| 1:50 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think it's right just the way it is.
If URL's were to be allowed, the board would most likely be littered with spamming and promotions.
| 1:55 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am speaking on my behalf, and not as a moderator or representing WebmasterWorld in any way:
|Before you bring up the TOS argument, keep in mind 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. |
My understanding of a website terms of service is that it is a "soft contract" which you have to agree to in order for the website to provide you with some service.
If you don't agree with the TOS, fine. The website doesn't have to provide you a service.
Seems simple enough to me.
| 1:59 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
baked.... my point was no one reads them, not no one agrees to them. Everyone agrees to them just to signup or read the posts.
A moderator can moderate links that contain promotion or is in bad taste or not related to the topic.
| 2:00 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I posted a url (it did have my affiliate link in it...) |
|keep in mind no one gives a crap about anyones TOS agreement except for the site owner |
The TOS (which I have read) protects me from forum spammers littering the place with affiliate URLs: so I absolutely do care.
If you want to get banned and miss out on a genuinely valuable web resource, keep on spamming. You won't last long.
| 2:42 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|The TOS (which I have read) protects me from forum spammers littering the place with affiliate URLs: so I absolutely do care. |
The strict TOS are one of the good things about this forum and I think that as mature professionals* most of the people here will have read them. It can be a pain not being able to use a URL sometimes, but if your question needs a URL then surely it isnt the type of question that is dealt with here.
Just my opinion
Edit: *we're not all pros - i'm not, but we can all act maturely.
| 3:17 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I am speaking on my behalf, and not as a moderator or representing WebmasterWorld in any way: |
With the ammount of trafic this board gets, this policy really improves the signal to noise ratio. This board is for learning and sharing, and this is better done without all the noise self promotion brings along.
That is why I rarely go to "other places" anymore.
| 3:28 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It was a bit hard for me to get used to the idea here. But sense eventually happened (takes longer for some of us), and now I'd be put out if I had to look at every half-baked (no jake, that is NOT a sidewise dig at you!) url with which someone decided to self-advertise....
| 4:32 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Since I'm not a pro, this board is the best simply because I don't have to waste time wading through innumerable posts trying to divine which are spam and self promotion and which are actually useful. If I were a pro, I'd be even more grateful.
| 4:33 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Time once again to link to Brett's Professional Forum Spammers [webmasterworld.com] post where the WebmasterWorld philosophy is clearly spelled out.
| 5:11 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
One of the primary reasons I've made WebmasterWorld my home (much to the chagrin of some) is because self-promotional and affiliate URLs are NOT allowed here. I have to wade through enough of them when I'm doing research on other websites and I'm quite happy not to have them here.
That being said, URLs to useful information have been allowed though moderators do differ somewhat on what they consider useful.
| 5:16 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I know that I read the TOS before I decided to join. If I give someone my email address and money, you can be sure I will be informed as to the particulars of the service.
The particular wording of the TOS is a substantial part of why I joined within a week of first visiting. The integrity of webmasterworld is what makes it stand out from other forums, SEO forums or otherwise.
| 5:42 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|If you don't agree with the TOS, fine. The website doesn't have to provide you a service. |
That's the bottom line. If people don't like the rules, you don't have to visit here.
I suggest you try an experiment... Be active participants on WebmasterWorld and a board of similar concept (but allows URL posting). See how much and how fast you learn here, as opposed to the other guy.
WebmasterWorld is the best thing since Philadelphia Cream Cheese.
| 6:39 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My 2 cents:
A less uptight attitude towards posting URLs would benefit the community as a whole.
Abuse has to moderated and that is why Brett has appointed moderators. URL posting would not change that and would probably not increase the burden on moderators beyond what is manageable. The benefit of not having to cloak vital information such as URLs in messages can not be underestimated.
| 6:46 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
An interesting thing i noticed in your discussion title... "all the other sem/seo forums". If you know so many then why do you chose to come and stay at WW? It is probably because this is a clean site with quality info, which would be ruined by lots of links.
Also, I don't think there is a suitable middle ground for allowing URLs. Either all or none should be allowed and i know on which side i fall. It would be rediculous to expect moderators to visit every single URL posted and then evaluate whether they thought the intention was for self promotion or what.
"If it ain't broke don't fix it" is a saying I like. And this forum is far from broken, quite the contrary. So I think they are fine as they are.
My two pence
| 6:50 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Abuse has to moderated and that is why Brett has appointed moderators. URL posting would not change that and would probably not increase the burden on moderators beyond what is manageable |
| 8:02 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I agree with most of the posts here. It's nice here because there is true quality content, not just a bunch of people seeking self promotion.
| 11:21 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Just so no one misunderstands, there are some kinds of links that we not only allow, we absolutely thrive on them:
1. YES - Authoritative educational material - sites such as the W3C, Microsoft, Apache, search engine guidelines, Mozilla.org, and Standards documents. These are lots more helpful than posting non-standard "cowboy code" opinions and guesswork. Bad information will live on, and be read for years and years, so we like to avoid it as much as possible.
2. YES - Timely authoritative and credible news stories - sites such as: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, PCWorld, Wired, The BBC, CNN, NBC (cbs,abc...etc).
So what's out? Here are some guidelines, as I currently understand them (Brett may want to edit me, but I'll give it go.) These URLs are generally not allowed:
1. NO - Blogs, Forums, and Usenet - these are too full of opinion, agenda, and spin rather than dependable information
2. NO - Sites whose main purpose is to sell something
3. NO - Affiliate sites or links with affiliate code
4. NO - Unlinked urls -- if it's a genuinely "good" url, then it should be a REAL link
And yes, as noted above, moderators do exercise juudgement and there can be quite some latitude allowed in some of our forums compared to others. This is not really a double standard, it's a way of being human and acknowledging that some topical areas have different needs than others.
| 11:26 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I guess one of the things I TRULY value herein is the LACK of "spin doctoring" that goes on here. There are some places out there where practically nothing of what you read has even a tiny particle of truth to it. I spent a lot of time on places like that before I was directed here. A lot of WASTED time....
| 8:10 pm on Oct 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
No URLS, its no an advertising site, i myself have posted what I considered to be innocent links to sites of interest only to have them deleted.
They is da rules.
| 1:12 am on Oct 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> URL posting would not change that and
> would probably not increase the burden
> on moderators beyond what is manageable.
I just deleted 8 posts by a well know member of affiliate boards. The posts were nothing but lost leaders to articles that were laced with aff ids.
q's: How long would it take for people to read those 8 posts? How many would click through to the his site? How many wouldn't realize that those were bought-n-paid for links? How many would not realize that they had just read spam?
a's: about 50% of the people that read them.
very interesting thread...thanks.
| 3:49 am on Oct 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
And - ask any mod - I guarantee that at least 90% of us have had links deleted from our own posts!
Haven't been guilty of it since 2002, but was guilty of it once back then. Consider having your post edited a right of passage - something that helps us all learn & be reminded of the rules.
| 6:11 am on Oct 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
One time I had a link I put in broken (h**p://) and a mod fixed to properly link out ...
| 12:44 pm on Oct 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> at least 90% of us have had links deleted
> from our own posts!
I've been edited several times. Once I was even edited for dropping a link to my bio page on webmasterworld (1).
1 (this is not a joke)
> One time I had a link I put in broken
Ya, we can't have unlinked urls (it can -- and did -- lead to serious spam like adult stuff)
| 12:54 pm on Oct 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Once I was even edited for dropping a link to my bio page on webmasterworld. |
Brett, is that mod now banished from WebmasterWorld? :)
| 3:12 pm on Oct 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|WebmasterWorld is the best thing since Philadelphia Cream Cheese |
I agree. lol
| 9:14 pm on Oct 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I edited BT as a joke once. It was an obvious joke and he let me live.
In Foo I have edited mods from other forums.
I don't edit other Foo mods' Foo posts.
I don't edited admins.
I have been edited in the past and expect to be edited in the future.
| 1:21 pm on Oct 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You forgot to mention that links with the word "gizmo" in the URL are allowed.
| 2:05 pm on Oct 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The tos here is something that I care about ...
I've been "edited" and probably will be so again ( but never for URL drop to myself )...
And I'll leave it at that ..cos if I really said exactly what I think of the first post( posters sentiments )in this thread ..Every mod and admin here would be reaching for the button and I'd get a "language" ban ..
| 5:46 pm on Oct 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I posted a url (it did have my affiliate link in it....) and a moderator deleted |
Someone complaining that we don't allow him to spam us. And he's getting serious replies, including from mods. Incredible! :)
| This 41 message thread spans 2 pages: 41 (  2 ) > > |