Yes. Like I said, I know what they "intended" to say, but they didn't use the term correctly.
Those same people are the ones who respond to an offer to subscribe to a newsletter with their email to get a product for free and then when they get the first issue of the newsletter click the "report spam" button because they didn't remember subscribing. Nevertheless, whether they remembered or liked it or not, they subscribed, so they falsely accused the newsletter publisher of spam.
Well since the primary definition of spam is sending unsolicited bulk emails, and posting a relevant stat about a tactic in a tactics trainer forum doesn't fit that definition
I agree with you, learningthemoves:) So when I originally received the complaining message which called my stats "spam," I took it that the complainer wanted to describe the stats as something bad/negative.
I also agree with you learningthemoves, that the stats are relevant. Maybe they don't help to solve the puzzles but they are about the puzzles.
I was just now doing the TT puzzles and noticed that someone started leaving quotes by famous people in the comments section -- something like "failure is mother of success --by so and so" lol! I'm OK with the quotes, but started laughing wondering what you guys might say.
So, as one of my tactical trainer sessions fill up the whole of the recent problems section in the tactical trainer stats page. I have done a screen dump, and created an image. I have now stored it away for looking at later. This is quite quick and easy to do and may be something you want to try?
I don't think I am understanding what you're saying. lol.
"as one of my tactical trainer sessions fill up the whole of the recent problems section in the tactical trainer stats page." -- where is the subject and verb in this sentence?
What is a screen dump? And what does this image look like? Why am I making this image? (OK the answer to my last question, I am guessing, is to help me track my progress in TT?)
A screen dump is when you press PrtScn. This then copies the contents of your computer screen to your clipboard.
I have attached a copy of my results below:
I buy decks of cards from the city I was in if they have them. Don't ask me why, just started one day... But no, I don't know any other blokes who buy souveniers full stop! 
Well since the primary definition of spam is sending unsolicited bulk emails...anyone who claimed it was spam doesn't have a leg to stand on factually.
Well originally that was true. But in this modern internet age "spam" is many things. But a word you used, "bulk," is pretty much where it all falls. These days it's mostly considered "flooding." Another word you used "unsolicited," in other words "wasn't asked for/not wanted" is a huge driver in what spam is. Here's a couple of different ones below.
You nailed the definition for spam in reagards to email.
On forums spam is considered using posts or threads to advertise without the site's permission. It can also mean multi-posting (many forum mods will delete multi posts for this reason, doesn't really happen here though). This is where a user posts several times in a row on a thread instead of using the edit button. Not usually considered spam when a person is responding to individual comments. Another form of spam in forums is posting several (or oversized) picures as this increases load times on a thread. This also includes irrelevant pictures that derail threads.
In online gaming you can spam in a few ways. If a game has text chat, people constantly spam the chat by typing the same message over and over (this can usually be done by binding a message to a key and only have to press that key once to repeat the message each time). This makes it so that people cannot cumminucate with each other effictively. Similar to that is to spam the mic, which obviously only works in games where you use your microphones to talk to each other. The main ways of this are by either someone screaming, constantly talking, singing, or putting their mic next to a speaker and playing music through it. Same effect as spamming chat. In an online shooter, spamming also refers to using a machine gun to spray lots of bullets continously to overload the processor of both the server and the opponent's computer in order to better their chances of getting a kill.
It's a word that is costantly evolving, but you will find it everywhere. Back in the 1990's yes spam was pretty much an email thing, but due to the fun of internet trolls and griefers, we have many new definitions for spam.
I believe tonightatsix is a decent person who had absolutely no intention whatsover of spamming, so I can respect her for that. But unfortunately people have become annoyed from the various forms of spam over the years and have lowered their tolerance. Myself included.
You were correct in the use of the word "flooding" vs. spam when it comes to posting multiple messages. Many people incorrectly refer to that as spam when the correct term is as you said flooding.
Having owned, administered, managed and moderated a number of business related forums over the years, I'm quite familiar with forum spam.
One of my pet peeves is when someone calls any action they don't like "spam", when despite its varying forms as the definition has evolved, simply isn't correct in that context.
The point to where someone calls something "spam" just because it's a comment or something they don't like or happen to share the same opinion, is simply a misappropriation of the term.
"Thank you for your suggestions though (such as "give a line I was calculating", etc) The thing is.............. I am not calculating much. lol!!"
Haha... never mind then :)
Patterns are huge, but I try to discipline myself and at least take a cursory look at the move I am about to play so that I know I'm doing more than just fulfilling a huge psychological desire to play a "brilliant" move. But yeah, it can be tough to hold back that temptation of course.
"Well I stand by my opinion that I think the stats are fine. I like looking at the changing numbers in different stats:)"
Perhaps disgruntled sheep doesn't like that you are doing it in a public place, and thinks it's more appropriate to do this sort of thing privately. Just one comment of stats won't do much, but the problem is that if, for example, you recommend that others make that kind of post too, eventually half of the TT comments could just have those stats. If it gets to that point, it really could drown things out for those wanting some explanations, since they would have to search for them as if it were a scavenger hunt :) That's why I feel like there is something inefficient about using the public comments section for personal statkeeping -- you have to assume that most people care about what total strangers :) are doing, enough so to be ok with the space it's taking up. But it's a pretty minor complaint, and I get your perspective too.
"its relative difficulty
its relative pass rate"
But one already has information about a problem's pass rate, and rating gives an idea of difficulty.
Good morning :)
Wow repac, #171 looks fantastic! So there is a page that has this information? I definitely want to see that! Thank you! That is very helpful :)
Disgruntled sheep, how did you manage quoting twice in a single comment(#172)? Haha You guys are showing me all sorts of tricks :)
Yes, language seems to be evolving faster and more fluidly these days due to the internet and texting and stuff. It seems to mean different things to different people. Look how fluidly I am using English! lol
And thank you for your kind words. I find you decent, too :)
I try to discipline myself and at least take a cursory look at the move I am about to play
Yes. I am having to calculate different lines now for more difficult puzzles (1700+ and up. I saw one 1800+ yesterday. It's like sighting an illusive animal. It's an incredible feeling. haha. And yes, I failed. haha)
The puzzles are no longer looking obvious at a glance or two. Before, not many problems required the aid of people's comments; - If I was confused, usually, studying the analysis board was enough. But now in some cases, even after the anaysis board, it still seems up in the air what is going on. And I think I will be looking for, and relying on people's helpful comments more and more :)
Learningthemoves, I saw your comments yesterday and once again, I was happy to see them. I would much rather see them than not see them :)
Thanks TonightAtSix. I enjoy seeing yours too. The ones you saw yesterday were from before the 31 day sacrifice to the TT gods. I still do the problems as before, but just keep my results to myself, so that the old cronies can feast on "easy peasy" comments and alternate lines from incorrect analyses that they prefer over the more meaningful reports of individual player statistics and results.
The only way anyone already has information about the difficulty of the problems or pass rate is from, once again, the statistics. Without the reporting of individual statistics however, it only comes from a nameless, faceless collective mass of an unseen pool of players.
When players post their individual results, it gives the training experience a more personal, human touch, which I do appreciate.
It appears the tall poppy syndrome has awakened the green eyed monster in some of our members who feel it's their forsworn duty to hammer down the nail that dare raises its head when so many other crabs remain at the bottom of the bucket, failing the problems.
you are doing it in a public place, and thinks it's more appropriate to do this sort of thing privately.
The usage of public space.............. hmmmm As I said, if there were stricter guidelines (about what you can say on TT), I would follow those rules and my personal opinions would not matter.
But until then, I still think the stats are fine. If I was looking for an analysis, the pages on TT are about 4pages long at most, so it is not hard to look for the analysis ones.
Some people come to the campus to head straight to the library and study their major, some people lie down on the grass and have a chat, some people are pulling pranks, some people are just contemplating the posters and stats hanging on the wall, etc and all of them together make up the community and the experience. People have different brains. Who is to say what is the right way and the only way to learn for everyone?
As I said, upto 1600+ I haven't had to look at people's analysis much. So I was "getting more" out of looking at familiar names and looking at stats than looking at people's analysis. Looking at familiar names motivated me and made it a happier experience to play chess than looking at people's analysis. I was actually skipping analysis. People may respond "That is why you are poor at chess. Because you are not studious enough." Well, I might be a kind of person who needs to go through this stage first to get to the next stage.
But if chess.com said, "Look, TT is a library situation, where you have to be very quiet and are only allowed to calculate different lines, I would respect that, too :)
it gives the training experience a more personal, human touch, which I do appreciate.
Learningthemoves, yes, I appreciate a more personal and human touch, too :)
When I was looking for a preschool for my son, I had two choices. One was famous for high academic standards, looked like a prison/industrial, and the teachers were scary and cold. The other school was not so academically geared (but still decent), had trees, a big playground with children running around, and there were lots of laughter and giggling:) I chose the latter for it's more personal and human touch :) You gotta be happy first to wanna learn anything IMO. One may answer "No you don't." Well, if you're not happy, what's the point of doing it?
In my defense for the stats -- What can I say? I like them. Some people do and some people don't it seems. And some people are saying "if you like them, do it privately" And I am answering, if chess.com tells me that, I would abide by that. Another question was raised "would I like to see pages and pages of stats?" And I said, I have seen something like that, and found it amusing. And it's not just the numbers. It's also who has what numbers. I think it's all very interesting :)
@nobodyreally, if you happen to look at this thread, since you have been kind to respond to this thread, may I respond to your thread from over here? lol (Why not come over there? I think I may put a damper on your lively party by being boring, so I don't want to be that nuisance. haha)
"Is it tough to be a girl on this site?"
The answer is "No." :) But it took me a while to figure that out .
Decline friend requests, decline group invitations, close private messaging, disable chat, block those you would not associate with and a girl's life on chess.com should be fine. (edit: I am talking here to you guys freely and this has been great :) Thank you, everyone :))
But if she has these channels accessible, it can quickly become very bad and very tough.
Good morning :)
Wow repac, #171 looks fantastic! So there is a page that has this information? I definitely want to see that! Thank you! That is very helpful :)
Yeah, that must suck not knowing it was there! It was always there, but ever since they changed the interface, some things that should be obvious are really hard to find. It took me a few years just to figure out how to access email with the new interface. It looks nicer overall, but it's so much harder to find things until you figure it out, which sucks.
"People have different brains. Who is to say what is the right way and the only way to learn for everyone?"
There are some purposes one can speculate about. I mean, I'm sure chess.com wouldn't recommend talking about your favorite cereal in a TT section simply because at the time you were solving a puzzle you were suddenly hungry for cereal. I mean, it's going to be hard to create a formal proof for where you draw the line for comments, but I don't blame people for getting a sense that a comment just doesn't belong, even if, inevitably, some people are bound to like it (since as you said everyone is different).
I believe the term spamming tactical training is meant as a metaphor like comparing it to the difficulty of trying to read your e-mails when your inbox is full of junk mail.