I enjoyed your posts. Do you intend to continue in another forum? If so, please drop me a link, as I would like to continue following. Thanks.Rand Man 2 wrote:5th - What did you want to contact me about?
departure
Re: departure
-
retired jerry
- Posts: 14418
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Re: departure
you could just post the link to where you're posting here
or you could post your links here, but it's more interesting if you also post some more text than just the link
or you could post your links here, but it's more interesting if you also post some more text than just the link
-
Rand Man 2
- Posts: 2
- Joined: February 10th, 2017, 3:49 pm
Re: departure
5th - maybe but no plans. you can contact me at a temporary account rand<somethingoranother>@protonmail.com5th wrote:I enjoyed your posts. Do you intend to continue in another forum? If so, please drop me a link, as I would like to continue following. Thanks.Rand Man 2 wrote:5th - What did you want to contact me about?
bye bye everyone
Last edited by Rand Man 2 on February 11th, 2017, 4:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
justpeachy
- Posts: 3067
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
- Contact:
Re: departure
In the past, another moderator was harassed at work and stalked for messages he sent to a forum user using his own OH account. That is why we have the generic/anonymous moderator account for situations like this.5th wrote:"I received an anonymous PM from the moderators that my posts are not welcome"
IMO if this is true this represents completely inappropriate behavior from a moderator. Moderators can take responsibility for their own opinions or they should not be moderators. An anonymous PM is not moderation, it is intimidation.
-
retired jerry
- Posts: 14418
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Re: departure
yeah
the internet is a strange place with people with strong opinions that they let you know about in no uncertain terms
the internet is a strange place with people with strong opinions that they let you know about in no uncertain terms
Re: departure
I'm old school.
This isn't a hiking aggregation site.
Posts should actually be contained ON the site, not links. Why? Ever had your computer hacked/info compromised?
I find it selfish that people post links, only in an attempt to drive traffic to their personal site for whatever gain involved.
It's maybe a five minute process to copy/paste text here, and add a few photos. You can also post, and then add photos at a later date even...
This isn't a hiking aggregation site.
Posts should actually be contained ON the site, not links. Why? Ever had your computer hacked/info compromised?
I find it selfish that people post links, only in an attempt to drive traffic to their personal site for whatever gain involved.
It's maybe a five minute process to copy/paste text here, and add a few photos. You can also post, and then add photos at a later date even...
-
retired jerry
- Posts: 14418
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Re: departure
Same here, I consider it spam to just post links to your site. For example, to increase search engine results.
"Posts should actually be contained ON the site, not links. Why? Ever had your computer hacked/info compromised?"
I'm not sure what your point is there. Not that I'm trying to start a flame war with you
I don't have a problem with someone posting a link. I think it's better to also include a summary and maybe a couple photos, and then say to go to that link for more information if you're interested. But that's just my opinion (today).
"Posts should actually be contained ON the site, not links. Why? Ever had your computer hacked/info compromised?"
I'm not sure what your point is there. Not that I'm trying to start a flame war with you
I don't have a problem with someone posting a link. I think it's better to also include a summary and maybe a couple photos, and then say to go to that link for more information if you're interested. But that's just my opinion (today).
Re: departure
Considering I started posting to forums when they were still BBS's in the late 80's and I have not seen what you describe in any way being a standard, I'm not sure what is so old school about your stance.markesc wrote:I'm old school.
This isn't a hiking aggregation site.
Posts should actually be contained ON the site, not links. Why? Ever had your computer hacked/info compromised?
I find it selfish that people post links, only in an attempt to drive traffic to their personal site for whatever gain involved.
It's maybe a five minute process to copy/paste text here, and add a few photos. You can also post, and then add photos at a later date even...
And I disagree with "This isn't a hiking aggregation site." That is exactly what this is. It is a forum where people are encouraged to share information in a centralized location. The result is naturally aggregation of data and opinions about hiking. Photos are nice, but hardly a requirement.
Re: departure
There are though several long time respected members on this site (not memarkesc wrote:I'm old school.
This isn't a hiking aggregation site.
Posts should actually be contained ON the site, not links. Why? Ever had your computer hacked/info compromised?
I find it selfish that people post links, only in an attempt to drive traffic to their personal site for whatever gain involved.
It's maybe a five minute process to copy/paste text here, and add a few photos. You can also post, and then add photos at a later date even...
) who post their trip reports as a link to their own blog. Becomes a very gray area if some links are not spam and others are? Who would decide that?
Re: departure
For 8 years (2008-16), I posted my trips only to PortlandHikers and then to OregonHikers. It was my first exposure/experience with posting stuff for fun (previous computing/posting was all work related - not exactly "fun") and I appreciate this site being here while I fumbled around with BB code, text, photo downloads, PMs, etc., etc. I uploaded photo files directly in the early days but eventually figured out Picassa & the precursor to Google Photos. When the abomination known as Google Photos came along, I realized that I needed more control over my photos and switched to SmugMug because a tech-savy friend uses it. Then another tech-savy friend showed me what they were doing with WordPress and I saw that as a way of having some control over both my text and my photos (while remaining, of course, a prisoner of the Web... 
).
So now I have my own totally non-commercial site (the .org was chosen for a reason) but still deeply appreciate the OH site. I don't post on OH as often as I used to, but I do still post the occasional TR only on the OH site, with no duplicate on my site. If I post a TR on both sites, I try to make the OH one tell a followable story with text & photos, with my site available if folks want to read / view more of my blather. However, there are trip reports (including several that aren't hiking related) that are not "contained on" the OH site, only on my site - OHers have to go looking for these (and some seem to do so) but that's entirely voluntary. I also have just a link to my website in the signature block of all my OH posts, TRs or not; folks can click on that link or not, that too is their choice.
I would also add that my site has links to all of my OH trip reports, so someone who reaches my site without knowing about OH will very likely soon be directed there. This seems like a useful two-way street if your sole intent to give folks access to hiking and hiking-related info.
So I may be over-reacting a bit here but I do take exception to the implication that just because someone has their own site, they're guilty of "driving traffic" (it's probably easier to herd cats than drive OHers!) to it for some nefarious purpose - like viewing photos of GPS units in action, oh the horrors!
- if they mention it in an OH post. So is posting a TR - even an abbreviated one - OK, while posting just a link, or a bunch of links, is not? Or does the TR have to appear in full only on the OH site and on no other site to be acceptable? These seem like murky waters to me and I'm going to need some help understanding what's wanted here.
).So now I have my own totally non-commercial site (the .org was chosen for a reason) but still deeply appreciate the OH site. I don't post on OH as often as I used to, but I do still post the occasional TR only on the OH site, with no duplicate on my site. If I post a TR on both sites, I try to make the OH one tell a followable story with text & photos, with my site available if folks want to read / view more of my blather. However, there are trip reports (including several that aren't hiking related) that are not "contained on" the OH site, only on my site - OHers have to go looking for these (and some seem to do so) but that's entirely voluntary. I also have just a link to my website in the signature block of all my OH posts, TRs or not; folks can click on that link or not, that too is their choice.
I would also add that my site has links to all of my OH trip reports, so someone who reaches my site without knowing about OH will very likely soon be directed there. This seems like a useful two-way street if your sole intent to give folks access to hiking and hiking-related info.
So I may be over-reacting a bit here but I do take exception to the implication that just because someone has their own site, they're guilty of "driving traffic" (it's probably easier to herd cats than drive OHers!) to it for some nefarious purpose - like viewing photos of GPS units in action, oh the horrors!
- if they mention it in an OH post. So is posting a TR - even an abbreviated one - OK, while posting just a link, or a bunch of links, is not? Or does the TR have to appear in full only on the OH site and on no other site to be acceptable? These seem like murky waters to me and I'm going to need some help understanding what's wanted here.