• solrize@lemmy.mlEnglish
    0·
    11 days ago

    I see roughly the same thing:

    Your post says there is a podcast at [url] and that you are working on a guide as a companion to it, but it doesn’t say anything about where the guide is or whether any of it is online yet at all. Ok, I see now that the link url is discuss.james.network which is a different domain than the podcast, but that is still not much help. If that’s where the guide is, you should say so. I’d expect to see a discussion forum on a domain like that, not a podcast transcript.

    Really, though you should just include the guide in the post. Otherwise you’re just promoting your podcast and discussion site.

    • JustAnotherKay@lemmy.worldEnglish
      01·
      11 days ago

      Lemmy is a link aggregator, this guy posted a link to his website and a brief (albeit lacking, I will agree with you there) description of what the links were. I don’t see any issue promoting free content in the forms of links on a link aggregator.

      I also think there’s sort of a social agreement that if you’re going to make a comment about a post that exists purely as a link to elsewhere, you should probably click the link so that you know what is being discussed instead of what we’re doing, discussing the link itself lol.

      • solrize@lemmy.mlEnglish
        1·
        2 days ago

        There’s no reason to expect anyone to click on any type of link, without giving them an up-front reason to do so. Expecting otherwise would be a spammer’s dream. You have to spell out in the post what the link is for.

          • solrize@lemmy.mlEnglish
            1·
            1 day ago

            No it doesn’t work that way. Nobody should be expected to follow clickbait.

            • JustAnotherKay@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              1 day ago

              I just don’t understand your logic. In your mind it’s okay to make an assumption about the content of a link based off the name of the link. However, it’s not okay to make an assumption about the content of the other link and find out why the OP started the discussion. Rather, you believe it would be better to attack the OP for not explaining what their links were to your satisfaction.

              Is that right?