| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Dean 
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
 Posted: July 27 2014 at 04:37 |
 richardh wrote:
No problem with it being moved accept that it just end up being in two places as the same time (you will still be able to access it via this forum) while I will end up up on a different forum.
I assume its not possible to completely delete a thread from one forum and restate it on another forum? |
There are not two copies of the thread. When a thread gets moved it is moved in its entirety. Sometimes the Admins will leave a "moved" marker-link icon in the old location so that people can still find the thread after the move.
This is like going to your favourite book-store and finding a "We have moved" notice in the empty shop window. You would think of this as a helpful courtesy that they have added the address of the new shop location to that note.
The two icons are different - the moved icon in the old location has an arrow on it to show it has been moved. This is the default-setting of the forum software, the Admins don't have to leave a moved icon behind but it is courtesy to do so. The icon should be removed after a few days once people have become accustomed to the new location but this is not an automatic process, the Admin has to remember to do it manually, sometimes they forget, other times they can't be bothered to remember (these are normal human things because Admins are normal humans [in the main]).
This stops the "Why did you delete my thread?" complaints from those whose thread got moved but they subsequently couldn't find. Of course it doesn't stop the "Why did you move my thread?" complaints, or either complaint from those who simply forgot where they left it.
|
|
What?
|
 |
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 27 2014 at 05:11 |
rogerthat wrote:
Dean wrote:
^ that's not agreeing with Logan. While he attacks Max for the choice he made, he is not defending Google for theirs. It's a different argument (and a different hypocrisy).
|
And no more did I defend Google. I am only defending their right to make such arrangements as they please. As Logan said, if the terms on which Google would like to put up their ads on websites are not agreeable, then the website is free to opt out of it. If it's not feasible, accept their terms but to say that it's not feasible to operate without Google Ads and yet Google ought to offer them and pay PA on PA's own terms alone is neither here nor there. It's not Google's fault alone that people are unreasonably addicted to free access websites (though it was evidently in their interest to push for this to seal their dominance). We have consciously made that choice by shunning most websites that try to operate on a subscription basis. |
Defending their right to make such arrangements is defending Google. It's a different argument.
I agree with all the correct statements that people have been making, I cannot agree with all the incorrect ones or many of the assumptions made.
Paraphrasing and inferring and out-right making crap up (because data-mining these threads for exact quotes is unnecessarily time-consuming): - "PA had no choice - accept Google's terms or lose their revenue" is a correct statement and I agree with it - the assumption that it is hypocritical I do not agree with.
- "The PA had no choice" is an incorrect statement/assumption and I disagree with it. A choice existed and a decision was made.
- "We prefer the money we get from Google to the uncensored album covers our members want." is an incorrect assumption; we prefer their money to not having a site or we prefer censoring album covers to not having a site would be more correct assumptions at that level. We prefer to do neither and still have a site is a more accurate assumption.
- "It's not PA's fault" is a correct assumption but I do not agree with what has been inferred from that.
- "It is a business decision" is a correct statement and I accept the reality of it.
- "The PA has a choice to comply or opt-out" is a correct statement and I agree with it, however I cannot assume that opting out would ensure the PA's survival.
- "There are alternative methods of funding a free-access website" is a correct statement and I agree with it, I do not agree with the assumption that those are viable alternatives.
- "Other websites use Google AdSense and do not censor album covers" is a correct statement and I agree with it but I do not agree with the assumptions that those sites have chosen not to comply with a Google "cease and desist" instruction/threat or that they have purposely chosen to ignore AdSense's Ts&Cs.
- "Other websites do not use Google AdSense and do not censor album covers" is a correct statement and I agree with it but I do not agree with the assumptions that those sites are comparable or that those solutions would be viable for the PA.
- "The Internet is free" is an incorrect statement and an incorrect assumption and therefore I disagree with it, I accepted that the internet wasn't free back in the 90s when it became the World-Wide-Mall.
- "The expectation of free-access" is a correct statement but an incorrect expectation.
The business dynamic of the Internet is a strange thing - it is essentially a free market but it does not behave like one nor does it operate like one is supposed to behave and operate - for all the variety that exists in the Internet market place it is as homogeneous and as samey as every shopping mall in every town and city - there is only one Amazon, only one eBay, only one iTunes, only one FaceBook, only one RYM, only one Google etc. that people regularly use. There are alternatives and bespoke sites like the PA are niche and operate at the fringe of all this and cannot dictate how the web should be. No one, it seems, votes with their feet or with their wallets or their conscience on the Internet.
I understand people's frustrations and annoyance because (although I am an ex-Admin and this is no longer my direct concern) I share that frustration and anger.
|
|
What?
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: July 27 2014 at 05:53 |
Dean wrote:
Defending their right to make such arrangements is defending Google. It's a different argument. |
Yeah, different from what Logan said? How? Here's what he said:
"Google is under no obligation to give Max money for anything. If they choose to do so, they are free to set the terms, which he is then free to accept or deny. "
I do not see any significant difference between this and my statement above that I only defend their right to make such arrangements as they please. However, if you want to play pedant, suit yourself.
Dean wrote:
- "PA had no choice - accept Google's terms or lose their revenue" is a correct statement and I agree with it - the assumption that it is hypocritical I do not agree with.
|
No, what I called hypocritical was the belief that Google should somehow pay a website for displaying ads on it and yet not impose any conditions under which they would be comfortable in doing so. It simply doesn't work that way and most people posting on this board would not accept such one sidedness if it related to their own terms of employment/work.
Dean wrote:
- "We prefer the money we get from Google to the uncensored album covers our members want." is an incorrect assumption; we prefer their money to not having a site or we prefer censoring album covers to not having a site would be more correct assumptions at that level. We prefer to do neither and still have a site is a more accurate assumption.
|
It is not an incorrect inference, more likely one you do not like very much. If somebody running a website feels strongly enough about censoring of album covers, he should not accept terms that seek to censor it. Agreeing to it implies that he would have much rather have a website with censored album covers funded by Google Ads than refuse it and risk not being able to run it.
Dean wrote:
"The Internet is free" is an incorrect statement and an incorrect assumption and therefore I disagree with it, I accepted that the internet wasn't free back in the 90s when it became the World-Wide-Mall.- "The expectation of free-access" is a correct statement but an incorrect expectation. [/quote]
It is indeed an incorrect assumption but it is the one most people make and is reflected in their responses on this thread.
[QUOTE=Dean]
The business dynamic of the Internet is a strange thing - it is essentially a free market but it does not behave like one nor does it operate like one is supposed to behave and operate - for all the variety that exists in the Internet market place it is as homogeneous and as samey as every shopping mall in every town and city - there is only one Amazon, only one eBay, only one iTunes, only one FaceBook, only one RYM, only one Google etc. that people regularly use. There are alternatives and bespoke sites like the PA are niche and operate at the fringe of all this and cannot dictate how the web should be. No one, it seems, votes with their feet or with their wallets or their conscience on the Internet.
I understand people's frustrations and annoyance because (although I am an ex-Admin and this is no longer my direct concern) I share that frustration and anger. |
I do not have much frustration or annoyance over this and nor I am inclined to sympathise with people who want to ostracise corporations over this. I am sorry but what free access internet resource for, say, prog (among many other things) existed before www? I remember well when good money had to be paid to purchase bulky encyclopedias that were still not nearly as comprehensive in their coverage as what all you can read up on the net. A bit later CDs came along and they were a lot handier but still expensive and again offered very limited amount of information. Today a lot of information is available to be accessed without paying for it. If there is an indirect price to be paid, I do not find that very unreasonable, though I do think their sharing information about individuals with governments without consent is unethical (even if they have put it in the fine print somewhere). I think it reeks of an entitlement mentality to expect that there should be no restrictions of any kind involved in facilitating the creation and maintenance of such a vast information resource. As you say, most passionate prog lovers are unlikely to access PA if it was on subscription. If that is the case, then I do find the outrage over google censorship hypocritical. There, that's the easiest way to save PA from censorship, put the money where the mouth is.
Edited by rogerthat - July 27 2014 at 05:57
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 27 2014 at 06:32 |
rogerthat wrote:
Dean wrote:
Defending their right to make such arrangements is defending Google. It's a different argument. |
Yeah, different from what Logan said? How? Here's what he said:
"Google is under no obligation to give Max money for anything. If they choose to do so, they are free to set the terms, which he is then free to accept or deny. "
I do not see any significant difference between this and my statement above that I only defend their right to make such arrangements as they please. However, if you want to play pedant, suit yourself. |
I've never disputed this statement from Logan and it isn't what the argument is IMO. It's a different argument.
rogerthat wrote:
Dean wrote:
- "PA had no choice - accept Google's terms or lose their revenue" is a correct statement and I agree with it - the assumption that it is hypocritical I do not agree with.
|
No, what I called hypocritical was the belief that Google should somehow pay a website for displaying ads on it and yet not impose any conditions under which they would be comfortable in doing so. It simply doesn't work that way and most people posting on this board would not accept such one sidedness if it related to their own terms of employment/work. |
I agree. That's a different argument.
rogerthat wrote:
Dean wrote:
- "We prefer the money we get from Google to the uncensored album covers our members want." is an incorrect assumption; we prefer their money to not having a site or we prefer censoring album covers to not having a site would be more correct assumptions at that level. We prefer to do neither and still have a site is a more accurate assumption.
|
It is not an incorrect inference, more likely one you do not like very much. If somebody running a website feels strongly enough about censoring of album covers, he should not accept terms that seek to censor it. Agreeing to it implies that he would have much rather have a website with censored album covers funded by Google Ads than refuse it and risk not being able to run it. |
It depends. I think much can be inferred and assume, however, I was present in the AZ when this occurred - no one wanted to censor the album covers. Given 72 hours to comply means the decision is solely determined by keeping the site active with no other considerations. Subsequent actions and inactions are something different and that's a different argument.
rogerthat wrote:
Dean wrote:
"The Internet is free" is an incorrect statement and an incorrect assumption and therefore I disagree with it, I accepted that the internet wasn't free back in the 90s when it became the World-Wide-Mall.
"The expectation of free-access" is a correct statement but an incorrect expectation.
|
It is indeed an incorrect assumption but it is the one most people make and is reflected in their responses on this thread.
|
Agreed, though I think it is an expectation rather than an assumption, but that is being pedantic.
rogerthat wrote:
Dean wrote:
The business dynamic of the Internet is a strange thing - it is essentially a free market but it does not behave like one nor does it operate like one is supposed to behave and operate - for all the variety that exists in the Internet market place it is as homogeneous and as samey as every shopping mall in every town and city - there is only one Amazon, only one eBay, only one iTunes, only one FaceBook, only one RYM, only one Google etc. that people regularly use. There are alternatives and bespoke sites like the PA are niche and operate at the fringe of all this and cannot dictate how the web should be. No one, it seems, votes with their feet or with their wallets or their conscience on the Internet.
I understand people's frustrations and annoyance because (although I am an ex-Admin and this is no longer my direct concern) I share that frustration and anger. |
I do not have much frustration or annoyance over this and nor I am inclined to sympathise with people who want to ostracise corporations over this. I am sorry but what free access internet resource for, say, prog (among many other things) existed before www? I remember well when good money had to be paid to purchase bulky encyclopedias that were still not nearly as comprehensive in their coverage as what all you can read up on the net. A bit later CDs came along and they were a lot handier but still expensive and again offered very limited amount of information. Today a lot of information is available to be accessed without paying for it. If there is an indirect price to be paid, I do not find that very unreasonable, though I do think their sharing information about individuals with governments without consent is unethical (even if they have put it in the fine print somewhere). I think it reeks of an entitlement mentality to expect that there should be no restrictions of any kind involved in facilitating the creation and maintenance of such a vast information resource. As you say, most passionate prog lovers are unlikely to access PA if it was on subscription. If that is the case, then I do find the outrage over google censorship hypocritical. There, that's the easiest way to save PA from censorship, put the money where the mouth is.
|
The "hypocrisy" thing is not about google's censorship (or their apparent double-standards when it comes to censorship) but about the claim that it's not the PA's fault that the covers have been censored. It's a different argument.
Edited by Dean - July 27 2014 at 06:39
|
|
What?
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: July 27 2014 at 07:02 |
|
Well, it partly is because PA was party to that decision. Just saying google is a corporate tsar and all that ignores the reality of internet free lunches and what entails for all participants. I would go a step further and say it's not just PA or google's fault alone that it came to this but also that of users for encouraging and at times demanding an environment where everything's got to be free. It is easy to take such a vast information resource as well as forum for fans to interact for granted but it simply wasn't possible not so long ago and people have to keep in mind that if they want that kind of arrangement without having to pay for it, there may be "other charges" at times. I am certainly sympathetic to Max for the fact that business compulsions forced him to take such a decision; just not nearly as sympathetic to people who make one sided rants against such a decision.
|
|
King Crimson776
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2762
|
Posted: July 27 2014 at 07:28 |
|
Probably been mentioned (?), but surely this is not the right forum for this.
I think swear words are valid, so it's unfortunate, but not a big deal. I know RateYourMusic gets its revenue partially through subscribers, but also ads (only seen by people with no account). I suppose they aren't Google ads, seeing as RYM allows swearing. Is it really just that they scrape by with some lesser type of ads + subscribers?
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625
|
Posted: July 27 2014 at 07:42 |
Dean wrote:
richardh wrote:
No problem with it being moved accept that it just end up being in two places as the same time (you will still be able to access it via this forum) while I will end up up on a different forum.
I assume its not possible to completely delete a thread from one forum and restate it on another forum? |
There are not two copies of the thread. When a thread gets moved it is moved in its entirety. Sometimes the Admins will leave a "moved" marker-link icon in the old location so that people can still find the thread after the move.
This is like going to your favourite book-store and finding a "We have moved" notice in the empty shop window. You would think of this as a helpful courtesy that they have added the address of the new shop location to that note.
The two icons are different - the moved icon in the old location has an arrow on it to show it has been moved. This is the default-setting of the forum software, the Admins don't have to leave a moved icon behind but it is courtesy to do so. The icon should be removed after a few days once people have become accustomed to the new location but this is not an automatic process, the Admin has to remember to do it manually, sometimes they forget, other times they can't be bothered to remember (these are normal human things because Admins are normal humans [in the main]).
This stops the "Why did you delete my thread?" complaints from those whose thread got moved but they subsequently couldn't find. Of course it doesn't stop the "Why did you move my thread?" complaints, or either complaint from those who simply forgot where they left it. |
All this is done for the pleasure of the clueless...
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 27 2014 at 13:44 |
King Crimson776 wrote:
Probably been mentioned (?), but surely this is not the right forum for this.
I think swear words are valid, so it's unfortunate, but not a big deal. I know RateYourMusic gets its revenue partially through subscribers, but also ads (only seen by people with no account). I suppose they aren't Google ads, seeing as RYM allows swearing. Is it really just that they scrape by with some lesser type of ads + subscribers?
|
- This is not the right forum for this
- That has been mentioned before
- The ban on swearing is nothing to do with Google.
- This is not the right thread for your post
- RYM uses Goolge Ads.
- I have mentioned this before.
- RYM censors Album covers.
- I have also mentioned this before.
|
|
What?
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: July 27 2014 at 14:31 |
Dean wrote:
- "PA had no choice - accept Google's terms or lose their revenue" is a correct statement and I agree with it - the assumption that it is hypocritical I do not agree with.
|
 It's hilarious that you say "PA had no choice" immediate followed by an either-or choice. You contradict your own statement in only 11 words.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 27 2014 at 14:52 |
thellama73 wrote:
Dean wrote:
- "PA had no choice - accept Google's terms or lose their revenue" is a correct statement and I agree with it - the assumption that it is hypocritical I do not agree with.
|
It's hilarious that you say "PA had no choice" immediate followed by an either-or choice. You contradict your own statement in only 11 words.
|
It is known as a Hobson's Choice, but more of that in the following post.
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 27 2014 at 14:53 |
rogerthat wrote:
Well, it partly is because PA was party to that decision. Just saying google is a corporate tsar and all that ignores the reality of internet free lunches and what entails for all participants. I would go a step further and say it's not just PA or google's fault alone that it came to this but also that of users for encouraging and at times demanding an environment where everything's got to be free. It is easy to take such a vast information resource as well as forum for fans to interact for granted but it simply wasn't possible not so long ago and people have to keep in mind that if they want that kind of arrangement without having to pay for it, there may be "other charges" at times. I am certainly sympathetic to Max for the fact that business compulsions forced him to take such a decision; just not nearly as sympathetic to people who make one sided rants against such a decision. |
I've lost track of what you are talking about and wonder why you've trundled off on this "free lunch" direction. It is not about free access to anything, it never was.
What we are talking about starts here: Google AdSense restriction:
Content restrictions apply to pages/sites displaying Google ads.
Google ads may not be displayed alongside any type of content prohibited by our programme policies, including adult or mature, gambling-related, copyrighted, violent or hateful content. It's your responsibility to ensure that all of your pages adhere to these policies.
|
The "adult or mature" element of that restriction is define by Google thusly:
Adult content: What's the policy?
The AdSense network is considered family-safe, which means that publishers aren't permitted to place Google ads on sites which contain pornography, adult or mature content. If your site has content which you wouldn't be comfortable viewing at work or with family members around, then it probably isn't an appropriate site for Google ads.
|
[Which when you put those two together only manages to say "Google ads may not be displayed on pages that have adult or mature content"]. That leaves a lot open to interpretation but it clearly places the onus on the sites that use AdSense to decide whether a page is "adult or mature" or can comfortably be viewed "at work or with family members around". [At this point my childish sense of humour wants to ask... "What, do you mean pages containing Zimmer-frames, false teeth and comfortable slippers?" ... because it would be really embarrassing to be caught looking at any of those by a work colleague or family member - I'm still trying to live-down the humiliation of being discovered owning a Coldplay album.] Since all of us leave our album collections on display in our homes and have no reservations in showing them to our work colleagues one would assume that all album covers are safe so pages that display them cannot fall foul of this policy. You would think that if these covers can be sent to your iPlayer by iTunes accessing the AllMusic database at Rovi then using them here would be safe. One would have thought that if Amazon displays these album covers on their site and in their adverts on our site then we would be compliant with Google's "adult or mature" restriction. That's what we thought but we were wrong. Google sent an email informing us that we had violated the terms of the agreement and gave us 72 hours to comply.
To further enlighten us Cecelia Choi of the AdSense Policy team explains the "adult or mature" policy further:
Prohibiting sexually explicit pornographic images is straightforward, but publishers often unknowingly overlook some of the more subtle content that can be intended for a mature audience. Examples can include adult toys or fetish sites, sheer/see-through clothing, and lewd or provocative poses (even if clothed) that have sexually gratifying overtones. This rule applies to links or ads that drive traffic to adult or mature content too.Something else to keep in mind is that images are not the only elements that are considered adult. Text that is sexual in nature is considered adult content as well. Some examples include articles with sexual health tips (including medical-related advice), erotic stories, and comment spam with adult keywords (most commonly found on sites with user-generated-content). When in doubt about whether an image or text might be construed as adult content, our rule of thumb is this: if you wouldn't want a child to see the content or if you would be embarrassed to view the page in front of colleagues, then it’s probably not family-safe and you shouldn't place AdSense ad code on it. We appreciate your help in making the network a balanced ecosystem where users, publishers, and advertisers can grow and thrive together. |
As explanations go it's terrible and just as vague as the policy and therefore of no help what so ever. The revelation that we can "unknowingly overlook some of the more subtle content that can be intended for a mature audience" isn't quite as helpful as I suspect Ms Choi believes it to be - if we are unknowingly overlooking something then we will forever remain oblivious to it - that's how "unknowingly overlooking" tends to work. [But it is reassuring to know that Google have an entire team working in this policy - heaven forfend that this was just the whim of an intern.] All we have learnt from it is that it's not just nipple-slips, arse cracks and unruly muffs poking over the waistband of an american-flag bikini bottom. Sheer and or see-through clothing ist verboten - so not only does Country Life fall foul of this policy, Stranded does too .. and the cover of Love Beach and the first two Flash albums. As would the infamous Kate Bush in a sheer leotard picture ... or an album cover of Cliff Richard in a see-through string vest: [okay, that's going too far]
Fortunately (we thought) Prog isn't big on lewd and provocative poses [unless Ian Anderson's codpiece does it for you], and while we all know what "Steely Dan" is, hopefully the repressed policy team at Google have never read William S. Burroughs.
That's it: That is the agreement that Max signed-up to when he decided to use Google AdSense to help fund this site. This is the only decision he was party to with Google: it is his responsibility to ensure that all his pages adhere to Google's policies.
This policy has not changed since he signed-up to it; Google hasn't just decided to censor the internet; Google hasn't just decided to exact their pound of flesh; The PA hasn't just decided to apply the policy; It isn't a business decision he has just made as a result of Google sending an violation notice. The business decision was made when the site was created and policy was there from day-one.
And everyone here believed the PA website was fully compliant.
Google thought otherwise.
Whether they are right or wrong is immaterial - they are enforcing their policy how they interpret it and the see John Zorn's Filmworks XXI as an image that violates their pre-exisiting restrictions. Most of us think it is a beautiful cover but that is irrelevant. Someone at Google believes it violates their terms and conditions and that is all that matters.
We still don't know what other album covers would fall foul of this policy because Google does not vet them for us, so the collaborators are interpreting the policy as best they can, albeit more cautiously than before. Rest assured if we get caught again Google will see that as a failure to comply with the original violation order and they will withdraw their advertisements.
However, Google is not censoring the internet and it not is it censoring the PA, nor is it forcing us to self-censor.
So what exactly is the "decision" that people are getting hot and bothered about? There are lots of "decisions" here, and the site makes "decisions" on a daily basis.
Logan objected to people saying that "It's not PAs fault" - and I agreed with him. No Admin or Collaborator ever said that, it was an assumption made by people who are not involved in running this site - we never said it wasn't our fault and none of us blamed Google. It was our choice to censor the images - Google did not force us to do that - we could have opted-out of using them (how we would fund the site as a result is actually immaterial at this juncture) - and I said so. He then went on to accuse us (later just Max) of hypocrisy in pretending that we had no choice in the matter (which at the time I ignored because it was incorrect and irrelevant) - no one is pretending anything and the choice offered by Google was "take it or leave it" , which in the vernacular is known as Hobson's Choice. Since then (by some circuitous discussion) we have been trying to ascertain exactly what an "or leave it" decision actually entails and whether that choice is a viable one or not.
Part of that raises the question "Should the PA remain subscription-free?" and we have all presumed the answer is "Yes it should". But that is somewhat immaterial, [somewhere along the line someone pays so saying that nothing is free or stating that there are no free lunches is redundant], because it is not the visits of regular users of this site that generates the AdSense income, it is the vast numbers of casual users who find single pages on specific albums or artists via a Google search. Even if all regular users here subscribed there would be too few us to make it viable, and I don't imagine for one minute that all regular users would subscribe.
|
|
What?
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: July 27 2014 at 20:38 |
|
I don't really dispute any of the above. As I already said, I am sympathetic to the choice Max had to make because he has to find a way to run the website. All I am saying is the outrage expressed in this thread is disproportionate because nobody wants to or is really going to do anything to make sure uncensored images can be displayed. And if nobody can, then all the venting is just so much hot air amounting to nothing. I call it a free lunch because the bottomline is people want a free access internet resource for all their favourite music and yet naively believe there would never be any conditions imposed by those entities that make such an arrangement possible.
|
|
richardh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 26140
|
Posted: July 28 2014 at 00:52 |
Dean wrote:
richardh wrote:
No problem with it being moved accept that it just end up being in two places as the same time (you will still be able to access it via this forum) while I will end up up on a different forum.
I assume its not possible to completely delete a thread from one forum and restate it on another forum? |
There are not two copies of the thread. When a thread gets moved it is moved in its entirety. Sometimes the Admins will leave a "moved" marker-link icon in the old location so that people can still find the thread after the move.
This is like going to your favourite book-store and finding a "We have moved" notice in the empty shop window. You would think of this as a helpful courtesy that they have added the address of the new shop location to that note.
The two icons are different - the moved icon in the old location has an arrow on it to show it has been moved. This is the default-setting of the forum software, the Admins don't have to leave a moved icon behind but it is courtesy to do so. The icon should be removed after a few days once people have become accustomed to the new location but this is not an automatic process, the Admin has to remember to do it manually, sometimes they forget, other times they can't be bothered to remember (these are normal human things because Admins are normal humans [in the main]).
This stops the "Why did you delete my thread?" complaints from those whose thread got moved but they subsequently couldn't find. Of course it doesn't stop the "Why did you move my thread?" complaints, or either complaint from those who simply forgot where they left it. |
the analogy of the shop moving is completely wrong as the shop cannot be accessed in it original location. I think either you don't understand the issue I have with this or you are choosing not to.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 28 2014 at 07:52 |
richardh wrote:
Dean wrote:
richardh wrote:
No problem with it being moved accept that it just end up being in two places as the same time (you will still be able to access it via this forum) while I will end up up on a different forum.
I assume its not possible to completely delete a thread from one forum and restate it on another forum? |
... This is like going to your favourite book-store and finding a "We have moved" notice in the empty shop window. You would think of this as a helpful courtesy that they have added the address of the new shop location to that note. ... |
the analogy of the shop moving is completely wrong as the shop cannot be accessed in it original location. I think either you don't understand the issue I have with this or you are choosing not to. |
 
An analogy is not an exact model in every respect, it is only similar in certain respects and uses that similarity to illustrate or explain some aspect of a thing. Where the two things differ is not relevant, the differences do not form part of the analogy. Finding fault in the analogy based on differences does not affect the original analogy or the similarity it was used to illustrate. For example the note on the door is made of paper, the moved-icon isn't - that difference is not the aspect being compared and is not relevant to the explanation therefore is not part of the analogy. It is a common misconception that highlighting a difference between the two things in the analogy defeats the analogy and unfortunately this occurs a lot in online and bar-room discussions. Being analogous does not mean that the two things are exactly the same in every respect, it means they are only similar in some respects - ie the similar aspect that is important to the illustration and all dissimilar aspects are immaterial to the explanation.
Internet forum icons are addresses that point to the location of the thread in a database, that address is known as the Thread ID and can be seen in the URL of the thread. Using the Thread ID the forum software can locate the thread in the database of all the threads in the forum. When Admins move a thread they change the location of the icon but not the address it points to; they do not physically move the text from one location in the database to another - the text does not move and therefore the address pointed to by the icon does not change. This thread is address TID=99057, the address of the previous thread in the database is TID=99056 and the next is TID=99058. It would be wrong to assume that they are "next door" to this thread in the same lounge, (neither of those two threads are listed in the Prog Polls lounge), however they are adjacent locations in the forum database. This is transparent to all users of the forum, we do not have direct access to the thread-data stored in the database, it is accessed using indirect addressing via an SQL database query.
[To further confuse things the forum is not organised like a book with sections, chapters and paragraphs, it only appears that way because that is how the forum software displays it - the image that users see when looking at the Forum Index is an abstraction - it does not exist like that in the forum database. Just like with Thread IDs, two adjacent posts in a thread are not stored contiguously in the forum database either but are referenced by Post ID address in the database. The PID of this post (PID=5023191) is not one digit more than your's (PID=5023110). A forum lounge is just a list of addresses to threads stored in the database and the threads in the database are just lists of addresses to posts stored in the same database. When you access a thread the forum software creates the page from the individual posts using these lists of TID and PID addresses, it is not stored in the PA server as you see it displayed on your PC screen. Every time you access a page the software creates a new page from the component parts, this is why at the bottom of each page is a note that says: "This page was generated in x.xxx second".]
The two icons of a moved thread are graphically different but have the same TID and point the same location of the thread's post-list in the database. Recognising that the two icons are pictorially different indicates that they are not the serving the same purpose even though they both take you to the correct thread. The moved-icon is an "I have moved to ...." note, the icon in the new location is an "I am here" note. Therefore you can access each icon in each location but you do not access the thread "in" the lounge where the icons are located, you access it "from" the lounge where each icon is location, "in" and "from" are not subtle differences and do not mean the same thing. Using the three links I've provided in the previous paragraph of this post you can access all three threads from this post, but they are not locatedin this post.
In the "book shop" analogy the physical location of the shop is not analogous to the physical location of the thread text stored in the forum database, that difference is not part of the analogy; it is also self-evident that a book shop itself is not the same as an internet forum thread so that cannot have been the aspect that I was using as a comparison in my example either. It is only the note and the moved-icon that are analogous and that was the only analogy I was making. [please re-read my original comment if this is still unclear].
So. In this example the shop cannot be accessed in its original location because it is no longer in its original location but by using the address written on the note it can be accessed from the original location. That is, the address on the note can be used to find the new location. This is still analogous to the moved-icon in the old forum location except in that instance both icons are notes containing addresses pointing to the actual location of the thread. A note on the door of the shop in its new location can contain the address of the shop but it would be superfluous, but if the icon of the thread in its new location didn't contain the TID of the thread it would be useless - hence that icon and any superfluous note on the new shop door are also not part of the analogy.
Unfortunately all this verbose explanation may only serve illustrate that I have failed to understand the issue you have with this, but hopefully it shows that not that I am deliberately choosing not to understand.
Edited by Dean - July 28 2014 at 07:56
|
|
What?
|
|
Quirky Turkey
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 17 2011
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 177
|
Posted: July 28 2014 at 09:30 |
|
Looking through the Acid Mothers Temple discography used to be a fun endeavor...
|
|
ClemofNazareth
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Researcher
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659
|
Posted: July 28 2014 at 14:01 |
rogerthat wrote:
| Something else to keep in mind is that images are not the only elements that are considered adult. Text that is sexual in nature is considered adult content as well. Some examples include articles with sexual health tips (including medical-related advice), erotic stories, and comment spam with adult keywords (most commonly found on sites with user-generated-content). |
|
Ah, there's the slippery slope and the concerns expressed in this post from another thread on the same subject:
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Once all the suggestive albums are covered up (better get on the Flarick records BTW), will we be tackling offensive band names next? Smegma Miranda Sex Garden Sperm Naked 10CC Pussy Suffocate for f**k Sake 3 Legged Monster Cannabis India Sixty-Nine You Slut! Master Musicians of Bukkake Nice Beaver Hazards of Swimming Naked Steely Dan Fukkeduk Twink Back Door Extra Ball Then, what about names that advocate violence or anti-authoritarian themes? Car Bomb Burn Down Rome To Destroy A City Conspiracy The Decemberists Control Denied Kill For Total Peace Cry Freedom And Google help these impressionable young consumers if they manage to get past the titillating images and actually listen to some of the subversive music advocated here. |
So I'm curious - we did all the pixellating when we were caught off-guard and had 72 hours to come clean as far as Google was concerned. Have we gotten any more pro-active about planning for the eventual greater scrutiny the Goggleoids might subject us to in the future?
|
|
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 29 2014 at 03:06 |
Dean wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Dean wrote:
- "PA had no choice - accept Google's terms or lose their revenue" is a correct statement and I agree with it - the assumption that it is hypocritical I do not agree with.
|
It's hilarious that you say "PA had no choice" immediate followed by an either-or choice. You contradict your own statement in only 11 words.
|
It is known as a Hobson's Choice, but more of that in the following post.
|
Since I'm in a clarification mode, I really hope that all this nonsense isn't the result of thinking that a Hobson's Choice is a genuine choice, that the literal choice is also a choice figuratively speaking. For over 400 years it has been generally accepted that a Hobson's Choice is an example of no choice and is defined as such in all dictionaries.
Hobson's choicenoun \ˈhäb-sənz-\: a situation in which you are supposed to make a choice but do not have a real choice because there is only one thing you can have or do |
The English language has lots of idiomatic phrases that have figurative meanings that are different to their literal meanings, this apparent contradiction in the English language is amusing at times but far from hilarious. "Accept Google's terms or lose their revenue" is a Hobson's Choice, it is presented as a literal choice but figuratively speaking is no choice, it can be considered as a form of the idiom "take it or leave it", or more accurately "take this or none".
Used in a different context the phrase "take it or leave it" can have different idiomatic meaning, it can denote "indifference". This stems not from the choosers perspective of the choice on offer but from the perspective of those offering the choice. Offering a Hobson's Choice can indicate Google's indifference to the choice we make, that they don't care if we withdraw from the contract or not, and that is I suspect partly true, it would also serve as a plausible explanation of why they haven't offered FaceBook or AllMusic a similar ultimatum (as I implied earlier).
|
|
What?
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: July 29 2014 at 03:42 |
|
Find it amazing that Hobson's choice would require explanation.
|
|
JD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 07 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 18371
|
Posted: July 29 2014 at 08:04 |
Quirky Turkey wrote:
Looking through the Acid Mothers Temple discography used to be a fun endeavor...
|
The worse part is, some of these covers don't even show anything. Absolutely Freak Out for example. What are they afraid of, a little bare back or thigh, or is it worse than that? OMG, Two women embracing in the nude. THE HORROR!!  DUMBASSES
|
|
Thank you for supporting independently produced music
|
|
silverpot
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: March 19 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 841
|
Posted: July 29 2014 at 09:36 |
rogerthat wrote:
Find it amazing that Hobson's choice would require explanation. |
I've never come across this before and I can't think of an equivalent saying in Swedish actually.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
ProgArchives censorship
b
s
nz)