Notification about “External YouTube Video Link Dropping”

[Old_School_Brad]

Forum donors get an extended period compared to other members.

It's best there be a limit, as when things go bad with a member... sometimes they log in and deface the forum by editing all their posts and deleting threads they started.


JSmith

Yeah, that’s definitely a valid point.

 

[Sal1950]

Forum donors get an extended period compared to other members.

It's best there be a limit, as when things go bad with a member... sometimes they log in and deface the forum by editing all their posts and deleting threads they started.


JSmith

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I know some forums lock out the ability to edit after only a few hours?
Don't know if it's possible but maybe having a script in place to alert the mod's when a post is edited that's older than X days/weeks ?
Just to make sure something nefarious hasn't been posted.
In the end it's up to @amirm to make the decisions here, I've always respected his path.
Just thinkin,

 

[Audiofire]

One thing I don't see mentioned, but think is worth knowing: Embedded YouTube videos / links are not searchable on the forum. So let's say someone is looking to prevent double posting by searching a thread, but the video title itself is not in the post. This can lead to double posting.

Also looked at the terms of use and see no explanation of this policy change. Let's say someone posted a video link and the post is deleted. I think this is inappropriate, as long as the user was posting in good faith and should have been informed earlier. The link to this policy thread can also be in the signature field of moderators.

 

[danadam]

One thing I don't see mentioned, but think is worth knowing: Embedded YouTube videos / links are not searchable on the forum. So let's say someone is looking to prevent double posting by searching a thread, but the video title itself is not in the post. This can lead to double posting.

You can search by video's id. For example, was Monthy's "digital show and tell" posted in this thread? Yes, it was:

 

[Audiofire]

Oh, interesting. Although video title is what I was thinking about.

 

[sigbergaudio]

@AdamG With reference to the recent removal of a link to a review in the Radiant Acoustics Clarity thread (I was not the one who posted the video), I'm not entirely clear on A) the rules and/or B) the intent.

I very much understand that just starting new threads with a youtube link with little explanation isn't great.

In this concrete example we were in a thread about a specific speaker model, and the youtube link was to a review of that specific speaker model (already obviously relevant), and in addition to that the poster did write a bit about then content / what to expect from the video. I am not sure I see how this is directly in violation with what is posted in the first post, perhaps beyond the level of information provided. But it feels a bit artificial to write tons of text about a review about a speaker in a thread about the speaker, it's pretty clear why the youtube link is relevant(?).

I would appreciate some clarity on whether the video was removed mostly because the poster did not post enough information about either why he posted the video or what the video was about, or if it was because it linked to content ASR disapproves of (subjective reviews), or why exactly?

I've seen a couple of similar removals recently (where a video was posted in an existing thread and was clearly in context of the thread), this is why I am curious to understand the reasoning/intent behind the moderation.

 

[Jimbob54]

@AdamG With reference to the recent removal of a link to a review in the Radiant Acoustics Clarity thread (I was not the one who posted the video), I'm not entirely clear on A) the rules and/or B) the intent.

I very much understand that just starting new threads with a youtube link with little explanation isn't great.

In this concrete example we were in a thread about a specific speaker model, and the youtube link was to a review of that specific speaker model (already obviously relevant), and in addition to that the poster did write a bit about then content / what to expect from the video. I am not sure I see how this is directly in violation with what is posted in the first post, perhaps beyond the level of information provided. But it feels a bit artificial to write tons of text about a review about a speaker in a thread about the speaker, it's pretty clear why the youtube link is relevant(?).

I would appreciate some clarity on whether the video was removed mostly because the poster did not post enough information about either why he posted the video or what the video was about, or if it was because it linked to content ASR disapproves of (subjective reviews), or why exactly?

I've seen a couple of similar removals recently (where a video was posted in an existing thread and was clearly in context of the thread), this is why I am curious to understand the reasoning/intent behind the moderation.

I'll not speak for Adam but I'll give you my thinking . If I have to watch the linked vid to either find out what product is discussed (obviously not the case here ) OR what the summary of the vid and conclusion is then I would be minded to delete . For me it's that second point here. I would have had to watch to find out if positive and why . That "forces" us to click through .

 

[AdamG]

@AdamG With reference to the recent removal of a link to a review in the Radiant Acoustics Clarity thread (I was not the one who posted the video), I'm not entirely clear on A) the rules and/or B) the intent.

I very much understand that just starting new threads with a youtube link with little explanation isn't great.

In this concrete example we were in a thread about a specific speaker model, and the youtube link was to a review of that specific speaker model (already obviously relevant), and in addition to that the poster did write a bit about then content / what to expect from the video. I am not sure I see how this is directly in violation with what is posted in the first post, perhaps beyond the level of information provided. But it feels a bit artificial to write tons of text about a review about a speaker in a thread about the speaker, it's pretty clear why the youtube link is relevant(?).

I would appreciate some clarity on whether the video was removed mostly because the poster did not post enough information about either why he posted the video or what the video was about, or if it was because it linked to content ASR disapproves of (subjective reviews), or why exactly?

I've seen a couple of similar removals recently (where a video was posted in an existing thread and was clearly in context of the thread), this is why I am curious to understand the reasoning/intent behind the moderation.

One the presenter was speaking in German. We use English here and I doubt many would have watched or understood the video. Two the poster presented the video link with low effort explanation. Basically said here is a cool video from a guy that is cool. It was (from a sampling of watching the video) all Subjective opinion garbage that I thought the majority of members here don’t want to waste their time on. Thirdly, there was no summary of why they thought this video was important or relevant. Little to no effort was expended to tell us why they were posting the video and what specifically they wanted to further discuss. In my humble opinion it was just a Video link drop and run. Do we really want Subjective Product Review Videos here? Don’t we come here to get away from that type of hype and BS opinion enrichment?

 

[sigbergaudio]

One the presenter was speaking in German. We use English here and I doubt many would have watched or understood the video. Two the poster presented the video link with low effort explanation. Basically said here is a cool video from a guy that is cool. It was (from a sampling of watching the video) all Subjective opinion garbage that I thought the majority of members here don’t want to waste their time on. Thirdly, there was no summary of why they thought this video was important or relevant. Little to no effort was expended to tell us why they were posting the video and what specifically they wanted to further discuss. In my humble opinion it was just a Video link drop and run. Do we really want Subjective Product Review Videos here? Don’t we come here to get away from that type of hype and BS opinion enrichment?

Thank you (and @Jimbob54) for expanding, that sounds fair.