It would be devastating if I ever knew that I made someone feel that bad! I’m glad that whatever was said ended up helping you, though.
I believe @MaineLonghorn that banned posters are given more than a fair warning.
But I do remember a few super long term posters who were banned (a couple got “time out” and I missed hearing their views. Some opinions were “out there” but the discussion seemed civil (at least on the threads I was on) and always provided “bait” for discussion. After the banning of one I did quit for a good span of time–they were my favorite poster for real discussion. But I’m not privy to what actually got them banned.
Sometimes over the years it’s been “petty stuff”. Like saying certain words {like creatures who live under bridges who must not be named) that simply drove me nuts. I’m not in third grade. I’m a goody two shoes and got a warning on that!
I hate that when you need to name a website or need to post pix of something for sake of discussion that suddenly the only way to go is private message. That was today. Really? Maybe there are good reasons but I don’t know any first hand.
I joined 15 years ago. That’s a bit startling to realize. I’ve never been a big poster, although I think CC was one of the first discussion boards I participated in at all. I’ve come and gone over time, often when there were big world events or when I had a transition happening in my own life, and I came back in March when Covid hit because I knew there would be thoughtful informed discussions here. And there were, but there were also a few people who wanted to politicize it or who didn’t want the discussions to happen and that seemed to ruin it for everyone. Count me among those who have learned much about many things, who have been given new thoughts to ponder, who have read books and purchased products based on your recommendations, and who have struggled with format changes along the way.
I joined another discussion board at about the same time and it’s been through the same kinds of things as CC with changes in format, long-time members leaving, various levels of moderation at different times. I wonder if the late aughts/early teens were the “golden age” of discussion boards and all of us ought to be somewhere else now. But I don’t know where I’d go for something as uniquely thoughtful and wide-ranging as the parent cafe here.
There is no prohibition on mentioning websites. The issue is when you append dot com to the end, then it sets off the link filter. So if you want to mention. Facebook or Niche, be my guest.
Similarly, you can say that the photos are on your Flickr or Instagram page.
@skieurope – LOL. Like I want to mention Facebook? Niche? ROFL.
Okay. Totally done with the snark. I couldn’t resist.
And thank you.
So what is a/the link filter? Need some education here…what happens in the CC web world when we post incorrectly?
So is there any way to safely link to say “Flickr” and later give info to a group?
We’ve skirted this stuff for years by various means. And always a pain but oh, well.
Did something change?
@gouf78 when a post is made containing a filtered word or phrase, usually a profanity or a link to a blocked site, it gets automatically forwarded for manual review. 99% of the time, the post is rejected. See more info here:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/community-forum-issues/2052283-your-comment-will-appear-after-it-is-approved.html#latest
Circumventing the filter is listed as a rules violation. So you can’t post " type in flickr(dot)com then add /1234567 to view photo." But you can certainly PM those instructions.
I actually enjoyed reading the Covid threads, even with some different opinions represented. I lurked and read through sometimes, but don’t remember commenting. The threads just moved so quickly I could not keep up.
Add me to the list who miss a lot of regular, long time posters who have “disappeared” recently.
@skieurope – so who makes up the rules on filters? It’s clear that on other web sites it’s easy to post whatever you want. What are the reasons behind what seems to be arbitrary rules (to us at least)?
Are some web sites so big that it’s not worth monitoring the “dot com” rule for CC? Are there other factors? Fear of commercial interference or whatever?
Or is that the plus if you’re big enough? I don’t see CC shutting down “buying threads” anywhere no matter how many “dot com” links there are.
So there must be more than “just rules” in place.
Yes, I’m still a little confused on the Flicker or Instagram references. Are you saying this can only happen through a PM?
While I’ve heard for some PM’s are a big form of communication around here - I will use it on occasion, but find it a little cumbersome to have to jump back and forth to it.
BTW, kudos to ALL posters this week - since this thread was started a few days ago I do think there have been in increase in posts and threads and variety. (hand clap!)
From forum rules:
https://www.collegeconfidential.com/policies/rules
So it has nothing to do with how heavily trafficked a site is, but by the type of site it is.
The “why” is beyond the scope of this thread and is a question better handled via PM to an admin @gouf78 @abasket
@skieurope – “But you can certainly PM those instructions.”
Love you all. I really do! But on what planet is that considered “user friendly”?
Or website friendly? If I have to do a separate mailing list essentially then I’ve no reason to bother with this site.
This is a question I have.
On the wedding thread I mentioned that a blogger I follow just had a quarantine wedding and it was lovely. I didn’t link to the blogger because that is not allowed but I did name the blog if people wanted to google.
It wasn’t my blog, I have no connection to the blog. I was just sharing a site that happens to be a blog.
My reference was deleted. Ok, I had no idea until a poster asked me what the name of the blog was. So I sent a PM.
My question is that I thought I wasn’t breaking a rule. I do wonder if someone flagged my post or are moderators reading the weddings discussion to see if we mention something verboten?
I agree that was is allowed as a link or not seems arbitrary and even in PM, CC blocks links unless they are broken up.
For example, I can link a news article to the the Chicago Tribune, not my local hometown newspaper. According to the rule, that shouldn’t be a violation, unless we are considering it an “non authoritative” site which seems ridiculous since I can link a college newspaper with no problem.
I am one of those long time readers who don’t start many posts. I have spent WAY too much time here through the years, and am using this pandemic to try to engage more in my real life.
It seems like my interest in posts is waning, and I do not come on here as often. For me, that is probably a healthy step.
I have learned so much from cc, and appreciate the advice and feedback I have gotten from so many of you.
I am not saying goodbye, but wanted to post something just to let you know I am doing well out in the real world.
Newspaper sites should not be filtered. PM me the name if the paper and I will look into it.
I will make the caveat that any news link obtained via a clickthrough in Twitter or FB or the like will be filtered because the URL will contain the blocked site.
I don’t post much either but I was eagerly coming to cc every day to read and follow the Covid discussions so I was frankly ticked off when it was closed and resented it to the point that I’ve spent far less time here than I used to. This was after gritting my teeth through several “improvements” where I decided to suck it up and adapt.
However, I was gobsmacked when I read a number of passive-aggressive remarks about the ‘cool kids”’, “cliques”, and “mean girls”. I mean, really? This stuff is ok but serious discussions (which do get heated at times) are shut down? Sorry, but we’re mostly parents and should be able to handle some strong back and forth but instead we’re treated like naughty children who can only talk about weddings, recipes and vacations? I enjoy that stuff but frankly don’t need to come to cc for it.
I’ve always respected the mods’ decisions in the past but after more than a decade on this site I’m getting more and more discouraged by the banning of long-time posters who have made more valuable contributions to the site than those complaining about them.
And honestly, the only people who complain about “mean girls” are themselves the true bullies, IMO.
Moderators do read threads on their own and edit as necessary. Most edits are done that way, not via reports. Although reporting is still valuable, since we do not read every post. Any change to a post lists the mod who edited it and when. Listing the name of a blog should not be an issue. You can PM the mod who edited to clarify.
“Although reporting is still valuable, since we do nit read every post. Any change to a post lists the mod who edited it and when. “
Well, sometimes it feel like you do nit read 
? Kidding aside, there are times when posts are edited but it does not say which mod edited it. In the past it always showed which mod did the editing. It would be great if that was always the case, but it isn’t. Please go back to always posting who did the editing.
I understand the prohibition on links to blogs, social media, photos, etc. because cc is not able to verify the content of those sites, but a “link” is a clickable active link taking one directly to another site.
One poster has entertained us with the trials and tribulations of her remodeling and flipping adventures, directing us to project photos by providing the addresses of her properties or access to her Flickr photos using spaces, asterisks, and other means to code the address or site. Suddenly, that’s not allowed. After many, many years!
These aren’t links that one can access directly from cc. They are bits of information that one can edit and use to access photos and follow along, completely apart from cc.
Unless the terms have changed, I don’t understand why this is suddenly prohibited. It is so not a user-friendly move.
I know someone who got through her 13 year old’s month long stay at the hospital (featuring two surgeries) by reading the Politics and Election forum in 2008.
The kid is doing okay now. Politics and Election? Maybe not.