Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 3.80.4.76

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

Posting of URLs

A tip that could help moderators

     
11:31 am on Jun 3, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member beedeedubbleu is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 3, 2004
posts:6141
votes: 24


On a daily basis moderators have to examplify URLs posted by new members of this forum. Clearly the majority of new contributors do not take time to read the guidelines. This is understandable since they are generally posting about a problem and they are more interested in getting a fix than reading the forum rules. It must be a real PITA for the moderators to have to do this all the time.

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.

6:27 pm on June 3, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member lawman is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:May 28, 2001
posts:3615
votes: 75


Why not also add in red "no flaming", "no trolling", "no spamming" and "no politics""?

Why not? Because then mods would be out of work. :)

If it were only that easy

6:53 pm on June 3, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:Nov 12, 2005
posts:5967
votes: 0


>> "No URLS permitted"

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 :)

5:11 am on June 4, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member marcia is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 29, 2000
posts:12095
votes: 0


Or try to hide the fact that it's a link by not making it a clickable link.

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"

7:07 am on June 4, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member beedeedubbleu is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 3, 2004
posts: 6141
votes: 24


Oh well - only trying to help.
11:23 am on June 4, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member lawman is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:May 28, 2001
posts:3615
votes: 75


I know you were. Really appreciate your thought process. Sometimes the wiseacre in me comes out. :)

Cheers.

7:33 am on June 5, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member marcia is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 29, 2000
posts:12095
votes: 0


There are some very simple, partial remedies to these occurrences that would cut down on them a lot, as well as help to avoid some issues that happen even with not_so_newbie members. Not to mention that they'd avoid irritating certain members on a continuing basis.

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.

8:50 am on June 5, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member marcia is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 29, 2000
posts:12095
votes: 0


>>Why not? Because then mods would be out of work

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]

10:37 pm on June 5, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member marcia is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 29, 2000
posts:12095
votes: 0


Here's a Google search [google.com] with 5,880 results returned. On some (most?), anyone looking wouldn't have a clue why - and many could very likely do the same thing. Your guess is as good as mine what most of those are for.

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.

12:00 am on June 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member lawman is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:May 28, 2001
posts:3615
votes: 75


<sheepishly> Point taken. </sheepishly>
8:48 am on June 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member beedeedubbleu is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 3, 2004
posts:6141
votes: 24


The fact is that urls are permitted.

OK. Let's make my warning, "No URLS permitted (see [webmasterworld.com...] #13."

1:40 pm on June 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 15, 2004
posts:1867
votes: 0


That says no promotional URLs.
>> Please do not drop promotional urls

You can still use educational URLs.

Moderators?

Hab

3:03 pm on June 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Administrator

WebmasterWorld Administrator jatar_k is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:July 24, 2001
posts:15756
votes: 0


well, the truth is that we only allow authoritative urls

the definition of authoritative is a bit difficult but that is the line we draw

10:16 pm on June 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

Administrator

WebmasterWorld Administrator phranque is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 10, 2004
posts:11824
votes: 238


just to fix the url in BeeDeeDubbleU's post:
No URLS permitted (see http://www.webmasterworld.com/help.cgi?cat=tos [webmasterworld.com]) #13.
10:23 pm on June 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

Administrator

WebmasterWorld Administrator phranque is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 10, 2004
posts:11824
votes: 238


well, the truth is that we only allow authoritative urls

the 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.

3:55 am on June 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

Administrator

WebmasterWorld Administrator jatar_k is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:July 24, 2001
posts:15756
votes: 0


just because you are the only one to have a site for something doesn't make you an authority

could just make you good at identifying niches

and then throwing ads on it ;)

9:38 pm on June 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

Administrator

WebmasterWorld Administrator phranque is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 10, 2004
posts:11824
votes: 238


it wasn't my site so i had nothing to gain.
it was 100% entertainment value and 0% commercial.
i think it had exactly as many ads as this site has on it - not exactly MFA...
1:33 am on June 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Administrator

WebmasterWorld Administrator jatar_k is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:July 24, 2001
posts:15756
votes: 0


I apologize as it does read as if I was saying you personally phranque

I just meant you in the general sense, as in the person who made the site

 

Join The Conversation

Moderators and Top Contributors

Hot Threads This Week

Featured Threads

Free SEO Tools

Hire Expert Members