Forum Moderators: open
For instance, i just happened to notice a situation where entering "www" as part of the url made a HUGE difference in a page rank on google. It wasn't any of my sites, but a "friendly" site who had been gracious enough to give us a back link. I was just checking to see if it was Google ranked at four or above.
Because I didn't post the actual URL, the responses have been a little off the mark.
As a certified "do gooder" and spam HATER, I feel like bait amongst the sharks in these waters, sometimes. I want to be a good community member. I want to give and get quality, relevant feedback, but I don't want to get pounded by the mods or the canned pork product.
Sometimes, I get he creeping feeling that an awful lot of the forum members are from the - ahem "adult" areas of the net... or worse. A few days ago MSNBC and busnessweek ran a big "expose" of the Dark side of the net. As a long time Netizen ( I helped start a "freenet" in the early Nineties) I get dismayed to see what a gnarly place the ‘net has become.
I don't wanna enable those folks, even but getting suckered in one of these forums. I just read the thread on Professional Forum Spammers- sheesh. Now THAT'S low!
My how I do prattle on...
Because I didn't post the actual URL, the responses have been a little off the mark.
Thats why you should use your profile for your urls. They are fine in there. The problem we have is site reviews. It takes a lot of work for the administrators and mods to prevent promotion. There would be thousands of people who would want to a review only to get people to their site. Forums that allow url dropping end up becoming just a place to get link pop. You probably found and registered at this forum because the members are so knowledgable. Those members wouldn't stay if there was too much noise.
Sometimes, I get he creeping feeling that an awful lot of the forum members are from the - ahem "adult" areas of the net... or worse. A few days ago MSNBC and busnessweek ran a big "expose" of the Dark side of the net. As a long time Netizen ( I helped start a "freenet" in the early Nineties) I get dismayed to see what a gnarly place the ‘net has become.
There really is a nice mix of webmasters here. Yes there are some adult webmasters, but there are many nonprofits. Many here are search engine optimizers and web site developers. The melting pot of backgrounds gives the forums different views. It allows all of the members to grow their knowledge of the Internet.
If you read of the Terms of Service [webmasterworld.com] you will see adult language and sites are forbidden. We don't judge people here. If you contribute to the community and follow the rules then you are excepted. No matter what background, race, creed, color, nationality, or interests. I hope you stay and contribute to help WebmasterWorld grow and become more worth while to all of us.
Many adult webmasters are coming here to deversify into e-commerce. Many find e-commerce is the way to go these days.
Added:
And some folks sell shoes ;)
[edited by: Mike_Mackin at 2:01 pm (utc) on Sep. 4, 2002]
Sometimes, I get he creeping feeling that an awful lot of the forum members are from the - ahem "adult" areas of the net...
Welcome to WebmasterWorld! I have no idea why you feel that way - especially after just three days as a member. Perhaps you've been lurking?
At any rate, you may want to read Paynt's Welcome Post [webmasterworld.com]. It may give you some answers to your questions about site protocol.
I think contrary to the "dark side" of the web that you refer to, you will find this to be a friendly place.
I have no feedback on specific professions of the membership, we occasionally pull little tidbits of personal details out through foo, but I do know that as mentioned already this is a very thoughtful and giving community unlike any other I’ve every experienced.
This is a great opportunity for us to again point out as suggested both the welcome letter and the TOS.
In fact, I have got to start doing abetter job of bookmarking the relevant stuff. There was a great post on using advanced features of google and I already forgot how it works and where it was posted.
This is a SPRAWLING community! 250 K posts-whew.
And I've updated my member profile. We'll see what happens....
Yes, I'm sad to say that WebmasterWorld is populated by the lowest of the low -travel, real estate, music, and that despicable telcom crowd. Heh! welcome to the forums, politicsandlabor.
One advantage of not allowing urls is that the folk who come here just to spam become quickly frustrated and take off. This leaves more valid contributions. The remaining memebers are here for a good reason.
The varied backgrounds, even the dark side, and discussing in general terms allow a more varied contribution because people aren't prejudged based on their business. (like those real estate promoters) ;)
(I've read the two posts that were cited.) I was going to mention a site that I don't create (don't have anything to do with, in fact) just becuase they gave one of my sites a friendly back link. I entered their URL into Google with "www" and it gets a PR of 5. Enter it without the "www" and it gets page rank 0. Now, if I mention their actual URl- that's URL dropping and is forbidden? Hmmmn...
Or I wanted to cite another example of where Google's reliance on PR actually defeats relevant search results sometimes (the first page of results for "the site I want" is filed with directories or indexes, while "the_site_I_want.com" is buried on the second page.
Although I understand the problem, the solution seems a little Draconian....
Oh well, I want to be like my kindergardener- "Plays well and gets along with others."
As far as being somewhat draconian, the amount people attempt to spam the board makes this necessary.
give an inch and they take a mile.
Regarding the parallel with our Terms of Service:
"Plays well and gets along with others."
That's about the extent of it, though not all necessarily have to get along with or agree with others, they just have to give the same respectful treatment they'd like to get from others when they exercise their posting privileges.
Yes, we do have the full spectrum of webmasters and promoters here, all the way from some who develop sites for local congregations and parishes on to adult webmasters, who may well be the very ones who help the former build and promote a better congregational or non-profit site.
We offer anonymity here, and from my humble perspective, within the context of this community there is no dark side or light side. Only members.
There's no competency condition for membership, no ethical or moral judgments, standards or criteria applied, no intelligence tests no experiential requirements. All are welcome and partake of membership on an equal footing, the only requirement being adherence to the very simple TOS.
As far as editing is concerned, editing for URL drops does not necessarily constitute the majority of the editing that's required, or take up most of the time - and of those, as has been mentioned, they can be for any number of reasons, some innocent but most not.
Whichever they are, however, every potential edit, even the ones that no one is ever aware happen, takes time in terms of man-hours expended to check out and evaluate in order to be able to make a judgment call. If there were no basic foundational principles set out on which to make those judgments it would be an unmanageable chaos.
It's impossible to even begin to envision the number of possible scenarios. It is not impossible for some to operate in non-profit, religious or low dollar sectors to build link pop and Page Rank for the purpose of using it in cross-promoting their own sites in the high dollar sectors. It's done all the time.
Someone might be posting for the purpose of reporting what they consider "spam" in the guise of it being their site, or having a site in that category, and it may well be that the very individual they're trying to bring down is the one who shared the exact information they needed that benefitted them in their work and put food on their table for a month.
Each edit takes an individual evaluation and judgment call; it just makes it much simpler and more efficient to operate with broad limitations, to avoid a volume of what would amount to the equivalent of the editorial reviews done for directory submissions. We could end up with a long queue of unreviewed URL drops or requests for site reviews -- unless we moved over to a Yahoo model.
The list could go on ad infinitum. But the bottom line is that the posting conventions are established on the basis of what's good for the entire membership as a whole by best serving the needs of the majority.
All of the sites that I develop are not for profits of one sort or another. I have NO desire to use this wonderful resource to promote ANYTHING. But when I ask about a technical issue, it seems like posting the example page URL would be really helpful. But I am LOATHE to get any sites plastered by the spammers and I don't want to commit a forum faux pas. (especially not an "aggravated felony!")
Thanks for the consideration and understanding that this is a community of promoters. Products, services, and sites to promote by the bushel full. The only way that can possibly work in that environment is by not allowing people to promote their wares directly or indirectly. If we make an exception for one, we'd have to make an exception for all. With 4000 members logging in daily, that represents (best guess) about 100,000 domains in our direct control. Imagine if posting urls were welcome in that environment - welcome to spam city. We have tried before and within 24hours thousands of urls were dropped - it almost destroyed the community.
We get spam in the inbox, spam on the web, spam on tv, spam on the fax, spam on the phone, spam in the mailbox, spam on the highway, spam on the radio, and in every form of communication you can think of.
We want a place where we can assist people to run their businesses and sites more effectively. We do not want to be here to _do_ business - this is neutral high ground.
Because I didn't post the actual URL, the responses have been a little off the mark.
I agree it makes the members put a bit more forethought into their questions and how to ask them. That in turn forces you to become a better web communicator.
Sometimes, I get he creeping feeling that an awful lot of the forum members are from the - ahem "adult" areas of the net... or worse.
We have people from all walks of the web. From corporate cubicles promoting worldwide products to grandmas selling their quilts. I can't think of any one sector we are top heavy in. Even those topics that float to the top at times are minor compared to the overall membership.
I just read the thread on Professional Forum Spammers-
Agreed. That's why we decided the only long term approach is the one we have agreed upon and to remain independent. We don't allow advertising on the site and are free of any back scratching influences. We never have and never will take PAC money ;-)
