questionsmaxim deal posting - disappeared - why?


@catbertthegreat: But those are 1- and 2-months old. I thought it was generally accepted that anything that old doesn't count towards a repost.

I found this deal from 7 days ago, but it has been RIP'd:

If the content was objectionable that would be one thing, but if similar (or even the same) deal has been posted before then I don't see why it would be removed this time.

I didn't see @crethwilm's deal before it was removed, but the only things I can think of are if there was objectionable language in the post or if the picture was especially racy for Maxim.

Come to think of it, even a regular Maxim cover might elicit a tattle from certain users - and perhaps certain staff members have a lower threshold for what they'll delete than others.


Old, never sold out and still valid.
This would create a duplicate.

Old, sold out and should have been ripped but wasn't. (Until today)
We would RIP the older deal and let the new one stand.

Old, sold out and should have been ripped (but wasn't) AND the retailer discovered a new supply and is offering at the same price point as previously offered. (I couldn't find one of those)
Well, these things happen. This would create a duplicate as well. We're human.

Hope that helps.


@jumbowoot: I really love those rules. I am now commenting in this just so I can point people back to this later.


@jumbowoot: Saying that it's a duplicate when it was last posted 5 months ago is absurd because the site lacks any good function to browse through old deals. Someone would have to go looking for "monkey portraits" to find it, and that ain't likely.

I've said this before (but not in a long time) and I'll say it again - my preferred solution would be if the default sort - or, hell, even an optional sort - would allow you to view threads by most recently commented on (or maybe most recent activity, including votes?). Then you could keep up with what's popular even if it's 5 months old.

This is actually one of the biggest complaints I have about the site - it is not set up to promote ongoing dialog about deals (or stuff on the AtW side). The new function to get emails when there's a new post to a thread you're watching is a big improvement and a step in the right direction, but falls far short of a sorting option IMO.

@shrdlu: double plus disagree on loving it - see above.


@anotherhiggins: I'm sorry, I should have phrased what I meant differently. I don't necessarily mean that the rules are the ones I would choose. What I had meant was that I was appreciative of the fact that @jumbowoot had listed them. Having something spelled out by someone who is in a capacity to do so is always helpful, whether or not I agree with them.

I hope that was more clear.

I actually do get very frustrated that we seem to see the same things asked over and over, and even though the answers go viral (become popular), they quickly disappear, buried under countless others. At one time I hoped that some of the more useful questions would have been picked up and linked to from the official FAQ, or even that I'd gain the ambition to rewrite the nascent unoffical FAQ that we'd started, way back when.

Sometimes I get discouraged. Then I remind myself that it's April, and that life is good.


I used the most extreme examples to make the illustration.
(I'm actually very sad that they have so many Monkey Portraits.)

Point taken.


Thanks for the input.


@anotherhiggins: Interesting.
I just tried to add the Monkey Portrait just for grins.

"We found a deal matching that URL: Monkey Portrait Oil Painting
Are you sure this isn't a duplicate?"

I clicked through and it showed up in deja vu as well.

My point being that we really do try hard to prevent you from posting a duplicate but, if you insist, we'll be happy to delete it for you when someone else tattles on it after they found the original.


@anotherhiggins: I think with the addition of email notify that this may help with the older deals.


@jumbowoot: I just want to say this because I don't think I have yet....

I'm a big fan of what y'all are doing here with deals.woot. (I expect that's kind of obvious given how much time I've spent here over the last five months.) I do appreciate the hard work that you guys put into it.

I sometimes have strong opinions and will argue my case in hopes of persuading those of you who are in a position to make changes.

If I seem brusque, please don't take that as an indication of anger - I really don't mean to be rude. In other forums I tend to be a bit loquacious and I find it hard to compose nuanced posts in <1000 characters.

@shrdlu: understood and agreed. It is great that 'management' will step in and clear things up by posting along side us plebeians.

(PS - I liked the example of monkey portraits. And for the record I've been intentionally grandiloquent while writing this post in order to provide evidence of my circumlocution.)


@anotherhiggins: Easy killer.
I don't even talk to my mother like that.





OK - thanks for all of the theories - very informative, etc. Will the Woot staffer who actually removed the post please explain why, whether in this forum or privately?


@hobbit: thanks, but I'd still like @jumbowoot to clarify and say specifically why - not several examples.

@jumbowoot - don't you have the ability to make a judgment call and NOT remove something with an extremely outdated "duplicate"?


@crethwilm: He did explain it.

I clearly don't agree with the rule, but he specifically pointed to a thread that is several months old but where the price is still valid and said reposting that deal would constitute a duplicate deal.

Again, I don't like it, but it was explained.

@tornadohiggins: OK - who's the smart alec who made a new handle just to tease me? I say one nice thing after months of bitching and now I'm a kiss-ass? ;-)


@anotherhiggins: waves hand frantically in the air. You have MY vote on not being an apple polisher. I've smarted from smackdowns, and there are any number of questions where it's clear that you're annoyed with the powers that be. I would say that you are respectful, and well-spoken, without being pointlessly confrontational. Manners /= apple polishing.

@crethwilm: Give it a rest. Your question has been answered.


@crethwilm: You almost got the last word, but I love paired primes. The number of people who will find this post funny is small, but it makes me happy, so there you go.

Oh, and you are so welcome.


@shrdlu: As Opus would say: Phhhhbbbbbbbbbbbbttt.


I know this is a dead thread and very few people will see this, but I still think this is ridiculous.

I just saw another Maxim deal posted and, sure enough, it was quickly deleted. Here's the deal:

There isn't an active identical deal. Here is my search for deals pointing to

As you can see, there /was/ one Maxim deal posted 2 months ago, but it's been RIP'd.

That implies that any unRIP'd deal for a free subscription to Maxim is considered a duplicate. Here you can see four unRIP'd deals for free subscriptions to Maxim - three from the same site! There are also 2 deals that have been RIP'd (both from the same site).

So all but the oldest deal should NOT be RIP'd, but should be deleted. Those five deals have 39 votes between them. The single deal that should remain has only 1 vote. Oh, and it's 2 months old so NO ONE will ever see it.

Note: I don't want Maxim, even for free. That's not the point.


@anotherhiggins: you know email notifications mean folks do see stuff. ;)


Just posting to get the attention of some staff to see what they think.

@jumbowoot, @thefenst, @prettywootprincess, @wootiewooterson,
@josefresno, @shawnmiller: please see my post a couple above this one - the long one....

I'm just wondering if Those other deals really should be deleted, or if maybe we should allow reposting if the previous deal is really old....


@anotherhiggins: Sorry I was taking a nap, what did I miss?


@prettywootprincess: It had to do specifically with the Maxim deal, and I think that @anotherhiggins' comment above has it in a nutshell.