Forum Moderators: open
Would it not help if (on the new discussion window) the fact that this was not allowed was more prominently displayed. Perhaps the text "No URLS permitted" could be placed above the message body window in red, or even placed in the window as the initial value? This would mean that contributors would have to delete it and hence be forced to acknowledge it.
Why not? Because then mods would be out of work. :)
If it were only that easy
The fact is that urls are permitted. Whether or not a link stays is up to the mods of that forum. You can't just say no urls, and to be more specifics as to what isn't allowed would be much longer, and actually resemble the terms of service. Not to mention those who have read the rules and still don't abide by them :)
Like " Check out my-friends-brand-new-blog-that-went-up-yesterday.com/get-rich-made-easy.html" or "I get top rankings with software-that-uses-forum-whisper-campaigns-with-thousands-of-name-drops.com"
Cheers.
I'll post it when I can think of a nice way to say it, which is not always an easy thing for some people to do when being candid.
If some mods would be a little clearer in edit reasons (and polite, thank you), that could save work by people seeing and not doing the same thing without having a clue. Not everyone has the TOS memorized, even if they did read it - how long ago would that be for people who joined a while back?
Simply putting TOS#732 doesn't cut it, it doesn't mean a thing to the dozens of people who come along who aren't about to go researching to see what it was for. Not only URLs, there are other things that get edited for as well. Really? How is someone who comes along supposed to know what they're not supposed to do.
And TOS is even more useless, not to mention being arrogant and offensive. And it's possibly embarrassing for the poster and a turn-off to others who don't want to "accidentally" take a chance on being next.
What's wrong with "No sigs, please" or "No email quotes, please" It makes for a lot less mind-reading for members - and notice that in forums where some reason is clearly given there end up being less edits.
There, that's as nice as I can say it without having to say that I haven't seen anyone lately with the title "Monarch of this forum" by their handle.
Addendum:
I haven't read forum charters lately, but they've usually been short, sweet and to the point in plain English. URLs being OK if they're a certain type could easily be explained very briefly and simply in a forum charter, and the edit reason be "Please see forum charter re: URLs."
Something like that, when it seems necessary (probably not often), is polite (not authoritarian and obnoxious) and is giving the reason for all to see, and is also a reminder that there's a forum charter to read, for those who may have missed it.
[edited by: Marcia at 9:25 am (utc) on June 5, 2007]
Sure, I know it might take a few seconds more, but with a bit of clarity there would probably be only a fraction of the 5,880 which would SAVE time.
The fact is that urls are permitted.
OK. Let's make my warning, "No URLS permitted (see [webmasterworld.com...] #13."
You can still use educational URLs.
Moderators?
Hab
the definition of authoritative is a bit difficult but that is the line we draw
well, the truth is that we only allow authoritative urlsthe definition of authoritative is a bit difficult but that is the line we draw
it's not only the authority of the url but the subject as well that matters here.
i have had posts edited when i cited the "only" ( = most authoritative, no? ) url available on the subject matter.
could just make you good at identifying niches
and then throwing ads on it ;)
I just meant you in the general sense, as in the person who made the site
