IT.COM

status-resolved Content removal policy feedback

NameSilo
Watch
Impact
841
Hello,

Being a NamePros member for more than a decade, this is the first time I've got frustrated with my experience here. To begin with, I think NamePros is the unique and oustanding place to be at for anyone involved in domain investment, and I'm truly greatful for the opportunity to be here. I cannot call myself a demading person with high expectations - but it seems to me there's an issue with the content removal policy here, or maybe better to say, with the way it is being enforced. The case I'm going speak about is not a big deal for me in itself, but it makes me feel quite uncomfortable emotionally.

I've recently shared the list of my hand regged domains in the certain niche to get some feedback from another members. To avoid indexing, I've attached the text file with my domains as opposed to listing them inline. That was really a silly idea - the file content got indexed right away. Mea culpa, nothing to say here. Then I asked NamePros support to remove the attached file and got denial motivated with the reference to the content removal policy. Once posted, nothing gets removed unless explicitly violating something. Ok, fair point in the certain extent - content is content. Another request created then, this time to replace the file content with the obfuscated one, like removing extensions and adding some special symbols, the obfuscation pattern being explained in details in the very beginning of the file, the content remaining easily readable by a human being and getting tougher to parse for search engines. But I'm getting the similar request rejection reaction with the same link refererence.

I don't get the point of the second denial. I think approving the request would be a win-win solution, the content staying published, yet no negative impact on the domain names being listed. I think the implied bureaucratic approach creates the unfriendly and tense atmosphere and on the contrary might have the negative impact on the shared content volume in the future. Could we get more informal with each other and act with the mutual respect and positive attitude?

Thank you.
 
4
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Hello,

Being a NamePros member for more than a decade, this is the first time I've got frustrated with my experience here. To begin with, I think NamePros is the unique and oustanding place to be at for anyone involved in domain investment, and I'm truly greatful for the opportunity to be here. I cannot call myself a demading person with high expectations - but it seems to me there's an issue with the content removal policy here, or maybe better to say, with the way it is being enforced. The case I'm going speak about is not a big deal for me in itself, but it makes me feel quite uncomfortable emotionally.

I've recently shared the list of my hand regged domains in the certain niche to get some feedback from another members. To avoid indexing, I've attached the text file with my domains as opposed to listing them inline. That was really a silly idea - the file content got indexed right away. Mea culpa, nothing to say here. Then I asked NamePros support to remove the attached file and got denial motivated with the reference to the content removal policy. Once posted, nothing gets removed unless explicitly violating something. Ok, fair point in the certain extent - content is content. Another request created then, this time to replace the file content with the obfuscated one, like removing extensions and adding some special symbols, the obfuscation pattern being explained in details in the very beginning of the file, the content remaining easily readable by a human being and getting tougher to parse for search engines. But I'm getting the similar request rejection reaction with the same link refererence.

I don't get the point of the second denial. I think approving the request would be a win-win solution, the content staying published, yet no negative impact on the domain names being listed. I think the implied bureaucratic approach creates the unfriendly and tense atmosphere and on the contrary might have the negative impact on the shared content volume in the future. Could we get more informal with each other and act with the mutual respect and positive attitude?

Thank you.
Thanks for the suggestion,

Just to touch on the second denial you referenced, after reviewing your post just now located here: https://www.namepros.com/threads/phygital-domain-discussion.1255389/post-9056008

It appears that there is not a domain name listed in the post to space out or use special symbols with. All the domains are in an attachment that you added and a moderator cannot edit (3rd party created attached file), like they would have been able to if the list was part of the content in the post.

The above is more than likely the reason for the second content removal request denial.

Unfortunately, the policy you were referred to by moderators does not provide moderators with a way to navigate attachments. It only addresses the actual content within the post or title.

At the moment, moderators are unable to assist further until said policy provides an attachment option.

We can certainly understand your frustration and appreciate your feedback and suggestion to consider an amendment to the existing policy to include attachments.
 
2
•••
Thank you, I appreciate a lot your reply with the clarification. Facing technical limitation is a whole different story. However, I don't see what makes them in this particular case - the attached file is plainly a raw text file editable in any text editor, hosted at your hosting facilities. I've just attached the new version of this file to make things even simpler - could you please just delete the initially attached file (as could've technically done that in case of any violations, for instance) and re-attach the new version of it under the same name?

With all due respect,
Thank you!
 

Attachments

  • phygital.txt
    1.9 KB · Views: 16
0
•••
Thank you, I appreciate a lot your reply with the clarification. Facing technical limitation is a whole different story. However, I don't see what makes them in this particular case - the attached file is plainly a raw text file editable in any text editor, hosted at your hosting facilities. I've just attached the new version of this file to make things even simpler - could you please just delete the initially attached file (as could've technically done that in case of any violations, for instance) and re-attach the new version of it under the same name?

With all due respect,
Thank you!
Hello,

Thanks for providing an edited version of your file.

The file you provided has been swapped with the original file you attached in your post here: https://www.namepros.com/threads/phygital-domain-discussion.1255389/post-9056008

We hope that helps.
 
4
•••
Happy for you it was resolved amicably, vast. When you post something it doesn’t belong to the community it belongs to the whole internet. Nothing is private except the off the grid boards and dm’s.

Mentioning this moreso for new people to understand the lack of privacy who may happen upon this thread.
 
1
•••
Hello,

Thanks for providing an edited version of your file.

The file you provided has been swapped with the original file you attached in your post here: https://www.namepros.com/threads/phygital-domain-discussion.1255389/post-9056008

We hope that helps.
Thanks a lot, greatly appreciate that! It's really nice to know we can get some live human attention here when needed. Have a great day!
Happy for you it was resolved amicably, vast. When you post something it doesn’t belong to the community it belongs to the whole internet. Nothing is private except the off the grid boards and dm’s.

Mentioning this moreso for new people to understand the lack of privacy who may happen upon this thread.
Thank you karmaco! Yes, I'm aware of this mindset, but that's finely just a neat concept, template set of words; we are all live people eventually, not some abstract Internet. Every issue should be resolved on the case by case basis as I feel, which I'm greatful has happened here.
 
1
•••
Back