Love's Secret Live Your Life In Love

This report was originally titled Love's Secret Live Your Life In Love and has been changed to a joke title of "Poop". The original report contains many shill-like comments, but I'm not sure if vandallizing the page (no matter how amusing it is) is the best approach.

In the comment section, each post comes from the same user, but is passed off as another reviewer; I think the user who is submitting the comments is copying and pasting user testimony from their website.

1) I think we should revert the changes back to their original form, 2) message the original contributor about the shill comments, 3) delete the comments made on another's behalf, and 4) then discuss whether or not this report should be deleted or if it's worthy of inclusion.

It may seem like a trivial thing to discuss, but issues such as these help set a precedent and form policies for future occurences.

I agree. The poop thing made me giggle to much to not do it, and I'll be happy to revert the article back to its original state.

EDIT: I would have been happy to do the reversions, but I don't know how... *cough*

I've already messaged the user, and just said that the site is not for advertising, but if they want to be a contributing member, they will be welcomed.

I think that your step-by-step solution is a good one, though it does seem slow. But expiditing the deletion process isn't that important- we need to ensure that the decisions are fair.

I would say that the product itself is worthy of an article, but I think the article should be deleted. The product can be re-added by a real user at some point down the road.

Ya, I don't think anybody here is really interested in cleaning up the report on this product. If someone wants to do a write-up on it they can simply make a new report. I think we should just delete it too. Not worth the work of deleting all the comments, and reverting to copy and pasted material.

Poop talk makes ME giggle.

RE: Reverting. Our reverting/diffing system is currently unavailable, we rely and reverting the old fashioned way. A new diffing/reverting system is in the works for product reports, and we may post an intermediate sol'n for advanced users for just the description portion soon.

RE: Delete. This article might just be a case of speedy delete now that I think about it, since none of the "work" done already can be reused. I'm not a fan of random stub reports as they have no real usefulness.

Here's a rundown of my current thinking.

Inclusion Criteria

To keep a report I suggest that they meet at least one of the following criteria:

• are a noteworthy product (in-demand, popular, interesting, etc). It's fairly subjective
• contain original, useful information
• have been tapped, commented or voted on in a legitimate way by a real, non-shill user

Exclusion Criteria

Conversely, factors that can lead to a report being nominated for deletion would be (in any combination):

• NOT-a-product but rather a service, concept, person, animal (or poop)
• The article is copied-and-pasted marketing speak
• their are many shill comments, reviews, voting, or tapping in an attempt to mislead
• there are many SEO links
• the report offers no-value to the community, only to the submitter

Applying these criteria to the original report in this case. It does not meet any of the inclusion criteria, and it hits 2 out 3 exclusion criteria.

However...we shouldn't actually delete this product since their is useful information in this talk page, and the report can server as an example.

We could clear the article, rename it back to the original title, (get rid of the poop image), and keep the notice that I've put in. We can just let the report get buried into obscurity that way. I'll do that now...

OMG this is hillarious

Yes, it is. Check out the diff of the previous versions of the description for even more funny.