrate each of your 7900 posts man. Congratulations. Share the love with some other uber posters icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2014 1:13 AM GMT
    ^
    Omg, has it been 7900? And you really like them? Thanks!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2014 1:14 AM GMT
    Speaking of article spamming, I just started a thread asking how to block shared links from one's Facebook newsfeed here:

    Facebook friends who clutter your newsfeed with CRAP.
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3891993
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2014 1:18 AM GMT
    eagermuscle saidI figure the two obvious members in question aren't bots but real people who make actual posts and (egad!) share opinions in other people's threads.

    In the event of real people without obvious political agendas what's the motivation of doing what amounts to PSAs of widely disseminated news, whether from one source or many? Is it a means of getting attention and generating views? Is it a form of relaxation like doing the crossword puzzle? A legitimate interest in informing their fellow men? Some or all of the above? It just strikes me as a lot of effort that could be better spent, say, volunteering in a soup kitchen. I'm speaking about RJ spammers in general who never reveal why they do what they do.

    But thing is, they don't really participate in other threads. Maybe one or two word replies. But nothing thought provoking. In other forums, link dropping/spamming is frowned upon and will get you banned.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2014 2:51 AM GMT


    I'm surprised more guys here don't spam. It's a quick way to run up the post count.

    For many here a high post count does not indicate wasted hours but a highly engaged online social life. Go figure.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2014 3:16 AM GMT
    Determinate said
    For many here a high post count does not indicate wasted hours but a highly engaged online social life. Go figure.

    Actually I have both, a very engaged online life, and a very engaged social life. But I may be an exception.

    I'm retired and disabled, with limited mobility. So I sit at home at the computer a lot. But even when I go out I have an iPad with me, with which I post here to RJ, and read all the world news.

    Still, I do dozens of things a day. My schedule is rather full & hectic at times. My luxury is that I don't have a fixed schedule, and can dart around as I wish. Sometimes visiting with friends, sometimes online, sometimes shopping, sometimes back online, sometimes at our SMART Ride accountant's office, sometimes in our own office, sometimes back online again...

    But I'm seldom idle. That would kill me. I'm always doing something, always active in some way, always engaged. If not here on RJ, then someplace else.

    And so my RJ post count is fairly high. But it only tells half the story. I do more different things in a day than most guys here do in a week, some in a month. And I post many of those things there, cause I think they may be interesting to read, or just silly, cause I love silly.

    Odd, that the older I get, I don't get more serious, but more silly. Is that an early sign of dementia or Alzheimer's? I thought old guys are supposed to get all grim & serious. And turn into Teabaggers who hate everybody.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2014 3:34 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    I don't think you are one of the people being tagged with the "article spammer" title Art Deco. You comment quite a bit here, which is good - that's what a discussion forum is supposed to be. It's not supposed to be a place where you post "article graffiti" by just copying and pasting a headline and a link and not even commenting.

    A linked article speaks for itself. An accompanying comment is optional.

    Your problem with metta8 is that he posts good links with which you don't agree. And so you harp on this issue of him not always (but sometimes) attaching a commentary.

    Well, yah know what? The majority of guys here like his links. So get used to it.

    metta8 provides a wealth of interesting information, on many topics. And if some of them are political and pro-gay, that you don't like, too bad. The majority of us here do.

    So get with the program, and STFU. Capisca? As my Italian husband would say.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2014 1:38 PM GMT
    What can I say, I'm worldly about some things but sometimes I just don't get people, like how some tweet their depression to the world instead of picking up a phone and calling somebody. I suppose I could've message non-bot spammers asking why they do what they do but maybe I'm waiting to see if they'll actually reveal why here since no way are they going to miss a thread title like this given the frequency they create threads. Not seeking a defense; just an explanation, even if it's because some people have nothing better to do, which is fine - I can be a bit of a shut-in myself if I don't work at it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2014 2:51 PM GMT
    eagermuscle saidWhat can I say, I'm worldly about some things but sometimes I just don't get people, like how some tweet their depression to the world instead of picking up a phone and calling somebody. I suppose I could've message non-bot spammers asking why they do what they do but maybe I'm waiting to see if they'll actually reveal why here since no way are they going to miss a thread title like this given the frequency they create threads. Not seeking a defense; just an explanation, even if it's because some people have nothing better to do, which is fine - I can be a bit of a shut-in myself if I don't work at it.

    I'm rather sympathetic to guys who blog their lives on a site like this. I do some of it myself, though I tend to include my (hopefully) comical misadventures along with my successes and failures. Laughing at myself and letting others laugh along with me is my way of keeping it all real yet not depressing to me, when things go wrong.

    Maybe it's like people who write letters they never expect anyone to read, exploring their own emotions. It's a way of organizing our thoughts & feelings, putting them into a written structure that makes more sense than formless emotions.

    Online there's a kind of invisible audience, that's present but it's not. Perhaps some of us use the Web like the letter that never gets sent, and the people online who read our posts are as imaginary to us as the audience for our unseen letters.

    And also, online lets us impose on others, who can choose to read us or ignore, in ways we wouldn't inflict on our friends, co-workers or family. I would never be the Debbie Downer at a party and unload all my problems on our friends, nor do they with me. When I socialize it's for happy talk, the grim stuff will keep.

    Ever sit next to a guy at a bar who wants to tell you his life's miseries? And how many bartenders will tell you they've inadvertently earned a degree in counseling, because everyone wants to tell them their troubles & dilemmas?

    We all have that urge to unload once in a while, whether with hidden letters, crying over a bar, or using the Web. Therefore I have sympathy for guys who use this site for a kind of therapy, as well as seeking personal advice. But neither do I have infinite patience, and there are some who are either perpetual drama queens, or in need of serious professional help, or just enjoy pulling our strings to see how we'll dance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2014 5:34 PM GMT
    I don't think the New York Times guy is on their payroll or affiliated with them at all. In a thread where he was questioned he tried to justify it saying it was fair use. In my opinion and the opinion of others, it far exceeds fair use.

    Other sites do not allow this practice, at least as much as what is done here. They might be concerned about their site subject to copyright enforcement. The other point made was that they want their site forums to be for discussion not to compete with Yahoo or other well-known sites. That really is more consistent with what fair use is supposed to be about, briefly quoting but then discussing in your own words.

    The RJ Admin may allow it as much as he does assuming it helps page hits which can improve revenue. It may have that effect, but it may also demotivate other people from posting non-spam stuff. When you see your messages pushed down quickly because of all the spam stuff, fewer people see and respond to your message, which would motivate you to post less.

    As to the motivation of the spammers, aside from pushing an agenda, I think the motivation is obsessive/compulsive. In a thread this morning I noticed three articles from the New York Times posted over a three minute period. You have to wonder about some people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2014 5:53 PM GMT
    Thanks Art/Socal, those are some interesting insights.

    As for me I love Art's personal anecdotes (yeah, pot-meet-kettle). I learn a lot from them. I'd never even heard of Wilton Manors before! The honesty's refreshing, even though sometimes a tad overkill.