8
\$\begingroup\$

These two answers were posted by the same user, both to old questions (one of which is almost 8 years old).

How can I make connection on pcb (circuit board) holes without solder (for prototyping)?

Board to board connections

Both answers are identical, and both promote the author's website/blog. The author did disclose his affiliation.

Neither answer actually addresses its question:

  • In the first case, the question specifically asks about connecting to thru-holes without solder, whereas the answer implicitly requires soldering header pins.
  • In the second case the question is asking for PCB inter-connectors, and the answer rather clearly misses the mark.

The answers were in the review queue and I flagged them as spam; both flags were subsequently disputed. I have no problem with the decision - I just want clarification.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ I don't have time for a detailed answer at the moment, but it seemed like both answers fell on the right side of the guidelines. See electronics.stackexchange.com/help/promotion \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Jul 12 '18 at 1:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ @W5VO Yes, it seems so. Fair enough. Thanks for the link. \$\endgroup\$ – Blair Fonville Jul 12 '18 at 1:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ Spam flags should be reserved for cases where users contribute nothing of value (and promote a product instead). It's a way of saying "I don't want to see this guy here ever again" \$\endgroup\$ – Dmitry Grigoryev Jul 15 '18 at 11:54
5
\$\begingroup\$

Looks fine to me, the things I look for are

1) Do they provide attribution to the link and announce that they are associated with it.

Real spammers provide only links and don't tell their relationship to the links, they don't care about answers and don't think, they just want clicks.

2) Is it even remotely associated with the post?

If it is leave it, if its not then you may want to message the writer of the answer, or edit the question and take it out.

The thing that you don't want to do is harm answers, or come down hard on someone who hasn't read all the guidelines (even though they should have). Users are welcome to put most any link in their profile page.

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • \$\begingroup\$ Great feedback, as usual. Thanks. \$\endgroup\$ – Blair Fonville Jul 12 '18 at 12:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ +1 for the general answer. However, we do want to come down hard on anyone who doesn't follow the guidelines, whether that is because we suspect they didn't read the rules or not. There is no excuse for not familiarizing yourself with a site before barging in. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Jul 13 '18 at 11:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ @laptop2d How could you POSSIBLY suggest not coming down HARD on someone, when you just KNOW that Olin is watching ? :-). \$\endgroup\$ – Russell McMahon Jul 15 '18 at 12:23
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Last time I checked stack exchanges policy is be nice (one of the overarching policies and models) meta.stackexchange.com/help/be-nice sometimes people are stupid and not malicious, in that case all they need is a step in the right direction. If they are malicious then chase them off \$\endgroup\$ – Voltage Spike Jul 15 '18 at 22:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Russell guess I forgot, what was I thinking?? \$\endgroup\$ – Voltage Spike Jul 15 '18 at 22:22
2
\$\begingroup\$

Neither answer actually addresses its question:

Completely matter of opinion. Both identical answers do address the questions imho.

In the first case, the question specifically asks about connecting to thru-holes without solder, whereas the answer implicitly requires soldering header pins.

Soldered header pins are not required, press fit, or offset pins that are held by friction is enough, and you could wire it around the edge holes. Even if we don't assume it's 100% correct, the answer is still on topic, and "not an answer" answers normally aren't even on the same planet (It's a little wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable, it's very wrong to say it's a suspension bridge.)

In the second case the question is asking for PCB inter-connectors, and the answer rather clearly misses the mark.

Wire wrapping is a valid PCB inter-connect method. It predates most other newer methods. NASA still uses it!. That answer is 100% on topic to OP's question.

Your actual concern:

Is it Spam? Sure, it could be. But! THATS NOT ALWAYS A PROBLEM. Specifically from the rules regarding self-promotion:

The community here tends to vote down overt self-promotion and flag it as spam. Post good, relevant answers, and if some (but not all) happen to be about your product or website, that’s okay. However, you must disclose your affiliation in your answers.

https://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/promotion

If OP happens to spam his website on more, lets say a nice arbitrary 5 posts, then custom flag for a moderator to review, and maybe they will shoot them a message or warning. For the most part, it looks like someone just passionate about a technique they use. No overt ads on their website, not spamming unrelated multiple posts, and they aren't even selling it.

Side note, the user in question has a few posts across Stack Exchange over a few years and none are off topic or questionable.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .