Delta Points is totally lying when he says he only censors inappropriate comments. I've frequently posted polite comments where I disagree, and he always rejects them. He'll even frequently edit the comment to make it sound like you agree with him.

He just did it to me yesterday with his 50,000 credit card posting. He said they were amazing offers- I responded that they are the normal ones we all know about, and are not great deals. He posted only the '...are great deals' part. Hahaha. That's why I stick to blogs that actually have value. Delta Points censors so much because I'm guessing he is scared of being called out for not having as much knowledge as many of the other bloggers.

A long winded reasoning why someone deleted sbm12s comment in his blog:

http://saverocity.com/blog/use-my-af...8Saverocity%29

HT to gpapadop

Other than the long windedness. I would like your input on the reasoning. Is it valid, or not?

If it were my blog, I'd just let someone's comment stay in there, even if they link back etc. If its offensive or blatant spam, I'd delete with a '[redacted spam/offensive]' comment.

I let people backlink all the time.

The reason I left it there was because I thought it was worth calling out, not deleting.

However, what I am asking for, is do you think the decision, based upon what I said, to call this 'spam' or whatnot is valid? I'm keen to hear from people to see what they think of this.

Others have stated that I can't possibly say such a thing because the person involved has been helpful to them in the past, which I think is irrelevant.

Personally, I think your original action was perfect: correct the comment and call out the linkback as a blatant money-grab (assuming that's what you think it was).

If that generates controversy in your comments, then that is GOOD, right? After all, every click counts so any heat is good heat?

For example, I got called out by VFTW for doing a linkback to this forum. Check out comments 7,8 and 9 here: http://boardingarea.com/blogs/viewfr...sity/#comments

I don't think VFTW necessarily *liked* me linking back to FlyerTalk since it competes with MilePoint which he is a 'co-founder' of, but he let the comment stand with just a poke at me. Seemed both fair and appropriate to me...

And the best part is how you misrepresented what I wrote in your blog to justify your actions.

You contacted me and said you were going to edit the comment. I suggested you delete it instead if you thought it was spam. You chose to edit it anyways and not inform me of that decision, effectively representing your thoughts with my name on them. Congratulations on managing to censor, mislead and misrepresent, all in one move.
So it is OK to censor someone if you disagree with them? :confused:

"Calling someone out" is very different from editing their comment so that it appears they wrote something different than they actually did.

I think this is clouding the boundaries a bit. Should we change categories to include bloggers who censor when they want, censor when there's extremem profanity, and add another category where comments are moderated before they're posted? @:-)

I think you may misunderstood my post. By 'correct the comment' I did not mean EDIT the comment. That is just wrong no matter what, as it is tantamount to putting you words in someone else's mouth.

By 'correct,' I more precisely meant 'rebut.' The way VFTW rebutted my linkback with a teasing jab.

OTOH, I could see leaving and responding to the comment but redacting the link to the affiliate if the owner considered the link to be spam.

When FlyerTalk first started the only moderator was Randy. His moderation style was pretty random and arbitrary. But it did not drive business away. biddingfortravel had a very severe approach to moderation and imho it very definitely drove customers away. So moderation is, imho, simply one among many marketplace decision for these entrepreneurs to take.
It's nice that we consumers have this place to compare the marketplace decisions that the various service providers have made. ^

I would say: wiki away!

I have to agree that banning people's IP addresses without warning of any kind tends to drive people away. More precisely, it prevents them from adding any value to the forum by posting but it allows them to gather value from the forum by reading it. I never understood the logic of that strategy.

Your original comment is in its original form, other than your affiliate link has been removed and the comment <spam link removed> has been put in its place.

I agree that I shouldn't have changed your affiliate link to head somewhere else (initially it was to hotels.com, later to evrewards both weren't the best thing to do) when you called me out on that I changed it.

I hope you will find that agreeable.

Also, I didn't contact you to say I was going to edit your comment. I contacted you to inform you that I did edit your comment.

So I wanted to recall a pretty ridiculous situation not long ago:

A brother of a well known blogger made a highly arrogant, bitter and offensive post talking about a Harvard coworker. We can still see the starting part of the post as follows when we google it:

"It always fascinates me how dumb smart people are in life. In a company where traveling is part of the job, how can you not research on points and miles before you travel?! Honestly, you can just google the hotel chain with the word “promotions” and abou..."

It gets worse.

Many readers were highly highly offended and annoyed and responded with comments citing the arrogance and bitterness of the post. The post was edited to remove all the arrogant and disparaging bits toward Harvard students and the blogger apologized on behalf of the brother. Further commenters, seeing the edited post, commented how unfair the first few commenters were (commenting on a different post entirely) and I tried to comment explaining the post was edited. I wanted to defend the first few commenters explaining they commented on a different post. My comment was moderated, not approved and, furthermore, the first few commenters' comments were left up looking silly and unfair and as if they were overreacting to a far milder post.

I lost respect for the blogger and since stopped reading.

He has plagiarized from time to time. But credit him for publishing comments that called him out on it.

Hey Guys,

I write for milevalue and I have never censored anything. Given that I only have written 20 posts and almost all of them being trip reports, I don't get too many inappropriate commenters.

The way it works (as far as I know) is that the people who comment regularly get instantly approved and new people who comment are put in the queue. Also, I only get access to approve comments for posts I write and not milevalue as a whole. Hope that brings some insight into how comments on our site work. I have no response for what others say about the better credit card links as i've never seen something like that on my posts.

-BMG

I was told that you guys sensor comments that are negative and not constructive. That your blog also removes any post about the blog and not what the particular article is about. Also, I was told that posts were removed to make it a "friendly place for newbies." More specifically that you guys do not want to see anything like what you see on other blogs or what is on Flyertalk.

Which is fine. I don't have to read the blog.

This is definitely an interesting discussion to read. Everything was pretty cut and dry on appropriate moderating until money got involved. Almost everyone agrees that profanity, rudeness, and ad hominem attacks are inappropriate.

This affiliate link business, though, is pretty murky. It seems definitely appropriate to comment on a post on someone else's as a way of simultaneously contributing and promoting your site. I have to say, adding an affiliate link directly to someone else's site seems to be inappropriate to me.

It's always hard to evaluate a situation until you experience something similar and see how you react. Until I have someone comment with an affiliate link in my blog, I cannot honestly argue concerning the situation.

However, on a similar note, I wrote a post explaining that people may take advantage of a certain "Spend $50 at Neiman Marcus, get 3500 FlexPerks" by buying a Neiman Marcus gift card and reselling it on PJ at a loss of about $7. ChasingThePoints clarified that, actually, if you want cash, there is an additional 2% cut so the loss will be $7.50 ($6.65 is for an Amazon gift card). Moreover, TCB is giving 1% cash back. Again, information I was missing was pointed out for a potentially better offer and I was extremely grateful that this was all clarified in my post. I gladly welcomed and appreciated the comment.

Again, there was no affiliate link so the situation is different. I may or may not have minded one (since I don't have a TCB affiliate link right now), but I can't say for sure until I experience it.

Very well said. Same here!

I don't know if you would call it censoring, but Gary does have moderation enabled and he has either chosen to not publish posts or accidentally deleted them. I recall one comment not getting published - it was not offensive or contentious. It may have been off topic a bit. No harm, no foul. It's his blog, not mine. I think he publishes the really offensive ones because, frankly, they are pretty funny and I think he knows his regular readers respect him.

Plus there is satisfaction in seeing your fans jump to your defense! @:-)^

So I got a bunch of (relatively) nasty comments today. I try to respond to every single comment so it's pretty hard when those comments are very detrimental to the atmosphere of the post.

I've sent an email (and I think this is going to be my policy now) to the commenters with why I have not allowed the comments and I have offered to allow a comment that is more conducive to discussion.

I'd love everyone to chime in on this and tell me whether I'm doing this right or not (hem koko). Completely open to feedback :)

Actually, I can attest to one of the things you said. I have once emailed a person who posed a question as a comment. It was something that had to do with the post but something that no one else would benefit from. It was like an individual routing comment. I didn't approve it but I emailed him on the email he left the comment with and answered his question. So that might be considered making it easier for newbies? Idk but there were times when bad feedback was left on some of my posts and it's still there. I approve them all. Well, I approve for whatever I write.

I don't get the point of censoring like that. How do you know if there is not another individual that will "benefit"? Maybe someone else wants to post about not liking that you guys are wearing flip flops and shorts on a 1st class A380 flight? Unless it is super nasty/rude, it is just the opinion of your readers. (I did not post this opinion, but I've seen some similar ones disappear)

Personally after reading about the throw away ticketing and only a small warning about how this "might" violate the rules and get your account shut down... I saw that there really was no looking out for the newbies. You guys are giving advice that you wouldn't even use (these are the blog's words and not mine). When you censor comments... who know if other people posted their negative experience using a "trick" like that.

I never deleted any comments about what I (Tahsir) was wearing or anything like that. Yes, I understand that people will say things like that and I have come to accept it. I don't know about the comments with throw away ticketing and what not but I was just trying to enlighten how I deal with comments when I have control of them. I always approve them regardless.

Because you posted a FD! That is more forbidden here than making a step-by-step guide how to purchase VRs.

Fortunately for you, it wasn't one that we all use frequently, for that would've really hurt your reputation. Thankfully noobies have no idea how to FD, for that would really hurt...

It's this right?

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/milea...h-hipmunk.html

That's why I didn't explicitly mention that it was an FD.... but I guess that can't satisfy everyone....

Is there a way to quickly recognize you found a FD instead of a mistake fare so as to not do this in the future? What are the criteria for this?

Surprised no one has mentioned flyertalk and some overly sensitive mods.

you really shouldn't publish fuel dumps, even if you call it something else. it wouldn't have lasted 2 minutes if it was able to ticket

Lol, amen to that. But blogs =/= IBBs.

Oh come on... if someone tags an obscure segment in Asia onto a transatlantic flight, its certainly not a mistake fare ;)

My post wasn't about the FD at all. It was about how instead of priceline pricing 1 J TATL ticket at 3k, it was pricing 4 J TATL tickets at 3k so, 750 each.
Seemed to only work with the 3x, so too bad.

Maybe, maybe not.

I don't, but I also don't run your site. You have apparently decided to censor the content and edit what I've written and you're comfortable with that. Good for you.

I will edit content that blatantly attempts to steer readers into another bloggers affiliate links, especially when the post already deals with (arguably) the best form of rebate for that solution and is a non affiliate link.

I put the reader first.

I do the same when I get spam sending the reader to some dodgy Viagra site, the only difference is I delete that outright, where as I allow comments like yours to stay, so we can discuss the merits of your actions.

Also, I will edit personal attacks that are not relevant to the post and overly offensive. I think though, that based upon the criteria here that doesn't put me in the 'censor' category as that was originally aimed at people trying to remove/edit comments to protect their own revenue over the readerships wellbeing. But if people want to think of me as a bad guy for it then that's cool.

I'm happy with that solution.

But, then again, I should always be able to improve my practices, and if this is wrong I am happy to review and see if I can get better.

You made a subjective call on what you think is better for your readers and rather than engaging in a conversation about that edited someone else's content to "prove" your point. That's fine if you want to go that route, but that's also censoring.

You cannot have it both ways.

No, I just edited your affiliate link, I did engage in the conversation about it being better or not, and did leave your comments intact. The only thing I changed was a hyperlink.

Which is censorship. You may feel it justifiable and that is your prerogative. But that doesn't change what the action is.

Well then the entire thread is pointless, as everybody censors spam.

I think it's pretty obvious that it excludes spam?

Well then- did I censor? I just took out a spam hyperlink. I left all comments and conversations intact.