I used to promote a high tech company on search engines Alex. I brought them to number one in their category. Recent postings of a name pumps up the relevancy in searches. At the time I was complaining about my name being used repeatedly, I could track how it was affecting the search engines.
The issue was never about having complete anonymity on search engines or trying to make sure there was no way anyone could, with some research, find my real name and connect my contributions over the decades on the web. It was about trying to keep recent links off so that the relevancy of connection gets drowned by recent contributions. The results you see entering my name is the result of my vigilance about how I show up on the Web. I get it that it took Rick's knowledge of how search engines work to get relief from the people trying to torpedo me and I am glad he had that background to understand my concerns. So the goal is not anonymity. That is the same straw man argument the last R used. It is current relevancy and numbers of posts that both Vaj and I were concerned with. It is the casual search that we are concerned with, not an in depth investigative profile of our history on the Web. And for that recent and multiples are the way to skew the search engines. Rankings are not fixed, they are in flux. Protecting myself online is about what happens now, not in the past. And for the record I did ask Rick not to put my name and birthday on the Web since then and he has respected my request. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote : With respect to anonymity, my view is that it's exactly like virginity: you either have it or you don't, and when it's gone, it's gone forever. Curtis, the situation with you and your so-called anonymity is, IMO, completely ridiculous. A Google search of your FFL/Yahoo user name brings up your music site as the very first link. And, the archives are littered with your real last name, including a birthday shout-out from Rick, himself. You are simply in no way shape or form even remotely anonymous. Same deal with Vaj, who even signed his real name to his own posts and then later started throwing hissy-fits when his real name was used. Wanna be anonymous on FFL? Create a username that is used only on FFL and that doesn't even hint at any other non-FFL identity. Do a Google search on salyavin808, Anartaxius, and Xenophaneros, and the only thing you'll turn up is links to FFL. That's how it's done. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : Just as Maharishi said, "the movement belongs to those who move" (slave labor of course) FFL belongs to those who post. Today I see two valuable contributors, Michael and Xeno have been canned following Barry's "first shoe dropped." I want to weigh in that I oppose the way content is being examined, evaluated, judged here, and believe sincerely that the power to ban posters is in the wrong hands. First of all the Yahoo "guidelines" are just that. They cover Yahoo's back side and are not meant to be Vedic laws to be enforced. Obviously if they cared about these enough to enforce them it would have happened long ago when things were really riled up on FFL during the infamous reign of the 3 Rs. The idea that this place has become much worse is a fabrication. FFL has lightened up considerably in the last few years. There was no problem to be solved that needed this kind of crackdown. And they are too vague to be guidelines, it basically says, do what you want on your sites because defining limits is too hard. They have used airy platitudes and these are not objective rules in any sense of the word. It is a moot point, Yahoo does not care, it is up to us. Concerning Feste's point about Xeno trying to hurt that guy in the real world, I believe this is an important point to consider. This is the only level where I believe banning is appropriate. So I reread the post a few times and noticed that there are no names mentioned. This means that you would have to be a regular reader of this site to even understand what he is referring to. And if someone is that far up FFL's butt, they already know about his activities. I even knew about his trip and I don't give a S. More importantly he did not repeat linking his name to the offense so it could be picked up by search engines as a connections so it was unsearchable. This is important because when people came after me and got canned for it, it was after repeated offenses. One or two would have slipped by the radar but they insisted on making it a big deal through relentless repetition. In all the hoopla and over reaction we seem to miss Xeno's point. This behavior is exactly what he nailed it as, hypocrisy. It shows an amazing degree of lack of self awareness not to realize that this moderator is perpetuating the exact thing he fears from the movement: judging adult behavior and free will by subjective standards and then meting out the punishment of exclusion from the group for the contrived "offenses." Xeno was putting his finger in the eye of hypocrisy and did it without using names or jacking up the search engines. It was a noble act IMO and losing him from this forum is a huge content loss for a thoughtful perspective. I would challenge anyone to match me post for post of contributions he has made intellectually to this forum and you can show me equally thoughtful posts from that other guy with his finger on the trigger. Michael is also a loss to the site. Stephen mentioned that he doesn't like posters with an "agenda." The important aspect of agenda is that the motive is a hidden one, not that it expresses a strong personal POV. Michael was transparent about his motives for posting here. He represented a strong POV and I valued it. I wish there was a person who represented the movement's side as passionately. That would make for some great conversations. The only person who used to fill in for that role was N. But he was so far from mainstream movement thinking and English was a second language so he was left only with personal attacks of which I was the target of many for years. I never thought he should be banned for that. I thought the freedom to express himself damned him just fine. FFL is only as good as it's contributor's content. Losing Barry, Xeno and Michael is a loss to the site whether you agree with them or not. If the ban had been for Judy, I could have written everything just the same. Generative people, willing to put time into this site and create content makes this a valuable place to read. Many of the people, who are behind this change have been very light on detailed, thoughtful content over the years. Provocative people inspire us to write here. It PROVOKES us. It often takes that kind of provocation to decide to take time from our busy lives to share ideas with a bunch of strangers. Our moderator is reacting as if this is his own intellectual fiefdom and the bannings so far have represented his personal offense at posts that he should have taken care of by offering his own clearly stated opposing opinion on. He cut the conversation short because he has never shown any ability or interest in this area of detailed back and forth discussions here. So he is taking out those who do contribute one by one. I do not share the values represented by the current moderator and believe that this is already having a chilling affect on content here. It is limiting the value of this site as an intellectual resource for me. I am going to send this post in an email to Rick in hopes that he will rescue this valuable resource from the direction it is going. How many contributors have to go before we all realized this is no longer FFL as Rick intended it anymore?
