"Drive-by posting", can someone explain the concept?

[grislyatoms]

I hear about this from time to time, and have even done searches to try to understand the idea.

What is considered "drive-by posting"? (Please excuse my ignorance)

[Viking]

I hear about this from time to time, and have even done searches to try to understand the idea.

What is considered "drive-by posting"? (Please excuse my ignorance)

Someone, usually a new member with a cause, who simply posts a link to some Youtube video, political site etc, and then leaves without any comments, any questions asked in the post etc.

[grislyatoms]

Ahh, thanks for the info.

[Firethorn]

Someone, usually a new member with a cause, who simply posts a link to some Youtube video, political site etc, and then leaves without any comments, any questions asked in the post etc.

Or, that has all of the above, though generally almost identical to posts that can be found elsewhere(IE copy and paste), while the poster, after the spree, disappears.

[Harold Tuttle]

copy pasta

[Matthew Carberry]

To be differentiated from "seagull posting"

[taurusowner]

I can understand if it's a new user-name with few posts doing it, as it might be spam.  But I honestly don't care at all if it's someone we know doing it.  Either click the link or don't.  Reply or don't.  It's not hurting anyone.  The dozens of "how about a synopsis?" posts that follow one are much more annoying to me.

[K Frame]

The main reasons for "requiring" (note that we do not have a strict prohibition on drive by posting here, we take it on a situation by situation basis) someone to add their own commentary on what they've posted:

1. Obviously, if they took the time to cut and paste, they have some feelings in the matter. Why be coy about it?

2. Mutual courtesy. If you're too lazy to add some of your own thoughts to something you've posted, well then maybe I'm too lazy to bother to read it.

3. Snipers. At some other boards, there were a few people who used this tactic only to start arguments. They'd post blind, wait for someone to comment, and then come down on them/their position like a ton of bricks. Not unlike the Monty Python Argument Sketch, only with none of the humor and 10 times the stupidity.

[Gewehr98]

It's a courtesy thing.

If you can't be bothered to spend the few extra keystrokes telling us why the link is interesting, then why should anybody click on it, or for that matter even let the posting and/or thread remain?

How do we know it's work-safe? 

How do we know it's not another spamming attack?

How do we know it's suitable for the all-ages readers of The Round Table?

And, no, it's not a hard and fast rule here - but I'd like to think we as APS members would know better. 

[Perd Hapley]

I didn't understand the problem with drive-by posting either, at first.  And I was only half-kidding about the vague titles thread.  But I would point out that a lot of the complaints about dbp apply to bad thread titles as well. 

[ctdonath]

The term also applies to those who post a knee-jerk response to a hastily read thread title, never to actually read the OP (or only a cursory glance), any thoughtful discussion, or any responses to their own post. They're not participating.

[Balog]

I don't have a problem with cut n' pasting an article. The content is all there; commentary is nice but not really essential imho.

But just posting a link annoys the hell out of me.

[Tallpine]

I hear about this from time to time, and have even done searches to try to understand the idea.

What is considered "drive-by posting"? (Please excuse my ignorance)

You forgot to include a link ... 

[grislyatoms]

You forgot to include a link ... 

Oh yeah, silly me...

[MechAg94]

The Sniper definition sounds like a guy on another forum.  Loves to ridicule other's opinions and thoughts, but rarely posts his own. 

[seeker_two]

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=15913.0;topicseen

Read and understand....

[Manedwolf]

Of course, that damn Zardoz photo is a drive-by grenading.

[Hawkmoon]

I don't have a problem with cut n' pasting an article. The content is all there; commentary is nice but not really essential imho.

But just posting a link annoys the hell out of me.

The flip side being that most articles are copyrighted and reproducing them here in their entirety is a violation of the copyright.

I find it interesting that so many people on "gun" forums are very sensitive when they perceive other parties as not respecting the 2nd Amendment, but a little thing like respecting another party's intellectual property rights? Phooey. Those aren't real "rights," that's just words on paper.

Sauce for goose = sauce for gander.

[Balog]

The flip side being that most articles are copyrighted and reproducing them here in their entirety is a violation of the copyright.

I find it interesting that so many people on "gun" forums are very sensitive when they perceive other parties as not respecting the 2nd Amendment, but a little thing like respecting another party's intellectual property rights? Phooey. Those aren't real "rights," that's just words on paper.

Sauce for goose = sauce for gander.

I thought it was ok if you included the link and credits?

[Regolith]

I thought it was ok if you included the link and credits?

Not really, no.

In this case, it prevents traffic to the site that hosts the article which negatively effects ad revenue, and thus hurts the bottom line of the company hosting the site. 

IIRC, several forums have been sued - succesfully - for using such methods.