Re: The World Quiz League: feedback

Martin Willett wrote:
> P & J Biddlecombe wrote:
> > Martin Willett writes:
> > > Robert Briggs wrote:
> > > > Martin Willett wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What people have said about The World Quiz League:

> > > > Well, Willett, my feedback is that you are a spammer - or, at
> > > > least, something closely related thereto.

I have now revised my feedback: you *are* a spammer.

Indeed, if my counting is correct you have a Breidbart Index of 22 for
this stuff, which makes your spew *cancellable* spam.

> > > > Your quiz-related posts are *off-topic* here in
> > > > rec.puzzles.CROSSWORDS.
> > > >
> > > > They are also off-topic in several of the others NGs where
> > > > Google tells me you have spewed them.

A BI of 22 makes content/topicality irrelevant in any case.

> > > I decided to check up the level of complaints generated
> > > by my posting this stuff. I can find four accusations of
> > > spamming connected with the World Quiz League.
> > >
> > > One was from a R M Mentock in August 2001 in alt.thinking.hurts
> > >
> > > [Three] by Robert Briggs ... in rec.puzzles.crosswords

> > > Can you see a pattern here? When I searched for "Robert Briggs"
> > > I found an awful lot of posts which were complaints about the
> > > behaviour of other people on newsgroups. My conclusion? To
> > > publish that here might be considered a breech of netiquette.

I've been called worse than the term to which you alluded.

> > Not everybody bothers to complain, possibly because they know that
> > some people won't listen.  But that doesn't alter the fact that
> > your posts are off-topic and therefore should not be sent, as any
> > guide to netiquette will tell you.

Indeed.

> That depends entirely on your definition of "on topic" and the purpose
> of the newsgroup. If I was posting huge numbers of posts on this group
> in a way designed to get unsuspecting crossword obsessives to click on
> them only to discover (shock horror) that the material in the posts
> wasn't totally about crosswords then there would be a problem.

Twenty-two separate posts within 45 days, each advertising the same
page,
constitute cancellable spam.

Okay, there are two batches, one of which gives a couple of copies of
your URL per article while the other gives seven (or more where the new
article is in the form of a reply to a previous one of yours), but they
certainly fit the "advertising the same service" category of the BI's
definition of "substantively identical".

> It seems to me that there really isn't a great problem here. If
> people are not interested in the world quiz league then I don't
> expect them to click on a post with that in the title.

There wouldn't be a problem at all if you did your off-topic advertising
the correct way by contributing on-topic posts to each NG and including
your URL in your signature.

If you don't have sufficient interest in the subject matter of each NG
to do that much then you *are* abusing Usenet, albeit not as badly as
those who, as well as being spammers, are also scammers or pedlars of
objectionable material.

> If there was no connection between crosswords and my quizzes I
> wouldn't post here so often. The simple fact is that many of the
> people who really enjoy my quizzes and do well at them are people who
> solve crossword puzzles as recreation. Crosswords. Puzzles.
> Recreation. I am providing a news service, announcing the existence of
> a quiz which appeals to people who solve crossword puzzles as
> recreation. News. Recreation. Puzzles. Crosswords. This is a news
> group called rec.puzzles.crosswords and you are telling me this is
> seriously off topic, I disagree.

I agree that it is by no menas as grossly off-topic as some of the crud
that shows up from time to time - but that doesn't make it on-topic.

AFAICT, rec.puzzles itself is only one of your chosen NGs in which your
advertisements are actually on-topic.

> Many people who enjoy solving crossword puzzles also enjoy quizzes,
> don't they Peter? Brain of Enfield 1992?

Brain of Enfield?

I don't possess a Lee Enfield.

:-)