Try providing suggestions with summary

[BIT-BENDER]

We most have notice or come across this practice by members, where they try to be of help and makes some suggestive options to books, thread, coins to buy, article etc.
Example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5240388.msg54221157#msg54221157

No one in their right frame of mind would have anything against a suggestive post, but when making a suggestion with out explain or summarizing what you know or have learn from that which you suggest make less meaningful point

   Why making suggestive post with summary is important.
+ It gives your opinion base: a random suggestions without facts or explanation as to why it was suggested is baseless
+ Guide your audience: what you have understood from something and you pass it down or suggest it to others goes far in actually guiding them.
+ Shows you have practiced or done it yourself: by giving your own understanding to things you suggest tells how you yourself has read, practiced by yourself and how it has been of help to you and how it would in turn help others.

Your understanding can be made brief as possible but it's part of a suggestive post

[1714749405]

1714749405

[jackg]

I definitely agree with this one, I don't know if its a good idea to try to suggest it as a rule that random links explicitly aren't allowed to be used here...

A paragraph explaining why you think it's a good resource - even if it's just 100 words - is going to make people consider clicking your link if they like what you say. Also if your advertising commissions on sites go off how long a user spends on the site and use other tracking it might make your page space more competitive if people are engrossed and stay for longer...
Too many links to stuff get posted here without much in the way of explanation for what they lead to.

[Findingnemo]

Summarizing is a good thing but its might turns out to be a spoon feeding so the user always relies on other users when they wanted to know something so its subjective whether we are giving a summary of it or simply redirect them to the right place and let them learn by themselves if they really wanted they will make efforts for it.

[BIT-BENDER]

I definitely agree with this one, I don't know if its a good idea to try to suggest it as a rule that random links explicitly aren't allowed to be used here...

It would be a good addition and it will encourage the habit of reading and learning, questions and answers section. Spam thread with suggestion to which the person suggesting it don't have a good clue about are rampant. Also it's annoying to write exactly what's on a link and make a thread attaching the link although it would not stand as plagiarism since a link is there it shows no real work was done.

[jackg]

It would be a good addition and it will encourage the habit of reading and learning, questions and answers section. Spam thread with suggestion to which the person suggesting it don't have a good clue about are rampant. Also it's annoying to write exactly what's on a link and make a thread attaching the link although it would not stand as plagiarism since a link is there it shows no real work was done.

Yeah a lot of the time websites can open badly in others' browsers so you're better off trying to quote parts that are significant or at least explaining what the person would gain by clicking the links. You shouldn't quote too much though either, if there's a sentence that isn't significant, replace it with an ellipses or add a tldr if you're anticipating discussion.

I haven't noticed people trying to link to sites without checking out the link first

[BayAngelo]

i think it is right for people to make multiple suggestion on same topics because there are thousand and one people here and posts dissappeared within seconds only if it has multiple comments and views will be up the thread section. Also remember that comprehension defers. people has different way of explaining different things. same is applicable on how people understand.

[DdmrDdmr]

There are at least three types of common practice with regards to linked references to articles and such:

a)   A link is provided, with little to no additional context other than the thread/post title. This is a pretty annoying practice, as it does not provide any effort on the poster’s behalf, and lacks what one would need to read before venturing to follow the link (aside from asserting the benevolent nature of the link): a summary or versed opinion/question.
These situations often may be reported for providing low value content, and I believe are often removed (it may depend on whether the thread has already picked-up any traction or not).

b)   An extract or a whole text is copy/pasted verbatim, and a link is provided, but no additional value is provided (i.e. opinion/questions). This may also well be considered low value content (after all, performing a copy/paste can’t really be a standard to place on a stand), and as such, may be reported and likely acted upon (again, it will likely depend on the traction the thread has picked-up).

c)   A link is provided for further reading, or citing the fundamental source, but a summary or content-based text is provided and/or a versed opinion/question. This normally denoted that the poster has made at least some effort to contextualize his post, and has surpassed the simpleton attempts that "a" and "b" provide.

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

Examples A and B you've given should be trashed immediately, no question. Copy and pasting just an article, or even just a link, and providing not a single original thought, comment, question, etc., is essentially legalized plagiarism. It shows absolutely zero effort on the part of the poster, and zero interest in contributing to the forum or stimulating a discussion.

A lot of the time the person doesn't provide a summary or further comment because they are too lazy, are only posting to fill a quota, and maybe haven't even read the article they are copying. However, some of the time it's because they don't understand what they are posting. There have been quite a few newbies making technical guides or tutorials, linking to or copying technical articles, etc., recently which are either inaccurate or sometimes completely wrong, and it's clear they have no idea what they are talking about. It's a transparent attempt to gain merit, and you often see several other spammers talking about how great the guide/article is who also clearly have no idea what they're talking about.

As much as I agree with OP's points, I would preface them by saying don't actually post or offer suggestions or recommendations at all unless you really understand what you are talking about. Many newbies will blindly follow bad or inaccurate advice, to their own detriment.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Just have to give my opinion by going the other way, although it's very helpful and a recommendable practice to do what the OP and other members have suggested, that's to give your suggestions accompany with you resources (link shared) nevertheless it's not mandatory therefore you shouldn't force it upon yourself to do that just to hunt for the merits or try pleasing anyone. If you come across a question that you can easily research on through the web to get the answer to, do so and provide the link if that's all you can do, don't try to force yourself into giving a summary to a topic you know nothing about, that'll just make you look stupid and desperate. Something like this " OP I just research on what you asked and found some interesting answers or contributions that'll be worth your time on this site <link>".

If the question was related to books on trading or any cryptocurrency related books, after providing a link to the source of the information you just shared, you can add a side note, stating that you haven't read the book so you can't vouch for the book you shared a link to but it was recommended by the site you just posted. There's no need giving a summary to a topic you know nothing about, preferable just ignore such topic and move on to the next discussion on the board.

[Coyster]

<...> There's no need giving a summary to a topic you know nothing about, preferable just ignore such topic and move on to the next discussion on the board.

I understand your difference(if I can call it that), but let me expound exactly what other users have been saying in this thread(i stand to be corrected).

If it's for instance, a reply to a post, maybe a user seeking help, information, news, something about the forums history etc ; it can be understandable to surf for suitable information for such users and simply posting the links, or another thread in the forum(asking them to read it for more understanding), or extracting a quote or an excerpt of a thread were maybe theymos clarified other users on that issue. If it's in situations like this, maybe further explanations may be unnecessary and beating a dead horse. But I think if a user is to start a thread based on a link that they've come across, it's necessary for them to read and understand what the topic in the link or article is all about, it's criminal to do either "A" or "B" of what Ddmr Ddmr posted above in the name of not fully understanding the article or the news link.

Starting a thread is like beginning a discussion, one users should readily be available to partake in, just posting a link, or copying the article verbatim in a new thread is foul play, because definitely such "thread starters" wouldn't come back to the thread again.

[o_e_l_e_o]

If the question was related to books on trading or any cryptocurrency related books, after providing a link to the source of the information you just shared, you can add a side note, stating that you haven't read the book so you can't vouch for the book you shared a link to but it was recommended by the site you just posted. There's no need giving a summary to a topic you know nothing about, preferable just ignore such topic and move on to the next discussion on the board.

In this example I would go further and say don't post at all. Anyone can type "cryptocurrency book" in to a search engine and look at the results. Doing exactly that and posting your results in a thread is neither helpful to the OP nor contributing to the discussion. If someone wants recommendations on books, they want recommendations from people that have actually read the book, not someone who can search for the names of books online.

If I'm asking a question on the forum, I want responses from people who understand the subject or have experience of the topic at hand. I don't want a list of copy and pasted responses I can easily find myself. I'd probably even report/delete such comments for being low value.