questionsposting links to alternative sources for deals


Post the tanga deal.
Refer to the post in your discountmags thread.


@jumbowoot: At this point, I think it would be equivalent to just refer to the tanga deal in the discountmags thread without doing a whole new post, which seems redundant (hence my attempt to conjoin them from the start). Unless you feel strongly about it ...

Are you saying that in general you just don't want people including alternative sources for the same deal in their posts (and would instead rather see separate posts) - and if so, why - or just not answering the question I posed above?


@gwintner: (waves hand frantically) I know the answer to this one. There's no referral, or else not the same kind of referral, if you do it your way. I think that a deal composed of a whole bunch of links (or even one other link) to similar items is always going to be deleted or edited.

@jumbowoot: Was I even close?


@shrdlu: Correct but only half the answer.
The other half concerns the abuse of this technique which I will leave for you to ponder.

@gwintner: Our way allows everyone to see the alternative deal.



@shrdlu: Good one, and doubtless correct. :-) Conspiracy theorist FTW.

@jumbowoot: Not sure I get the oblique reference to abuses ... maybe someone reposting a deal but adding a new link in the description and thus claiming that it's a whole new deal? But you could simply delete that whole post as a duplicate and be done with it, no problem ... hurm.

Begrudgingly I acknowledge that there would be somewhat more publicity if I post the Tanga deal separately now, and this site is all about getting good deals to the public's eyes. But imagine that I had followed your suggestion to start with and made two separate posts, one after the other, for an essentially identical deal ... it just seems really redundant.

... I was about to go post it and see that Tanga itself beat me to it:

So be it. The Tanga deal will add a year to the subscription, so I'll note that in my thread


@gwintner: They would be together, but, they would both be tagged similarly and come back together easily in a search. Your link in your thread would not have the same benefit. If it were a result for a search, it would simply appear as the discountmag post.


There is also the issue of using another deal to post info about a second deal, I call that hijacking a deal to tell people about your deal, and frankly as @jumbowoot knows, I think that defeats the entire purpose of deals.woot. In my head anyway, the whole point of this site is to post deals, even if it is for price comparison. It drives me nuts when I see someone posting a comment with links about how you can find such and such product at this other site for less....well GO post the deal then, don't freaking hijack someone else's work, it is impolite. Sort of like stealing the parking space from someone at the grocery store when you KNEW they were going to park there.


@jumbowoot: That makes sense. Okay, in the future, I'd post both separately, and cross-refer them to each other. That way, if one goes dead and the other is still going, people can still benefit fully from them.

@hobbit: I hear that, too. Nevertheless, I didn't think I would be triggering that issue if I posted an alternative link in the description of my OWN deal. (Although, what about someone commenting, "This can be had for less. See my post here: etc"? Isn't that valuable?)

This actually isn't an uncommon issue. The easy example that comes to mind is video game preorder deals, which are often identical between Walmart, Amazon, and Gamestop. In the past I'd put up one all-inclusive post that linked to all of them and maybe compared them for slight differences (e.g.: Now I'll post them separately and internally refer them each to the others.


@gwintner: This is not an uncommon issue. I am actually pleased that this thread allowed us to address this again. I would respectfully ask that we change the title and tags so that others could find it easily.

I'll gladly take your suggestions.


@jumbowoot: Heh, knowing how testy I am about editing of my creative works ... The problem is that there just isn't a nifty way to refer to this issue. Okay, how about "Posting links to alternative sources for deals" with the tags "editing, links, hijacking, duplicate"? That's the best I can come up with, and it's vague as heck.

Still, even assuming that someone searching for the policy on including links to alternative sources for deals within their posts or comments found this thread - if they even thought to search in the first place - they'd really have to read through it to find the conclusion. Maybe there should be an FAQ section on the site with a list of "Reasons that your post may have been edited."

Also, I just want you to know that I picture you as a large, bearded man that I wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley. Must be the name. Just saying.


@gwintner: Don't feel bad about it... I've been told off for it too. However, I do like the idea of posting a new deal and cross-referencing in both places. I've done that a few times, though I don't know how successful that really is. It's the method that makes the most sense to me - make people aware of the opportunity/situation no matter the angle from which they approach it.

@hobbit: I do agree with you on the hijacking of a post. It's sort of like the Bazinga concept, which is only really valid if the post is equal. Don't just tell me something is available for less, prove it, and in the normal way (which means posting a new deal)! I don't find deals to be very useful and accessible if they're links hidden within the chatter about another deal. Too bad there will always be a bunch of numbskulls who don't figure that out, huh?! :)


@arosiriak: i totally agree with you, which is why it bugs me. I am going to look at the list of fresh deals I don't always read comments. +10 you got what I meant!!

I don't mind cross referencing that is fine especially since so many people are lazy and don't use search right.


@jumbowoot: Related to my post of five minutes ago: I see that we have an FAQ section, except that it's titled "What is deals.woot" at the top. Might want to consider renaming that "FAQ" or at least "What is .../FAQ", and then adding one link in there titled "Why was my deal edited?"


@gwintner: Title updated. Tags updated.
Thank you.

Your FAQ request is noted.

You can find me on facebook.

All told.

[wedit] for obvious reasons.


@gwintner: I will disagree with you because the FAQ for all the other woots also say what is........ it fits with the character of the site.


@hobbit: Fair enough :-). You have a point.

@jumbowoot: If you're listed as "jumbowoot" I can't find you, but I'm not expert at Facebook.


My head hurts so much I can't think straight. So the preference is if you can find a better deal, post it and do not tell others in the not-so-great deal thread that there is a better deal?
Or is it acceptable to at least mention that one has found an even better deal and that it was posted to Fresh, but not provide any other information?


@lavikinga: Here's how I think it goes (and I'll bet that @jumbowoot will correct me if I'm wrong). Warning: This has the potential to make your head hurt more.

In this particular case, I think that @gwintner had found two (somewhat) equivalent deals, and wanted to point out that certain circumstances might make one more valuable than another (an estimable effort). Here's what he should have done, precisely (again, this is just my understanding of it).

Post the first deal. Post the second, noting the circumstances that make it better for some people (tanga dollars in this case). Make a comment in each deal, referring to the other. Please note that the details in the deal don't reference the other deal. That reference is in the comment. Explain in the comment why deal 1 is better, and why deal 2 might be equal for some (but not all).

A link to something on Deals is good if it points to a #challenge question, but otherwise, ought to be reserved for comments. HTH


@lavikinga: to add to shrdlu's both deals should have the same tags so that if I an unsuspecting member am searching for said deal I can find them using search and then comparison shop.


@shrdlu & @hobbit: Thank you. I think that's a bit clearer.

(Allergy head ache, not explanation ache. Drake elms are dropping pollen big big. My neighbor saw a puff of "smoke" come from our tree when the wind blew and thought the tree was on fire.)


@hobbit: ...minor clarification here...

It is preferred that you post another deals.woot link in the corresponding threads.


Post a comparison link on deals.woot, then link to the comparison deals.woot post in the opposing threads.

The objective is to post both deals so that anyone can take advantage of either deal.


I'll only clarify that my intent for the future, as I conceived it above, was to add two separate deal posts but, unlike @shrdlu suggested, I actually wanted each to link to the other IN THE TEXT of the deal details (i.e. NOT in a subsequent comment). Yes, I realize that to get those links in within the "edit" window it will take some fancy footwork (read: preparing the text beforehand elsewhere then copying and pasting) but it just seems neater that way, and I hate being the first commenter on my own deals. Just seems sloppy and ... self-absorbed, somehow.

and @shrdlu: PM back at you.


@gwintner: I'll just point out that if you mean you'll be putting the link to each deal in the details as a deals link, that's probably okay, but really, it's nicer to put them as comments. That way, if one of them gets deleted as a duplicate (always a possibility) the comment can be deleted as well, and easily. It's more work for staff to go in and edit the details than to just delete a deal and perhaps a comment.


@shrdlu: Frankly, my dear, if I go through all that work to follow the directions prescribed above AND run around like a crazy person to get my links lined up all nice in a row, and some half-arsed staffer STILL goes and deletes one of them as a duplicate, then I'm not going to lose sleep over any extra work I've provided for them to go in and undo more of my work. Further, as noted in this and other threads, they really don't seem to have much of a problem going into deals and editing them, and are in fact overzealous about it, if anything ...