| 6:35 pm on Oct 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Someone complaining that we don't allow him to spam us. And he's getting serious replies, including from mods. Incredible! |
I see two options with this thread.
1. Delete it and see people complain of 'censorship'.
2. Give real answers, and when someone else URL drops in the future - we'll have a good thread to point them to as to why it's against the TOS.
I'd rather see one thread live so that other's like it don't have to be started.
eWhisper <--likes just linking to relevant threads instead of repeating self.
| 8:51 pm on Oct 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So far no one has mentioned another top reason for the no URL rule, which is the hope that at least some of the better WebmasterWorld threads will live on in posterity and continue to educate.
I can't tell you how many times I've searched G for some info, clicked through to a post on another forum, only to find that in order to see what the poster is describing, you have to click the link, then you click the link and get a 404 page! A thread that will help others only so long as you keep your free yahoo personals page active isn't much use.
Not to mention that most URLed posts are noticably lacking in descriptive content. Posts on other forums literally read...
"Can't get my menu right. The blue overlaps the red in #menubar. Can you fix it?"
...followed by a URL. Even if the link WORKS, that's a not exactly the smartest way to ask for help. Forum members aren't on your payroll. If you want help, give them the information they'll need to help you.
Long live the TOS!
| 9:03 pm on Oct 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Someone complaining that we don't allow him to spam us. And he's getting serious replies, including from mods. Incredible! :) |
As a relatively new poster and lurker here, I really appreciate that this thread is here, and I appreciate the serious replies.
When I saw the TOS, I wondered about the link thing, thought "it probably just has to do with spamming" and moved on. But it's nice to come across some serious and well-thought-out rationale to confirm it.
| 4:22 am on Nov 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
A slightly looser TOS on this issue would be nice. I'd like to be able to ask 'what are you using for software' and get real links to sites selling software. I can see how that would be hard to police, but still...
I've got a forum where I encourage *on topic* commercial postings. If it's a decent product, people will note it. If it's garbage, the community proceeds to feed on their bones like piranha on a wounded cow. It works.
Another example would have been flights to vegas. I'd like nothing better than to have a thread where I can shop from all the travel affiliates to find the cheapest flight.
But, you can't have everything - I suspect in this case the cure would be worse than the disease.
| 6:21 am on Nov 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
During the Florida debacle I posted links (to my own sites) that were allowed to stand as well as to google searches that clearly (IMO) showed the problems that existed even though they may have pointed out spammy sites. I think this helped with the understanding of the situation and was grateful that they were allowed to stand. Other times i have had them axed as they probably should have been.
Another thing you have to understand is that not every one here is who they say they are. Suppose you drop a link to your site and a week later Adsense cancels your program because of invalid clicks. Are you gonna come looking for Brett? Suppose you drop your competitors URL and his/her site is banned from Google a week later. Where does WW stand there. There has to be some sort of self preservation on the part of Webmasterworld and the no url's thing is just part of the way they insure it will be here tomorrow. I appreciate it even if it sometimes is hard to work around.
| 4:55 am on Nov 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Another reason that URL postings are less necessary for this forum than any other is that we ought to be the most competent at finding the resources for ourself. :)
I know most of time I just need to be pointed in the right direction, which is easier and faster than asking someone else to go find the exact URL.
| 7:05 am on Nov 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
and if 'push comes to shove', there's always private messages. You can still get the url if you really want it. Just ask privately.(not always applicable)
| 2:28 pm on Nov 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Tedster gave a great roundup of What is OUT for links, let me give what is IN:
- Authoritative links. We want to link to the W3C on matters of html and do not want to link to Joes-Easy-Site-Clinic.com for a tutorial.
- Manufacturer links. Similar to the first one, but we want to link to Microsoft for words about IE and to Intel about Pentiums.
- Highly respected News Sites. We want to link to CNN and AP news stories, and not to Mickies blog and forum.
- Ground breaking news or research articles on respected sites.
- Non duplicated links. We often get 3-4 stories on the same issue. Some times even the author will drop the link. We want 1 quality link to start the story.
| 8:41 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Nah we have the right balance here
| 6:20 am on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
no one gives a crap about anyones TOS agreement except for the site owner and no one is going to read it escpecially webmasters who have seen them all before.
Whoo-hoo, I'm a someone because I
1) give a crap
2) read it
This is one of the things that separates this forum from all the others. It's not about self-serving here, but about serving the best.
<aside> No progress today </aside>
| 3:11 pm on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
worst thing about WebmasterWorld forum: no link dropping allowed.
best thing about WebmasterWorld forum: no link dropping allowed.
I'd say there's magic in that aspect of this forum. And not since I am not a master magician or a wizard with divine powers, I know better than to mess with magic.
| This 41 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 41 ( 1  ) |