Posts by Samuel Morgan40

There have been times when that very first cigarette in the morning—just as I’m waking up—has made my head spin quite intensely. It’s a similar sensation to what happens if I haven't smoked for a while, say because I was dealing with an illness, or perhaps after a rather unsuccessful attempt at quitting where I eventually gave in to that first drag. If this is happening to you constantly—I mean, if we're talking about actual, genuine vertigo—then I wouldn't exactly call that a good sign. I suppose I can't say for sure what it might be. 🤷 Do you generally deal with blood pressure issues? Or maybe anemia?

melloworca6 said:Personally, I am not a fan of this idea at all. So many people on the Health subforum register just to drop a couple of questions and get answers as quickly as possible—whether through a PM or by starting their own thread.

Precisely. And honestly, it’s not just limited to the Health section.

Regarding the spammers—if I were in their shoes and noticed a new rule stating "no PMs allowed without 100-150 posts," I imagine I would simply flood some random, irrelevant threads with useless comments just to hit the quota. It wouldn't actually stop them.

mistyhound94 said:The Health subforum, much like most other sections, already has old threads where someone could easily find a similar issue and ask about their own situation. The real headache is that quite a few moderators penalize users for bumping old threads, so that would need some kind of workaround. ☕

On the Health subforum, bumping old threads isn't really what gets sanctioned; it's the creation of five identical duplicate threads that causes issues.

As for Health specifically, it happens constantly—users reach out to moderators via PM regarding specific medical concerns (especially sensitive ones) without ever having posted a single thing on the forum. Even more frequent is when people register (sometimes even using burner accounts) just to ask a question, share an experience, or exchange advice on a particular topic. In those cases, a PM is practically unavoidable. That has always been the dynamic there, and it doesn't really have anything to do with what you mentioned about bumping threads.

And this isn't just happening in one subforum; it’s a pattern across various sections too. Not to mention the classifieds and everything related to trading items, which pop up all over the place.

Therefore, I think this would be a poor solution. On one hand, it wouldn't deter actual spammers since they can rack up post counts in no time, and on the other, it would block people who genuinely need to send a PM (for urgent help, buying/selling tickets, etc.). 😉

Christian Taylor3 said:It’s like people can still only see the trees and completely miss the forest for what it is. 😵

I’ve run into a bit of a problem.:

The Solution:

If we don't get rid of this whole "blacklist" of banned websites, people are just going to keep suffering.Look, I’m not saying anyone actually needs to see this, but apparently, we’ve got some unauthorized advertising going on again. Just a heads-up that if you're trying to hawk your services or drop links to your side hustles, it's strictly against the rules here. We aren't running a billboard in Times Square, so let's try to keep things civil and stick to the actual topics instead of turning the thread into a digital flea market.Honestly, I see people starting to suffer already, and it’s mostly just those random users who have absolutely nothing to do with all this spamming nonsense. For instance, little Mark might pop up on the Student Corner and write:

I’m not being malicious, rude, or lazy—I’m just a hyperactive dreamer. http://is.gd/NstpiF

... and I end up getting handed a pink slip just because of some "unauthorized advertising" nonsense, even though I didn't do a single thing wrong. See, the thing is, Who? I don't know what you're looking for, but if you were waiting for me to jump through hoops or provide some grand manifesto, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. I'm just sitting here, probably overthinking something trivial, ready to write whenever you actually have something to say. Where? Did someone actually tell him that posting links on The New York Times isn't allowed?

It seems like you might have cut off mid-sentence there. If you were trying to get me to rewrite something, just paste the full text and I'll get to work on it. Just numbers. And they’re actually doubling down on this—I’ve already laid out the full explanation on the first page if you want to see how ridiculous this is. Honestly, obsessing over whether we can use hyperlinks during discussions here on Reddit is about as productive as campaigning against the use of electricity. It’s 2011, for crying out loud. 😁

I honestly think it’s just plain ridiculous that because some wannabe spammer showed up once, they feel the need to keep an entire website locked in a bunker forever.

Honestly, that’s their own fault; all those sites rightfully ended up in this mess specifically because of that aggressive spamming.

Besides...

Who says anyone is blocked? 😁

Did they at least apologize to the editorial staff after that incident? If they didn't, the administration has every right to keep them locked in the bunker. Looking at your detailed breakdown (thanks for that, by the way), it’s clear that in most cases, we're dealing with actual employees or contributors from these outlets. That’s a five-minute fix; any spammer popping up on the movie sub-section is spotted immediately and removed. They can make ten clones a day, but they won't last more than 24 hours (I've said much worse than this). Most importantly, the users themselves report them to the moderators.

@Tyndall

Just so some new kids don't accidentally use or abuse this information: spammers know exactly how to bypass your block on those specific links (let's not kid ourselves, even a smart six-year-old knows that), so the only real way to get one over on them is to add about fifty of the most popular 'URL shortening' services to the blocklist via the Admin Control Panel.

That’s just the starting point. 🙂

Let's circle back to this whole "problem-solution" loop from the beginning of the thread.

Actually, not directly. As far as I know—and please correct me if I'm wrong, admins—nobody from the relevant parties wrote to the site editors saying, "Look, things were a certain way, our bad, blah blah." That apology happened through a single Redditor who stepped in, acting in good faith, to point out what one of them was doing. Personally, I think that’s more than enough; the main thing is that those spammers are gone. They serve their sentence, and after a while, posting links to the same portal should be allowed again under normal circumstances.

Anyway, I wanted to (somewhat belatedly 😁) touch upon this:

Without this 'blacklist' of forbidden sites, innocent users who have absolutely nothing to do with spamming will continue to suffer (I see they're already being penalized for 'unauthorized advertising'). For instance, little Mark might post on the
Student Corner
and get banned for 'unauthorized advertising' despite being completely innocent. After all, who told him (as a user) that linking to The New York Times isn't allowed?

Personally, as a moderator, I would never punish such cases, and I believe all other moderators and admins follow the same practice. Besides, Tyn and mistywolf17 have already clarified how things work so that these situations shouldn't happen. We always look at the user's intent. It’s one thing when someone posts a forbidden link (especially when they don't even know if it's allowed) during a discussion to clarify a point, provide an example, or just comment on an article (even though there are some foxes who manage to slip through that way), and it's quite another when they do it specifically to—well, spam.

Here is just one example from yesterday of how a user, in a perfectly normal discussion where linking or pasting articles is actually encouraged, posted a snippet from a censored portal (they didn't link it, but they pasted it and mentioned the site's name). It's not that I have anything against it; in fact, I find it quite helpful as it adds value to the conversation. And to be honest, this is probably one of the few texts (in a sea of rambling so-called "critics") that actually says something meaningful. You can tell the person writing it actually knows what they're talking about. I wouldn't dream of banning a user just because they included a link or pasted content from a currently censored portal here on our Reddit. 🙂

That gets sorted in five minutes; any spammer who shows up on the Film thread is spotted immediately and removed. They could make ten clones a day, and it wouldn't last longer than 24 hours (I've said this many times before). Most importantly, the users themselves report it to the moderators.

Of course, it’s the exact same situation when it comes to Music. 🙂

If you actually bother to open a thread properly—you know, by providing some actual substance and context—then maybe we’ll consider giving you a serious response.
You’re starting a discussion at five in the morning—and frankly, I'm wondering if you're even awake enough to be coherent—yet you haven't provided a single shred of detail. And then, somehow, you expect the community to jump on this within two minutes?
Locking this.

The second sentence is just as crucial: 🧐
Because one really ought to be mindful of certain things—you know, deciding what to steer clear of versus what to actually incorporate (and there’s plenty of info on this online, I suppose)—in an attempt to mitigate the excess production of prostaglandins. Those are the culprits responsible for those intense uterine contractions—otherwise known as menstrual cramps, along with everything else that tends to come along with them. 🙂

I find myself agreeing with driftingpilot8—the caffeine content in Red Bull isn't actually the primary issue here.
That’s hardly the crux of the matter; the real concern lies within the other ingredients.
Some of them are arguably harmful, while others might be considered beneficial—though, honestly, you’d probably need to consume Red Bull by the barrel to extract any meaningful nutritional value from those positive components.

Furthermore, a significant number of health experts warn against frequent consumption—especially in such quantities—unless one is actively engaging in rigorous exercise or sports.

So, I suppose the rule of thumb is moderation, moderation, and more moderation. Given your habits, this certainly isn't a healthy choice for you. You'd likely be much better off sticking to some old-fashioned, strong coffee.

Honestly, it’s just all five of them, 🙂—though I didn't even register it as an actual attack. I suppose it'll probably end up being discussed later on.

Bradley Sanders4 said:Samuel Morgan4, I’m with you—it’s an idiotic way to handle advertising. Honestly, I remember how much of a massive headache it was dealing with those spammers, and I totally get why blocking links feels like the easiest fix for the problem. I’m not against using blocks as a tool to kill spam, but I really think we should revisit the status of banned sites after a certain amount of time. Like Christian Taylor3 said earlier, hyperlinking is a fundamental part of online discussions; it’s basically what makes sharing info on the internet actually work. It feels pretty stupid to just ban a site forever just because some wannabe spammer decided to use it once. What if some idiot starts linking to YouTube everywhere—and you know how vital that service is for our Music discussions—or maybe someone links to the Los Angeles Times or The Washington Post when there's an active thread about them in Other media? Or even H&M in the Fashion section? Or any shopping site that actually provides useful info (unlike those sketchy game sites where you click a link and a vampire or a zombie bites you)? Ultimately, permanently restricting access does way more damage to the quality of the discussions here than the spam ever did. So, fine, use blocking as a last resort if we have to, but it shouldn't be a permanent sentence.

To wrap this up, here’s an interesting article I’m reading right now about the internet and journalism from that hated portal you love so much. Is it really so worthless that it deserves to be blocked? Is it better to just copy-paste the whole thing from Reddit to avoid giving them a single click, while still citing the source without a hyperlink? And then what do we do about music? Are we supposed to retell it, like hollowtrucker77 suggests? Describe where an album can be legally streamed? Write our own damn reviews instead of linking to someone else's? What if I just want to talk about the tone of an article (again, just look at the thread about JL in Other media)?

I will merely add that, for me, that portal isn't actually hated. I stated quite clearly above that the site itself isn't bad. Nothing more, nothing less. I personally spent 12 years working in journalism (which is why I write so infrequently for Other media 😁). What you and Christian Taylor3 have written—well, we all know that part very well. As for whether things will stay this way, or if this "penalty" will have an expiration date where linking to said portal becomes allowed again, that is not up to me; it lies with the forum leadership.

I was simply attempting to briefly describe how irritatingly persistent that individual was—so much so that he triggered nothing but a counter-effect and mockery among users. Some even went as far as to say the portal is great, but that his behavior only pushes people away; because if the portal is supposedly serious, unique, or different... then it certainly doesn't need that kind of childish spam which only serves to degrade the image of the people working there—people who, frankly, didn't earn that reputation to begin with.

Bradley Sanders4 said:Which sites are actually censored here—like, what am I not allowed to link to on this forum? I know The New York Times was the first one to get hit by the filters because a bunch of spammers were trying to pump up their traffic. Now I’m honestly a little annoyed to find out that All the Way Down and TinyURL are blocked too. Is there anything else? Does anyone have a master list somewhere?

And since those spammers who caused all this trouble are gone, are you guys even considering lifting some of these bans? It's standard practice for major news outlets to link directly to articles from other media sources, so I don't see why we have to deal with these restrictions here.

Vitamin supplements, herbal teas, and whatever else. 😁

With this bolded text, we’ve endured months of absolute torture—all because of one wannabe kid who decided on the single worst, most moronic way to advertise anything in history. This guy would churn out ten clones a day, flooding almost every other thread in the Music section (literally) just to drop the exact same link. It had zero connection to the actual discussions; it was pure, unadulterized spam. Eventually, it got under the skin, ears, and mouths of every single person on our PDF, not to mention the constant daily reports.

The worst part is, the site itself isn't even bad, but the sheer way this spammer operated only served to damage their reputation. We tried sending private messages and issuing public warnings—suggesting he could at least use the link more carefully within the context of a conversation—but things just kept getting worse and worse. He only finally stopped once a user from our PDF notified the higher-ups and those in charge, who then issued an apology once they realized who they were dealing with.
Edit: if he had participated in discussions normally and just linked to info incidentally, he probably wouldn't have ended up on the blacklist.

Regarding the tiles, I suspect your best bet would be to head over to the PDF Home Improvement section for some actual answers.

As for the gynecomastia, there is already an existing thread covering that.

When it comes to acne and the resulting scarring, you might find something useful in the Skin Care topic—or perhaps even check out the Cosmetics PDF to see what options exist for dealing with it.

On that last point—and speaking as someone who used to be a heavy smoker and is still, quite frankly, struggling to kick those old habits—I’d suggest cutting it off right now if you can. It only gets progressively more difficult from here, I guess. If you happen to be looking for support regarding that as well, there is this excellent thread; the people there are wonderful and incredibly helpful, much like everyone else you'll encounter on Healthline. 🙂

I am going to have to lock this thread. Best of luck.

Oh, don't mention it—I appreciate the suggestion. Honestly, I think any input is more than welcome here.

I’m not entirely sure why we need to wait a full minute—it seems a bit excessive—but there’s really no need to report every single individual post, especially when dealing with a brand-new user. It should be more than enough to just note during the initial report that most, if not all, of their posts are blatant spam, perhaps even pointing out the specific threads they’ve been cluttering up. After that, I suppose it's left to the moderators or the site admins to go in and handle the actual cleanup. 😁

northernmason said:So, I have a small request to consider regarding the organization of at least the first pages of threads in the Music subforum—and perhaps others as well.
Today, I opened several new threads featuring excellent introductions, only to find myself reading posts filled with absolute garbage, nonsense, vitriol, and general trash.
I feel it would be quite fair and respectful toward the forum member who actually took the time to carefully craft an opening thread according to all the community rules if their first page wasn't immediately cluttered with such mindless drivel.

I suppose I’d agree with the American. We can't exactly forbid people from commenting when they don't share a preference for a certain artist—whether on the first page or any other—since these threads aren't exclusively for superfans. However, I certainly agree that we should be purging "unsubstantiated" comments—spamming, constant trolling, off-topic rambling, and the like. That does happen, of course; sometimes things slip through because even the moderators aren't online 24/7 (and frankly, many of us are on here far longer than that), and we aren't perfect at moderating—we're only human, after all. 😁

In this particular instance, it looks like some kind of chain reaction occurred—one person starts, then another follows suit. Perhaps it was just bad timing, or maybe it was a deliberate attempt to spite the thread starter due to the aforementioned circumstances (specifically, how the thread was opened and the frequency of similar topics being posted over a few days).

northernmason said:Some were fine—everyone is entitled to their opinion—but that Chuck Norris individual really has no business being there, not even with a single sarcastic emoji.
I just think it discourages anyone from bothering to start a new thread, which, let's be honest, isn't easy or simple.

In any case, once you decide to open a thread, you have to be prepared for the fact that someone might not have a single kind word to say about your favorite artist (or that your thread might end up with zero replies), which, if I recall correctly, has been part of the site guidelines for ages. If someone's negative comment regarding an open thread—or the artist itself—discourages them from starting more threads, then I guess that's ultimately the responsibility of the thread starter. Of course, I am not referring to those deleted outbursts of bile. If we don't manage to intervene in time, there is always that little triangle icon to report a post. The moderators will see what's going on and decide whether to delete it, issue a warning, or leave it be. Besides, when you're setting up a thread, you can always specify what you (or wouldn't) want to see in it.

Elizabeth Torres43 said:I already mentioned on one of the simp-heavy threads that in the music section, people are starting a new thread for every single singer who is still alive and only has two posts... I don't know what everyone else thinks about it, but it feels a bit like trolling.

It’s the same thing you’re seeing—though in my case, it isn't even trolling, it's just straight-up spam. I’ve already had a word with her about it, so from here on out, everything related to that issue is a hard 5.

I was wondering if we could perhaps look into creating a dedicated sub-forum for Pop Music, because that section is absolutely overflowing with threads (even though I participate in them myself)—everything from Beyoncé and Adele to Britney and Gage, you name it. The same goes for the Television section—the "Unseen" area is packed with endless discussions about those Turkish soap operas that everyone seems obsessed with lately...

To be honest, I’ve given that some thought myself, but it feels like a massive undertaking right now. Given how messy genres have become these days—with all the sub-genres, sub-sub-genres, and whatever else exists—trying to pigeonhole certain artists strictly into "Pop" would be a nightmare. I suspect we'd eventually deal with comments like: why the hell is Some-random-performer posted in the Pop section when they're basically making Britpop, indie stuff, R&B, or dance music? .

In any case, the suggestion will be taken under consideration. Even if we don't go through with a new sub-forum, we might consider some other way to organize things.

Oh, the good old Milky, who eventually managed to track down the lost Coxon. 🙂

Looking back, the stuff from the era of the There's No Other Way single is actually much more interesting to me—though, I suppose, Albarn hadn't quite nailed down his signature vocal style just yet. I’m honestly glad that after the whole grunge-inspired phase, they listened to Coxon and shifted their musical direction, especially considering how those massive band rivalries defined the scene. While the album Parklife is a quintessential example of the genre that really kicked everything off—unlike the somewhat overhyped The Great Escape—I've always found that one a little cheesy, even if The Universal is an absolute standout.

I've been in a particularly heroin kind of mood today.
Edit: Also, that last Fool's Day track is great; it looks like they might just keep dropping singles whenever the mood strikes them. Perhaps that's for the best—less forced than the big studio pushes.

Does anyone else remember that interview Anthony Batov did with their bassist, Alex? I recall the guy was smoking through the entire thing, and apparently, Batov asked him something about America—which, naturally, he had absolutely no clue about—but then he mentioned Davor Šuker (I think this was sometime around '98 or '99), and Alex actually perked up, shook his hand, and said something along the lines of "respect to you guys"... 🤣 It was one of those interviews that was just painfully cringeworthy. 😬

Man, I get hit with such intense nostalgia whenever I start thinking about those high school days—back when Grunge was absolutely everywhere, and Nirvana (along with The Replacements) were basically my entire personality. Those ridiculous music videos, and all the girls who seemed perpetually obsessed with Damon.
And then you had Pearl Jam constantly taking shots at them; honestly, looking back at all those rivals, it’s kind of wild. 🤣
Girls and Boys, Parklife, Country House, and then later on, Song 2.

And I almost completely blanked on this one: Charmless Man !! 🙏

Richard Reyes38 said:Well, it’s exactly what the title suggests: who was this Skarice guy mentioned in that 80s track by Far Coast? We used to spend our time recording stuff and lugging equipment around to him.
I guess it's up to all you eager listeners to figure it out. :-D

As fadedsailor932 mentioned, he was essentially the alpha and the omega back in the 80s—and even later, really—for any young bands trying to make it big; he was the main editor-in-chief over at RCA Records.

HOW TO USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION

Since quite a few of you—despite browsing through our topic list (and for that, I suppose, my thanks to 😉)—occasionally struggle to locate an existing thread and end up opening a duplicate one unnecessarily, we would suggest utilizing the Search function. To reach the specific discussion you are looking for more efficiently, one really ought to understand how to navigate the forum's search tool. So, to begin with:

The Search tool is located in the upper right-hand corner. If your interests lie within the Health/Women's Health subforums, you really should enter those specific sections first before clicking on the search icon.



Now, once you type a term into that field, you will likely be presented with a deluge of threads that may or may not actually relate to your query—simply because many posts contain your keyword, even if they aren't discussing what you actually care about. It happens quite often that the exact information you need seems missing, when in reality, the thread exists; it just didn't surface. For that reason, we don't particularly recommend basic searches, but rather the so-called advanced search. It is quite useful if you are hunting for a very specific discussion.

Within the advanced search, you have several options at your disposal:



The options highlighted in red represent the most effective method for finding topics, as shown in the image above. In the advanced search field, you can input multiple related terms, such as: bacteria bacterial infections bacteriology bacteriological swab and so forth.

It is also worth noting—and this might be a bit of a nuisance—that the search engine usually won't pull up a word or acronym shorter than four letters; things like HIV or HPV might not show up on their own. Therefore, it is necessary to pair those terms with something else, perhaps virus swab infection transmission therapy and so on. This can occasionally act as an obstacle to finding the right thread, so please feel free to reach out to the moderators if you find yourself stuck.

Once you have located a thread of interest, please post there. If there happen to be multiple similar or identical threads, the moderators can easily go in later to edit, merge, or move posts to a more constructive single thread. Of course, if a topic truly does not exist, then you are perfectly welcome to start a new one. 😉

So, dear forum members, we hope this makes searching a bit easier for you, even though we have tried our best to ensure almost all significant discussions in the Health section are available in our Topic List—which we update daily to prevent the creation of unnecessary duplicate threads. Happy posting. 👋