Anyone know what is going in here, time to complete, and current condition?

I'll blog about it tomorrow ....

Is this the place where that kid was trying to do some art gallery thing?

I'll answer my own question:
http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-are...na-lounge.html

But I would like to hear an update on progress.

on the forum.... not on a commercial blog.

Come on... Steve does a lot of nice research. The least you could do is send a little traffic to his blog. A symbiotic relationship, if you will.

Steve didn't take the time to answer my question when it amounted to essentially a two word response - Iguana Lounge. Instead he was thinking of his own ends - increasing blog readership. If he had said "Iguana Lounge - come to my blog tomorrow for more details". He would have helped me out and I would have visited his blog, quid pro quo - symbiotic relationship - whatever. Or if he would have said absolutely nothing, I would have had no problem either.

Steve has a habit in his blog of taking discussion content from this forum and using it in his commercial blog. Now what is posted on this forum is public, so whatever. However, I get a bit more snarky when he takes from the forum and does not contribute back to the forum. What if on every thread I posted a reply -- "oh come to my blog and I'll have a response for you". It would defeat the purpose of the forum. In this case, it feels even worse because it is a blog sponsored by a big publishing company.

To be honest, I'm simply just trying to get my blog ranked higher than Matthew Price's nerd blog. Sorry if I offended.

Iguana Lounge is no longer going in that building, there going in over on 9th street. They are looking for a new retail/restaurant tenant for that space, unless Steve knows something I don't.

Nope, that's exactly what I have in my ... oh, never mind.

That is exactly the problem.

Remember that list of forum policies you agreed to when you registered? Let me refresh your memory:

"Any posts promoting a website similar in nature to OKCTalk or in direct competition with OKCTalk will be removed. A special note to website owners/administrators: any attempt to use OKCTalk to funnel members to your site is strictly prohibited, unless permission is granted otherwise."

You are abusing OKCTalk by not participating in the community.

Could you point me to the list of ethical guidelines that you follow as an employee for the Oklahoman? Is it different for your articles in press and on the blog? Is your blog edited? Are the sources checked?

Fine - A few words would have sufficed and saved me the time of digging (unsuccessfully on my own) - something along the lines of "Iguana Lounge was going in there, but no longer. No plans as of yet for this space.".

funny you should bring up the tos, okccrime. allow me re-introduce you to your first post on okctalk...

pot, meet kettle. -M

Interestingly, without the contributions of Mr. Lackmeyer in the form of his wonderful reporting almost daily in the Oklahoman, most of you wouldn't really have anything to talk about here on OKCTalk.

How many threads here start with a quote, a copy-paste, or a link to a Lackmeyer article? And how often does Steve include a link to okctalk.com on his blog- even mentioning the website, and others, in his printed articles?

That's what I thought.

Exactly. That is all that needs to be said.

Well said, Shane.

I very much appreciate everything Steve has added to OKCTalk, and I believe I speak with 99% of the people on this forum. Who the hell cares if he promotes his blog? It's a great blog and the more people that read it the more informed we will all be in our discussions.

Sorry, but you just can't cast Steve and I of the same iron. I'll gladly address my own participation on this site before I address Steve Lackmeyer's participation. Hopefully you will be able to see the difference and revise your quick quip. However, even if you still think I am guilty of the same or similar inappropriate usage of the OKCTalk, that doesn't excuse Steve.

In the thread that you quote, I introduced my personal website and asked for feedback on the service that I was offering. The service is free and I wasn't paid to create the site. The site was setup to scratch my own itch as a new OKC resident looking to buy a house in a safe neighborhood. I also have a personal interest in crime statistics. I felt it appropriate to post a request for comments on the site because the website isn't "similar in nature to OKCTalk or in direct competition with OKCTalk". There is no chance that my website would draw users away from participation in the OKCTalk community. I was looking for some feedback on the site design and usefulness.

Since joining OKCTalk, I have tried hard to participate in this community. If you look at my posting log, you will see that I have participated by posting helpful replies and starting discussion threads. I've already posted 232 times in 7 months and started 25 threads on various topics. I have done nothing to draw people away from this community. I have only helped to build it.

Steve is employed by the Oklahoman and writes about downtown issues in the Oklahoman newspaper. As Shane453 points out, some users (not I) inappropriately and potentially illegally repost Steve's copyrighted work onto this forum in order to start discussions. Many people find Steve's articles valuable. I am not contesting the value of Steve's articles. In any case, I suspect that Steve is aware of this practice and appreciates the added visibility with respect to his page rankings. Contrary to Shane453's opinion, discussion on this site would still continue without this practice.

While the topics of Steve's articles from the Oklahoman are discussed on this site, Steve has not contributed significantly to this site through his participation. Steve has been an OKCTalk user since 2004, posted only 150 times and started only 11 threads. In fact, Steve uses this website largely for his own benefit, to promote himself and his employing organization. With a few exceptions, Steve's contributed threads are written with the explicit aim to promote an offsite article, e.g., on his website or blog, and to ask questions that generate content that he can uses for his commercial blog. I'll give you some examples. He used OKCTalkers when he asked about "downtown's five worst eyesores?" and then compiled the answers for a blog entry. He neither warned OKCTalk users nor asked permission of them. In another instance, Steve cherry picked content from a thread in which he didn't participate for direct use in use in his blog. Finally, in this thread, he refused to do me the kindness of answering a simple question, and instead asked me to wait a day for a blog post that he would write. I suspect that he got the idea for the blog post from my question. These are examples of using the community and not participating in it.

Steve is a print journalist, but because it is part of his job, he also earns money for his blogging. His blog is branded by NewsOK.com. It is commercial. Steve's blog is "similar in nature to OKCTalk or in direct competition with OKCTalk". Steve's blog allows for users to post comments and the topics that are covered are similar. You can think of his blog as being the same thing an OKCTalk thread, one over which he personally controls. His promotion of his blog in his posts violates the forum policy.

But mecarr asks "Who the hell cares if he promotes his blog?".

Not me. Really. It's in the forum policies, but It's no sweat off my back if we want to change the policy. I'm much more irked about Steve's lack of simple courtesy, admitted shameless self-promotion, and lack of participation in the community.

okccrime,

first, we didn't have a problem with you posting your site and we're not calling into question your subsequent participation on the site.

second, okctalk has permission to repost articles from the oklahoman and the journal record as long as the article is cited and credited. that, however, does not diminish the debt of thanks owed to the authors of such articles. i don't think that a little reciprocity to one of those authors is out of order.

third, participation. i don't want to speak for steve, but i can say that i would keep my online interaction at a minimum if my comments could be construed as the official position of a public-facing company.

fourth, okctalk doesn't see such a blog as competition. we don't see it as being exploitingly linked to, just as we didn't feel that your link was exploitation of this site. furthermore, steve gave okctalk the courtesy of asking permission before ever posting a link to his site... just because questions such as yours might arise.

last, lighten up. that's fine if you feel that steve was discourteous to your question. i don't think that was his intention, but discuss that... but don't start some diatribe about forum policy and participation when that's really not at the heart of the matter. sheesh.

-M

Participation, or lack thereof, is exactly what is at the heart of the matter. Steve's participation is derivative not contributive. His post on this thread was a single exemplar that lead to my... diatribe, as you say. What I hear from you is that you are fine with his behavior because of his willingness to have his written content reposted on this site - reciprocity.

May I suggest that instead of having Steve insert purely promotion links to his blog in OKCTalk threads, that you offer him an advertisement banner. The admitted function of his posts are for self promotion. In this way, Steve doesn't have to participate on the forum and run the risk of his comments being construed as the official position of a public-facing company, or running afoul of any ethical conflicts of interest. A clearer distinction between the cross promotion of OKCCentral/OKCTalk, and personal non-commercial discussion in threads would avoid this type of issue arising in the future.

your suggestion is noted. -M

Yeah, Thanks.

We have an understanding with the Oklahoman (as well as the Journal Record and OKC Business) that allows their copyrighted material to appear here, as long as it is clearly referenced.


And I strongly disagree that Steve doesn't contribute here. He's provided information many times, it's just usually succinct.


As the owner of this site, I have no issues with him linking his blog and if I did, it's my responsibility (and that of the moderators) to deal with it. I suggest you (OKCCrime) allow us to handle these things and if you have any future issues to send one of us a message rather than posting it on the site.

Yes, I understand. A suggestion. It is not uncommon practice to simply add "Reprinted with permission" to make this fact clear.

You'll notice I didn't start this. I only explained my views once provoked by other users (and moderators). I'm more than happy to let this thread die the death it should. I think Steve will get the point by what has already been said.

Crime, get off Steve's nuts. Right?