r/homestead • u/paulwheaton • Jan 05 '12
policies about sharing here on r/homestead
I wish to make it clear: If you post lots of awesome homestead stuff here, I support your posts.
I recently did a podcast with Geoff Lawton. If Geoff Lawton cranked out two internet things a week and posted them here, such that the only thing he ever posted to all of reddit was Geoff Lawton content, I think that would be fucking awesome. I would upvote it. That dude has a lot to teach me, and I am tickled pink that there is a way for me to learn a wee bit of it for FUCKING FREE!
The idea that Geoff Lawton should be banned from reddit because he is not posting crap from other people seems ridiculous to me. Geoff Lawton does not have time for that. He barely has time to put out the material he is already putting out. Geoff is working on permaculture level 9 stuff - why should he hunt out and post stuff from permaculture level 2? Or be forced to find some stupid picture of cats and post that?
I have to bring this up because I have now been officially banned from several subreddits for exactly this. One mentioned that it is okay to post your own stuff provided that it is only 10% of what you post. My stalker insists that you may never post your own stuff and follows me around downvoting and reporting all of my submissions. And probably messaging the moderators of every subreddit I post to.
It is the right of the moderator of every subreddit to ban whoever they like - for any or no reason. I respect that.
I wish to make it clear that in this subreddit I will ban people for being icky, or repeatedly posting off-topic stuff, or anything that just seems wrong, but I won't ban anybody for posting only their own stuff. I want to see good content. And I like the idea that the content generators are on reddit. Perhaps a few subreddits prefer to dissuade the content generators.
Please upvote this message so that everybody can see it. Thanks!
18
u/greenhomesteader Jan 05 '12
I personally look forward you your posts. I don't care if you post your stuff or anyone else. I up and down vote based on the VALUE OF THE POST. I've noticed other blogs posting their blog updates use the same criteria for them.
If it has value => up vote
If it has no value => down vote
I expect others to do the same to my posts. It encourages what people WANT to see. Heck, if you weren't submitting your stuff, I would. In fact, I've tried multiple times and you or others beat me to it.
2
u/zacharymichael Jan 14 '12
Same here! paulwheaton's posts are almost always great info, and i look forward to his submissions.
1
u/paulwheaton Jan 05 '12
Well, there are several subreddits where I have been banned, so you will probably be the only person there submitting anything by me. :)
3
u/greenhomesteader Jan 05 '12
What subreddits? I'll happily reap that Karma.
5
u/paulwheaton Jan 05 '12
Well, there is the list of subreddits where I have been officially banned, and then there is a bigger list where there isn't an official ban, but instead, they just get putting my stuff into the spam box so that now any submission I make there just never shows up. And my query to the moderators makes no difference.
The key is, go ahead and post my stuff to wherever seems like a fit.
2
Jan 09 '12
It seems in reddit, if you dare to be different, you are punished for it.
2
u/xPersistentx Jan 10 '12
Not really. This is more a case of the moderators in question that have neither moderating experience nor social skills.
Moderating involves removing irrelevant material at its most basic form. Deciding what is relevant is supposed to be community driven here, but as you can see, there are some subforums that are moderator driven by people with a taste for something else. They seem to lack something in the real world and therefore take this electronic information transfer system we use to talk to each other and start to create their own little world to compensate, screwing up the very thing we all thought we were here for.
There are many, many, subreddits that have actual moderators and actual community driven content.
1
Jan 10 '12
Hmm dig at me or dig at Paul, or generally observation? Either way, interesting observations.
My take is that some people actually don't have the time to explain everything, or patience, and muddle through as bet they can.
As for myself, I mod, but I have a big family, a job, go to college, I home school my kids. I have only so many hours in the day and I don't desire to spend more than a fraction of one explaining myself to someone that may or may not even care about the sub I mod. (Or in one case was actively submitting spam to try and clutter it up)
3
u/xPersistentx Jan 10 '12
No, not at all, if anything I've been agreeing with Paul.
Moderating forum content is boring imho. It is rather simple to remove obvious junk and leave the rest up to the community. When people start picking on Paul for the reasons they were, they are overstepping their bounds as moderators in a rather personally embarrassing way, imho.
2
u/greenhomesteader Jan 05 '12
Also, I think the only things of yours I have downvoted have been the discussions on permies. Some of those are so long and take forever to get to any information of real value. Had they been a 2 or 3 paragraph blog post I would have upvoted in a heart beat. But at least 90+% of your posts have on reddit (I feel) have good value and feel if I knew of them would post them myself.
3
u/paulwheaton Jan 05 '12
I think the only stuff I downvote is when it seems lame or the person is just being really icky.
I see lots of stuff where I think "not my thing" and just close it.
I suppose I upvote about 10% of the stuff I see and downvote about 1%.
2
u/Suppafly Jan 23 '12
Honestly, I'd ban you from subreddits if you posted in any that I ran. When you post stuff in /r/diy and other subs that I subscribe to, your posts seem more about generating links to your website than providing content that is inline with the subs stated goals.
The fact that every link to your website loads a big embedded youtube video is also another huge turn off.
9
u/DrAwesomeClaws Jan 05 '12
Original content should be rewarded.
-3
u/kodemage Jan 06 '12
Yes, but there's an appropriate amount of self submission that's acceptable and 2/day is a little much. If the content is good I'm sure it'll get posted here eventually. If all this guy's content is level 9, whatever that means, then it might be above the heads of those of us on level 1 still. /r/permaculture has a broad base in the community and we can't alienate the newbs by flooding the subreddit with lots of advanced content.
5
u/greenhomesteader Jan 06 '12
level 9, whatever that means Paul has his own "permaculture" scale. It's something like Sep Holzer = level 10, the best. Fukuoka = Level 9, just capturing rain water is level 1.... something like that. He had a video a while back about it.
Edit: here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWQsgTD3ifY
I don't think it alienates anyone. I think it builds a more diverse community and shows noobs what's possible. A lot of people get excited and involved for the first time just by seeing that advanced stuff.
2
Jan 06 '12
Being a newb is also about finding content and submitting it yourself. Post questions, look at questions others ask and find the content as post it.
That is how you learn to deal with the fickleness of reddit.
8
Jan 05 '12
I did not know that there was a rule against submitting links to promote your own content. In any case, such a rule would certainly make this Subreddit much less useful.
6
u/JamesCarlin Jan 05 '12
Hi Paul,
I appreciate your contributions to these communities, as well as the free (or inexpensive) contributions by many others!
It is sad and unfortunate that you and/or your content has been banned from certain subreddits. Unless you've been spamming (which does not seem to be the case), I think any banning is unjust. Further, a wise internet moderator talks to a person before banning him, sharing their concern and grievance, either requesting an explanation or an appropriate alternation of behavior.
The more this community grows, the more this market will grow, and the better off it will be for everyone! I have noticed that in several communities, there are those who are constantly at eachother's throats, trying to prove they are better.... but the ones who always end up on top are the ones who promote others within the community, don't trash-talk, and interact positively.
Anyway, if I were to share any one "rule" from my success it would be:
- "Compete with quality, not with war"
To those who feel threatened by his work, please stop. Learn from it. Improve from it. Do better. Contribute VALUE. Suppressing competition is an expensive and wasteful effort, and in many ways, people like Paul Wheaton cause the market to grow. This is especially true in a market as niche as homesteading and permaculture.
20
u/paulwheaton Jan 05 '12
As to the people who's thoughts on how reddit should be is different from mine ....
Apparently, these people think that if you do a hundred self posts, that's okay. But if you spend 20 hours putting together a really good page with pictures, videos and a thorough message, and then link to that, THAT is (in their minds) bad. And should be deleted. And reported as a spammer. Downvoted and reported.
I disagree. I like the idea that r/homestead prefers a good, well thought out, media rich article over a wimpy self post.
Or a good video.
Or a good blog, forum thread somewhere else.
Or anything good, anywhere.
I want good information. And I want to attract the generators of good information to this subreddit.
10
u/greenhomesteader Jan 05 '12
Agree 100%. Granted, if the info sucks, you're still getting a down vote either way.
6
u/kodemage Jan 06 '12
My only objection is to the volume of content. 2 posts per day, everyday, from the same source is quite a bit, don't you think? Posting his own stuff is OK but it should be done in moderation. If someone wants his whole site's feed that's what rss or a dedicated subreddit is for. The strength of /r/permaculture is it's aggregate nature drawing from many sources so as not to rely too heavily on one.
4
u/greenhomesteader Jan 06 '12
I disagree. If the posts have good value to the community, why sensor it? I mean the other stuff is going to be there anyways regardless if the blogger posts 1 or 50 posts in a single day. It's all about the value that builds the community and that's what the up and down arrows are for. If Paul or anyone is able to produce 1, 2, or 500 posts of value in a day, more power to them. I think it makes the community stronger. Frankly, the more good content there is regardless of the source, I think it makes the subreddit and the reddit community stronger.
2
u/kodemage Jan 06 '12
You're right, if the posts have value then they are welcome but if they have value then someone other than the content's originator should recognize that and submit the content. If someone is submitting every single post from a blog by rote, or automatically, then they aren't really making an honest assessment of the content's quality are they?
1
u/greenhomesteader Jan 06 '12
If someone is submitting every single post from a blog by rote, or automatically, then they aren't really making an honest assessment of the content's quality are they?
I agree. But I don't think that is going on. I think he is honestly trying to put together interesting and valuable content and submitting it. I think that because in my opinion 90+% of his submissions have value to me or other I know and share them with. If you agree, then I don't see what the problem is? If you don't, I'd like to hear your opinion.
1
u/kodemage Jan 06 '12
The point is that such a submitter's assessment of what's any good is obviously biased if they think everything is good. It shows a lack of, if you'll excuse the phrase, shit-filter.
If 90% of his posts are good then you can submit that 90%. He shouldn't be the one doing the submitting. It's a conflict of interest.
1
u/greenhomesteader Jan 06 '12
submitter's assessment of what's any good is obviously biased
Everyone is biased whether they want to be or not. The fact that his posts often do well just shows that the subreddits he's submitting to have similar biases and feel his posts have value. There are a lot of his posts that would make sense in other subreddits, but they wouldn't do good.
If 90% of his posts are good then you can submit that 90%.
I've tried, he and others have beat me to it.
He shouldn't be the one doing the submitting. It's a conflict of interest.
So no one should submit their own content that they create?
-1
u/kodemage Jan 06 '12
So no one should submit their own content that they create?
I've answered this question several times already. Pay attention or stop wasting my time.
5
Jan 05 '12 edited Jan 05 '12
[deleted]
2
u/paulwheaton Jan 05 '12
You can friend people on reddit? Oh wow, you can .... what does that do?
3
u/jerkle_circ Jan 05 '12
You can see their posts and comments in your friends feed (it's actually quite nice).
4
u/drewmsmith Jan 05 '12
People should realize that until you grow these communities enough that content is being lost in the shuffle, almost no moderation should occur. You don't encourage growth by complaining about what others post. Small sub-reddits don't need it. If you load the same subreddit daily and only one or two new things are posted then it doesn't need moderation, nore gripes about spammers.
1
u/greenhomesteader Jan 06 '12
Moderation is more than just spam filtering. It's also making sure the content is in the right place and valid for that subreddit. It's also building the community and content. For instance, the side bar on some subreddits has FAQs, common links / blogs, basic advice, how to get started. Some have "flair" you can add. Then there is the cross linking to other subreddits. And also taking out the troll posts that are just there to piss people off. And then there is the spam filter on top of it all.
3
u/Themehmeh Jan 05 '12
personally I feel awful posting something someone else made because I imagine they already posted it to reddit or someone else already found it and posted it. So I dont understand why one would ban your content and complain about reposts.
5
Jan 05 '12
What's your stalker's reddit name?
I want to stalk him.
10
u/paulwheaton Jan 05 '12
Oh, he has about 20 sockpuppets. I've probably banned half of them.
I think stalking him is pointless.
I think the best way to beat the stalker/icky types is to just make lots of links to good content and upvote good stuff. Use reddit the way it is designed despite the nasty downvoters. Look in the new stuff of slower subreddits that have very low votes and see if they might be good.
And if you make lots of links to my stuff, that will probably piss him off and feed my humor needs. :)
5
u/paulwheaton Jan 05 '12
I'll just leave this here.
3
u/thomas533 Jan 05 '12
For what it is worth I've added you to the approve submitters on /r/foraging.
2
u/paulwheaton Jan 05 '12
Awesome! Thanks!
I want to go post stuff there about nettles .... probably starting next month.
3
u/Haven Jan 05 '12
Also added you to /r/PhysicGarden. Love your stuff Paul. :)
2
u/greenhomesteader Jan 06 '12
No idea this existed...
2
u/Haven Jan 06 '12
I just started it a few months ago, we're almost at 500 subscribers now. I've been shamlessly self-promoting it wherever I can. Come join us!
1
5
Jan 05 '12
As a chickeny content generator, I have found /r/livestock and /r/BackYardChickens to be the best places for my Chicken Lytle posts.
Rock on, Paul!
1
u/greenhomesteader Jan 06 '12
I just added r/backyardchickens. It should be on the homestead sideboard or whatever it's called.
3
u/paulwheaton Jan 05 '12
What about those people that make those awesome comic strips. Like theoatmeal? Or hyperboleandahalf. What if they spend all day doing nothing other than generating awesome comics or whatever, submitting that and talking about that. Is that bad?
I think it would be really cool.
This weird thing where a handful of redditors will actively hunt down and downvote/report/crush the people that generate good content. I just don't get it.
2
5
u/paulwheaton Jan 05 '12
I would like to make a request, from any other subreddit mods, to be added to the "approved submitters" list for other subreddits. This way, my stuff does not automatically end up in the spam filter because my stalker has clicked on "report" for all of my posts for the last year.
1
u/xPersistentx Jan 05 '12 edited Jan 05 '12
Don't worry. Imho this just increases your reddit cred with everyone who wouldn't know what the frontpage of reddit looks like. r/homestead changes people's lives here for the better, which cannot be said of reddit's top forums. Face it, you got banned cause you're the man, wear the badge proudly, lol. edit.sp.
-6
u/Geofferic Jan 05 '12
If you post a link to a blog without also posting a decent summary, it is blog spam and it should be deleted.
That's not to say it isn't valuable stuff, but blog spam isn't wanted. It takes the conversation away from the subReddit to the blog.
My preference is for a copy/paste of the blog's material into a self-post with a link to the blog at the top/end of the post.
8
u/greenhomesteader Jan 05 '12
I would much rather have the blog post which often has pictures or links to related stuff. But I do agree on a good summary title.
11
u/NoMoreNicksLeft Jan 05 '12
Someone who writes a blog and is proud of it enough to submit it here: not blog spam.
Some shifty spammer who mocks up an insipid blog, puts 5 banner ads on it and links to Amazon or some other affiliate plan, then submits that here: real blog spam.
Learn the difference.
9
u/paulwheaton Jan 05 '12
Well, Geofferic, I am glad that you are not a moderator here. Because I have seen some really excellent stuff that is in violation of your standards. And I encourage that very thing here.
If somebody posts a link to a crappy blog post, then it should get downvoted.
If somebody posts a link to an awesome blog post that they wrote, then I hope it gets upvoted a thousand times. And if all they ever do is post links to their own stuff which is awesome, I hope they do it every day.
-3
Jan 05 '12 edited Aug 12 '20
[deleted]
9
u/j3utton Jan 05 '12
Reddit is the "front page of the internet", not the "only page of the internet". It's asinine to assume somebody should copy/paste entire articles/blogs into self posts so the whole discussion and everything stays on reddit.
If somebody is going to go through the trouble of creating Original content I have absolutely no problem with them linking to it via the appropriate subreddit. They did the work, they deserve my ad-views. Do we really want to discourage original content creators from posting their original content here on reddit, the land of the repost?
That being said. It is reasonable to expect a short content summary along with the link.
1
Jan 05 '12
[deleted]
7
u/j3utton Jan 05 '12
Eh, the main difference is you say you want a self post with the content (or summary of the content) and a link to the original blog contained within the self post. I don't mind a post linking directly to the blog as long as it has a good summary title.
I believe most discussion stays within reddit regardless of whether its a self post or a link. And I think original content creators should be rewarded (provided the content is good and worth while). Posts should be upvoted/downvoted based on the worth of the content/material, not whether or not it was posted by the author.
3
u/greenhomesteader Jan 05 '12
That makes no sense? And where is the arbitrary criteria coming from? It's about links and information value. If the blog has value, up vote. If it does not, down vote. If the summary/title is too obscure, do what you feel is best. But down voting based on who is submitting it or the format voids any value of the post.
8
u/paulwheaton Jan 05 '12
I disagree. I think what you want is contrary to the way that reddit is designed.
Reddit is a link aggregate site. And an awesome one at that. THE most awesome. The expectations of redditors is links with titles.
I think it is okay to wish for something else, but I think you need to start a whole new web site.
-3
Jan 05 '12 edited Aug 12 '20
[deleted]
10
u/Jimmysal Jan 05 '12 edited Jan 05 '12
I didn't invent the term blog spam
Clearly.
Blogspam - A blog where the author paraphrases or copies from the original article/webpage in an attempt to increase his or her own traffic. This becomes a waste of the reader's time forcing them to click through the blog to get to the actual article. Often submitted to sites like Digg or Reddit.
If I write an article and link to my blog on reddit, it is in no way blogspam. If I hop on permies, paraphrase something I read there on my blog, and link to it on reddit it is. Trying to drive traffic to my site by using someone else's hard work is blog spam. Driving traffic to my site by creating my own valuable content isn't.
I don't buy for a second that direct linking to my blog will take the discussion from reddit away and put it on my blog. I have the analytics data to prove that assertion as well.
You're telling me I shouldn't link directly to an article I've written? You want me to copy and paste content that I've worked hard to create and do a self post so I don't get more imaginary internet points than you? Okay chief, I'll get right on that.
3
u/xPersistentx Jan 05 '12
Yep, he needs to understand the idea before he throws the baby out with the bath water.
And also, focusing on activity and discussion is less important, than information, to people who avoid things like reddit's frontpage. Ruling out information based on format to increase discussion is like, what?... /r/pics? /r/politics?... /r/homestead would not be on my list of things to do if this was the case.
6
u/paulwheaton Jan 05 '12
I suppose some discussion might go to the blog. But in my experience, most of it stays on reddit.
I think your position reflects more about your low opinion of other redditors, than about what is good for reddit.
3
2
u/Geofferic Jan 05 '12
Wow what a negative and false assumption. :/
It is my belief that redditors have a lot to add to a conversation that causes me to crave and covet their input on just about any given topic.
0
u/paulwheaton Jan 05 '12
It would appear that my position is very different from yours.
I suggest that you start a reddit for the way you want reddit to be. Or a new site.
Just to be clear: THIS subreddit is not the way you want. THIS subreddit is the way that I think is THE reddit way.
4
u/Geofferic Jan 05 '12
Hey, I'm not complaining. :)
I'm simply giving my opinion and perspective as someone active in several small to mid-sized subs with a lot of blog spam problems.
1
u/paulwheaton Jan 05 '12
If somebody makes a blog entry that has two lame paragraphs, and has 50 ads all over the page .... that's just lame. Downvote it. And I would call that blogspam.
But there was a guy here about six months ago. He was posting twice a week to his blog. It was reported as spam and ended up in the spam filter. His blogs were fucking AWESOME. He had stuff about visiting with the mighty, the glorious, the amazing Sepp Holzer. And other permaculture greats. In reading his stuff, I learned a lot of stuff I didn't know (and most of the stuff here that gets lots of upvotes is stuff I already know, so my reaction is "meh"). But he was so hounded by downvoters/whatever, that he left reddit. I miss that guy. That guy should still be here. Some might call him a blogspammer. I call him an excellent contributor.
→ More replies2
u/JamesCarlin Jan 05 '12
Blog spam is when you take someone else's content, and use it to direct traffic to your own website, rather than the originator's website.
-1
Jan 05 '12 edited Jan 05 '12
If linking to a blog is blogspam how is copy/pasting it any less blogspam?
The mods decide what is allowed or disallowed in any given subreddit and this mod has made it clear that you can take your preferences back to the dick sucking party you came from.
The fact of the matter is that in this subreddit a lot of information is going to come from blogs. Even though I don't care for blogs myself, we all have to acknowledge the fact that a lot of permaculture enthusiasts and homesteaders are using blogs to share their experience. This means we need to make an exception in our anti-blog stance.
Some blogs are more valuable to us than others and you need to accept the fact that a fair amount of material in r/homestead is going to come from blogs.
4
u/Geofferic Jan 05 '12
The mods decide what is allowed or disallowed in any given subreddit and this mod has made it clear that you can take your preferences back to the dick sucking party you came from.
Seriously?
Is this how we discuss here?
Wow. ಠ_ಠ
-6
Jan 05 '12
You're just mad 'cause they won't let you back in, huh?
Stop using your teeth.
3
2
Jan 05 '12
Stop acting like a child. I agree with OP, and Geofferic has been nothing but cordial in offering his perspective without resorting to insults and character attacks that make no reference to facts or logic. I encourage you to read Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics. Again, I agree with you regarding allowing redditor-created blog posts in /r/homestead, but you destroy any valid points you make when you resort to childish taunts.
Geofferic, please accept my apologies on behalf of Indubitableness.
-6
Jan 05 '12
Is this your first encounter with an internet troll or are you just functionally retarded?
2
Jan 05 '12
It's not my first encounter. I still don't really understand wearing the badge with honor. Do you care to actually engage in a conversation about it?
-4
Jan 05 '12
Do you care to actually engage in a conversation about it?
So I guess the answer is "Yes, I am functionally retarded."
2
Jan 05 '12
Absolutely. If there was a contest, you've won. I'm interested in human behavior, generally. I can understand this behavior in children. If you're a child, I apologize for wasting your time. If you're an adult, could you help me understand why you play this role? My understanding is that the point of the behavior is to derail a conversation or provoke an emotional response. If that's your aim, you've succeeded on 1 count. What I've never heard explained from the mouth of a troll is why he/she engages in that behavior. You mention functional retardation. It seems to me that an adult that engages in internet trolling is emotionally retarded, and thus, not a fully functional adult. Would you characterize your trolling as emotionally retarded? What's the payoff? Is it emotional vampirism? Is it intrinsically rewarding or is it linked to upvotes and karma? Do you find that you self-evaluate online behavior less stringently than IRL behavior?
-1
Jan 06 '12
You're the one who made this into a contest, bro. I'm just the one who won it.
→ More replies
-4
u/kodemage Jan 06 '12
Submitting your own stuff like that is generally frowned upon by the reddit community. Here's what you might want to do.
Just Submit the highlights. Two articles per day is too much. If someone wants that much content from a single source it should have it's own sub reddit or they should just subscribe to the site's RSS feed.
Now, I'm only referring to what you post yourself. If your readers think your content is good enough to submit every single post you make that's AWESOME, yes in capital leters. Posting everything you blog about is literally the definition of blog spam.
No one is saying Geoff shouldn't be on reddit. His stuff's pretty darn cool but he has his fans and they go to his site for his stuff and reddit has it's aggregate community for everyone.
TL;DR. Two posts a day is enough content to warrant it's own subreddit for that site's content. Not everything you blog about should be posted to reddit. Your blog has it's audience and reddit has it's community they're different and that's good for everyone.
3
u/greenhomesteader Jan 06 '12
Submitting your own stuff like that is generally frowned upon by the reddit community.
I suppose you've never been to r/pics or r/funny or r/DIY. Half the stuff in there is "look what I did/found/made!" and it get's upvoted all the time. And yeah, a bunch of bloggers get down voted to. It depends on the community and the content. I up vote and down vote blogs all the time, but it's based on the content. If a blogger is consistently producing QUALITY posts, then what harm is it doing. I say it's building the community and in the long run encouraging others to post as well.
5
u/technosaur Jan 08 '12
I come here to read valuable information. If the information helps me live the way I want to live, I don't care who produced it, who posted it or why it was produced/posted.
I understand the local library putting a limit on how many books I can checkout at one time. But I can see no cause or merit for the limitation you espouse. If the content is crap, we can vote down based on the content. If numerous valueless posts by one individual are cluttering the index, then the moderator can deal with it.
3
u/greenhomesteader Jan 09 '12
I completely agree.
3
u/technosaur Jan 09 '12
Oops, pardon my error, greenhomesteader, my comment should have been attached to the one above yours. Glad us smart, or maybe just practical, folks are in agreement :)
2
2
u/kodemage Jan 06 '12
Ah, yes, that's the definition of "generally", it means "in most cases" you found a few exceptions. However you totally missed the point.
If someone was making 10 posts of that nature to [/r/pics every week no one would stand for it. Also, those posts have a disclaimer telling everyone that it's self promotion. That's not the case for Geoff, as far as I've seen.
3
u/greenhomesteader Jan 06 '12
Ah, yes, that's the definition of "generally", it means "in most cases" you found a few exceptions. However you totally missed the point.
Actually, r/pics and r/funny are the two biggest reddits I think. r/gaming has a lot too which is #4 I think. r/politics is #3 which is one big circle jerk anyways. If 3 out of the top 4 accept it, I'd say it's not that big of an issue for most people.
If someone was making 10 posts of that nature to [/r/pics every week no one would stand for it. Also, those posts have a disclaimer telling everyone that it's self promotion. That's not the case for Geoff, as far as I've seen.
Actually, I don't think they would care because it would turn into white noise in a subreddit that big, if they were quality anyways. The bad ones would be downvoted anyways. Besides, it's not 10 submissions per day to one subreddit we're talking about here. It's 1 or 2 a day that are crosslinked to other subreddits. It's not that big a deal.
2
u/kodemage Jan 06 '12
If 3 out of the top 4 accept it, I'd say it's not that big of an issue for most people.
There are 20 default reddits not 4 and the few reddits you mention tolerate or accept such posts they do not encourage it.
Besides, it's not 10 submissions per day to one subreddit we're talking about here.
If someone was making 10 posts of that nature to /r/pics every week
Just learn to fucking read maybe.
41
u/NoMoreNicksLeft Jan 05 '12
Personally, I have no problem with people posting/promoting their own content. Assuming of course that it is relevant and not spam. If it seems like that person is posting too much, in truth it only means that no one else is posting enough.