Forum Moderators: open
I posted a url (it did have my affiliate link in it, which I know is agaisn't some TOS agreements on some boards) and a moderator deleted and told me we cannot post URLS and gave me a warning which included "do not waste me time". Which is another argument right there. If he is the moderator, then he should have time, or give up the job.
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. They want to get to the posts not read a TOS agreement. Also I have subscribed to hundreds of boards, I did not read or memorize any of them. But I do know one thing, most of them let you post URLS. So why would I even think that it would be agaisn't a sites TOS if I came accross this one after signing up months ago.
Anyways, this is just my 2 cents, no need to get crazy on me.
If URL's were to be allowed, the board would most likely be littered with spamming and promotions.
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.
A moderator can moderate links that contain promotion or is in bad taste or not related to the topic.
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.
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
Cheers
Richard
Edit: *we're not all pros - i'm not, but we can all act maturely.
I am speaking on my behalf, and not as a moderator or representing WebmasterWorld in any way:
Same here.
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.
That being said, URLs to useful information have been allowed though moderators do differ somewhat on what they consider useful.
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.
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.
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.
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
Cheers
Richard
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
That's funny.
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.
They is da rules.
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.
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.
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)
Once I was even edited for dropping a link to my bio page on webmasterworld.
Brett, is that mod now banished from WebmasterWorld? :)
WebmasterWorld is the best thing since Philadelphia Cream Cheese
I agree. lol
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.
lawman
You forgot to mention that links with the word "gizmo" in the URL are allowed.
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 ..
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! :)
