Timeline for Is frequently promoting an economics site spam?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:51 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://economics.stackexchange.com/ with https://economics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Feb 18, 2016 at 13:43 | comment | added | John L. | For once I have to agree with EnergyNumbers. I'm fine with someone editing my posts to better answer the original question, but not when it is a clear advertisement of an external site - especially when inserted to the same paragraph with the original answer. | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 8:53 | comment | added | FooBar | I find this last point very compelling. On top, often there's more than one link when one link sufficed - a typical SEO behavior. | |
| Feb 16, 2016 at 1:26 | comment | added | 410 gone | we have a system of referring to scientific papers that is designed to minimise link rot: the DOIs. Across all of Stack Exchange, and particularly the mother meta, we find posts to the effect that we are trying to build quality content here, not mere links to content elsewhere. So when someone asks for a list of datasets, the place for that list is here - not merely a link to a list elsewhere. Ask yourself - if the hyperlinks were not there, would the answer still be an answer? | |
| Feb 15, 2016 at 19:05 | comment | added | Ubiquitous Mod | @EnergyNumbers It is not our call as mods: this site is self-governing, not a dictatorship. But what is the alternative? To port the entire contents of ReplicationWiki's list of IV papers to this site and have that go out of date instead? I think if you put aside the fact that the poster founded ReplicationWiki, it is perfectly reasonable to have an answer that says "here is a site where you can find a list of dozens of data sets that meet your needs along with papers demonstrating how that data was used". If the question's OP wants direct links there are other answer that can be accepted. | |
| Feb 15, 2016 at 14:33 | comment | added | 410 gone | I disagree - five self-promoting links, and not one link to a dataset - just secondary links at risk of link-rot. But it's your call as mods; as a result I expect we'll continue to get more and more self-promotion from this user, in addition to the astonishing flurry of the last few days. | |
| Feb 14, 2016 at 21:30 | comment | added | Ubiquitous Mod | @EnergyNumbers I strongly disagree. The question asks for data sets that can be used as examples of how IV regression is used. The answer points directly to a page that lists dozens of IV papers along with information about where to obtain the data used in the study. It's hard to imagine a better answer for that question. | |
| Feb 14, 2016 at 11:32 | comment | added | 410 gone | The answer you've cited is a hijacking to promote this replicationwiki. The question is asking for datasets. The answer includes five links to the poster's website, none of which are links to the datasets requested. We find a comment on a paper; a search form; and a replication of a study that might have had the data being sought. If there is any useful dataset hidden behind the poster's site, then those datasets should have been linked. What we seem to have here is a poster determined to create many inbound links (and thus google rankings) to their own pet project. | |
| Feb 13, 2016 at 16:37 | history | edited | FooBar | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Feb 13, 2016 at 10:54 | history | answered | UbiquitousMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |