Well, I can’t even enter the comment I tried to post HERE as it is treated as spam, and no, it’s not spam.
How can I send somebody the text to find out why it’s treated automatically as spam, pray tell?
I am annoyed.
I’d say that in terms of electronics, it’s more like 97/3. Amplifiers for reasonable loads are cooked, fried, and finished. Loudspeakers are the one place that it’s maybe 70/30 or so. But the problem with loudspeakers is that they are all trying to do something they can’t, which is mimic the soundfield of the INTENDED playback with whatever happens in your listening space, and trying to do so with enormously insufficient information.
At (url removde) you will find a powerpoint deck titled “Soundfields vs. Human Hearing” that goes into more depth on this.
As I mentioned in the other thread, I don’t know how our spam catcher works. In general it does allow URLs to educational pages, however for some reason that page may be in the spam catcher’s file for spammers. (Maybe other pages there are problematic, I don’t know). If you need to, you can always use a URL shortener to include the link. (Google “URL shortener” if you don’t know them).
JJ, I applaud your persistence in trying to get your points across. I googled “Soundfields vs. Human Hearing” and came up with the link below that has a list of slides that may provide some similar info as to the link you were trying to provide. (I don’t know.)
Well that link doesn’t appear to work from here. But you can get to it by googling “Soundfields vs. Human Hearing” and then going down and selecting “Index of /Recording/soundfields vs. human hearing - edited/”.
That’s my deck (Seigfried posted it on his site, as well as the aes site). I have to give him credit, people have put them up all over, he’s the only one who asked!
I tried to link to 3*doubleyou dot aes dot org slash sections slash pnw slash ppt dot aich tee em
at which are a great deal of my tutorial slides as well as some others worth looking at.
As I mentioned in the other thread, I don’t know how our spam catcher works. In general it does allow URLs to educational pages, however for some reason that page may be in the spam catcher’s file for spammers. (Maybe other pages there are problematic, I don’t know). If you need to, you can always use a URL shortener to include the link. (Google “URL shortener” if you don’t know them).
It is absolutely unreasonable for aes dot org to be considered a spammer site. It is a mistake, and that should be rectified. It is not a spammer site, the only thing it even sells, to my knowlege, is technical publications on audio, and if that’s a problem, ieee dot org is a spammer too.
Could it please be fixed? I don’t want to have to play with phonetics.
JJ, that’s not the only problem this website program has. Its one advantage is that it’s free to non-profit organizations, and the forum is only a small part of the overall program tha CFI uses. It can’t be fixed by CFI personnel, and the supplier has very little motivation to bother with their free program. So, just as we have with the other problems, we’ve each developed personal work-arounds or skipped doing what the program will mess with.
Occam
[It just did it to me again. After I type in my post and click on submit, the post disappears and a get a new screen for typing a message. I’ve learned to always block off my post, hit cntrl-C then click on submit. That way, when it does what it did here, I just hit cntrl-V and my post gets automatically re-entered. Only occasionally do I have to go through that twice.]
I don’t think the link/spam problem has something to do with the forum software. The forum software however may have an interface with the spam filter of CFI in general. So I think if the CFI network administrator (not the forum administrator!) would remove www_aes_org (replace ‘_’ with ‘.’ of course…) from the blacklist, it would work.
And sure there are many ways to get around the imperfections of the forum software. Shouldn’t be a problem for anybody with a technical background…
AFAIK the spam filter we have is basically a black-box add-on to the forum software, and as such cannot be altered by us. But I will forward this issue and see what our network admin says.
Just checked—yeah, the filter is a black-box to us. If you want to put in a disallowed URL, either break it up somehow (You don’t need to spell it all out, just putting a space somewhere should work), or better, use a URL shortener.
I’m glad I have no desire to install links, because as an old fud, I’m not even sure what the difference between an IPA and a URL is, much less a URL shortener.
Perhaps off-this-line I’d like to know who makes the black box. If it’s blocking professional societies, I smell a rat somewhere (in the software, not here).
Check check. I’m being blocked for spam. This has happened several times in the last two months! What’s going on?
We have a spam catcher here. It works, presumably, by finding keywords and links that seem spammy. It is automated so sometimes it will be stupid.
If you have a problem with a link, use a URL shortener like bit.ly or goo.gl; that should work because the spam catcher works on URLs and I doubt the shortened ones will be in its repertoire.
If it isn’t a link that’s the problem, try rewording, respelling spammy words, etc.
We have a spam catcher here. It works, presumably, by finding keywords and links that seem spammy. It is automated so sometimes it will be stupid.
If you have a problem with a link, use a URL shortener like bit.ly or goo.gl; that should work because the spam catcher works on URLs and I doubt the shortened ones will be in its repertoire.
If it isn’t a link that’s the problem, try rewording, respelling spammy words, etc.m
Thanks Doug and I read the previous posts as well but my problem is in, this sounds stupid, trying to figure out what a spammy word is. And I didn’t have a link attached. And while I have your attention, how do you use the word “here” instead of posting the whole link? Thanks.
