The original reply included no links and it provided concrete openHAB specific information which was as far as I can tell relevant to this thread. The “transparency” statement could be seen as giving support to why you can trust the information provided (i.e. the poster has solved this exact problem on a different system).
Just because the poster works for/with a commercial product doesn’t automatically make anything they post spam, particularly when any potential conflict of interest is disclosed up front and there is no sales pitch.
The only reason any links or sales type suff were posted at all is because you asked for them. If the second reply where the first post, yes, that would be spam. But it wasn’t and it was responding to your own request.
There is just no angle I can see that makes this spam.
Well, the first post was from a new user, 10 month after last post of the thread, and the information was, well, genuine ultimately. Not really useful. Saying this as a thread contributor I was.
Then the first and topmost thing you see if you open the page is a sales start countdown. Ugh.
But you took the moderation on this so you decide that’s why I pinged you rather than override your decision.
It’s the “genuine ultimately” part that wins out. I defintiely do not want to have to start policing the quality of the posts. If it’s openHAB relevant, relevant to the thread, and doesn’t contain links there really has to be something blatant and obvious before I’ll call it spam (e.g. abrupt change of subject to try and sell soemthing).
This may mean some spam may slip by but I’d rather a little bit of spam than blocking legitimate posts by mistake.
