Forum Moderators: open
The issue at hand is our policy on not allowing links to blogs. The main issue is that of trust and accuracy. While blogs can provide incredible vehicles to staying informed, they also pose a risk of misinforming us. The following covers some of those issues - a few more as well - and we'd enjoy hearing from you on the subject.
The biggest change I made recently was taking most of January-March to write the new mod reporting system and thread recommendation system. That system is/was at the request of mods going back 4-5 years. It was designed to reduce mod work load and make their life around here easier. From all accounts and comments - it has been the best addition for moderators ever. I have had mods all but cry on the phone thanking me for it. I think there is no question that it has been one of the most successful additions to the WebmasterWorld software since 1999.
Second, I do try to handle as much stuff in private as I possibly can. Public discussions of personal business are best avoided so that no one gets embarrassed or loses face.
> "no linking to SE blogs" come up?
Changing a major rule like that is not something that can be done over night. If we open up blog links, it is a flood. There is no putting that genie back in the bottle easily. It has to be done at a snails pace.
I have talked and talked with the admins about it for quite some time. We totally agree that there is the need to open things up a bit - the question that no one has an immediately answer for: is HOW can we do that? How do we do it and not get spammed off the net with junk? How do we say a link to Googles Blog is ok, but Fred Pharm and Phentermine blog is not? No one has come up with a line item policy that would work? It would be a nightmare to moderate and admin. Until we can come up with a policy that will work for everyone, allowing links would be a stake through the heart of the moderators. They wouldn't know what, when, how, or why to catch links and we wouldn't know how to explain it. It would turn the forums upside down overnight. Turning on blog links at this point with out a policy would be the worst decision we would make in 6 years here. Hence - I don't think it is going to happen until a policy is formed we can all live with.
I think part of the issue is that of senior member/moderator perception of the current posting policies. I don't think there is an appreciation for the mods that came before and all the work that was done in those early days to set the current policy. One ex admin said, "Other tech forums should get on their knees and kiss the feet of WebmasterWorld for getting the spam out of their own forum". In other words, we don't currently see much of a spam problem here because of all the work and member education we have done in the past.
If you haven't read the Professional forum spammers thread in awhile, it would be a good read:
[webmasterworld.com...]
There are hundreds of people now with the job of buzz marketing in forums. From simple whisper campaigns (we miss many of those), to pure drops, we don't get many serious problems any more. The "blog as propaganda and sales and self promotion" phenomena is growing and only going to get worse. There is no way, that we have the ability to determine the difference between a honest blog drop to an important breaking story, and a promo drop. We all have blogs and would like to promote them, but moderators not self promoting is one of the core tenants of WebmasterWorld life. We want people to trust as much as possible what we say.
What is a bit surprising to me, is the lack of appreciation for recent history here. Did you not see a few old members burn out and leave over the last few years? On their way out, in the Google forum several of them said (and have since maintained the view in public) that we were too close to some of the search engines. One exmember has accused me of working directly for Google in public. Most recently at another forum, someone posted that I clearly work for Yahoo because we named the last Yahoo update - Update Tim. Still another thinks I am Paul Gardi because Paul gets to speak at WebmasterWorld conferences. Therefore, I am hyper sensitive to allowing engines to come in here and drop self promotional/self authored blog links. It is why I tend to give 2nd tier engines some undue exposure to try to lean the other way as much as possible. Fact is, Google is running 60+% of the referrals on the net and getting 95% of the webmaster/site owners attention - so that is where we also focus and also what gets the attention.
It is also important to remember that people have figured out every way imaginable to drop links in the forum as false spam reports. From asking about the site in my profile (which wasn't his), to a blog drop that was really a spam report - we have seen it all.
We must provide a safe environment for people to read and work in. The golden rule of not reporting on thee neighbor is slowly getting tarnished. We don't want to be a contributing factor to that, but rather one that upholds and enforces it in our little corner of the web and encourages others to do so.
> suggestions 6 months ago
There are several in there that have been done and several that are on the drawing board (database forum etc, spam report forum). There are also many that are simply not possible legally (supporters forum suggestions, admin policies..etc).
> conference
Sorry the conference date slipped into the summer, but between new house, new wife, honeymoon, hiring/training people, and the inevitable post-vegas exhausted crash - there just wasn't time to get it done in march-april. Waiting appears to have worked out though with the largest conference we've ever done coming up (it is going to be a blast and we are planning on the biggest bash ever). I appreciate the vote of confidence that we can do all this stuff over night, but I don't have an S on my chest and going from one employee to 4 is a major leap for any business.
> search
I've asked and asked for suggestions on a search engine. I have tried all the major se packages from mngo to aspseek and nothing will work for here - it is just too much dynamic content.
> New mods
Are coming on line at a pace. Engine is slowly doing that for us. Thanks! It takes alot longer than one would imagine to setup a new moderator. There is alot of back-n-forth that goes on. I think a new mod takes about a month to setup and manage.
> Db/SQL forum
Will happen. Just a matter of finding a mod, and then the day it will take to set it up and move a bunch of posts into it.
> other stuff
Some of the other work has to be delayed. Like that recent change that took about a week to program, there is another one coming up after New Orleans that just has to happen. We are breaking the file system here with over 500,000 files now - that can't be continued. So, what I'm saying is that for every public minute we do something (like an sql forum), there are 10 support minutes (fixing the db system) that is going on under the hood.
Quote of the day:
One of the things I like best about WW is I perceive it to be a place that helps people learn how to learn about - almost how to think through - web issues and develop their own solutions, as opposed to only handing out solutions to immediate problems all the time. - ken_b
> but why not link to the actual source,
> and in some cases cover it first?
I still think that would have some serious repercussions. The biggest being deciding what is and isn't news of value.
The issue becomes even stickier when it is a moderator that is wanting to "break" the story on his/her blog site. We have had numerous incidents where mods have wanted to promote their own site in the forums. Sometimes in the past, we stuck our head in the sand and looked the other way.
See, policies are fine-n-dandy and look good on paper and give you a crutch to lean on. However, given the nature of the bbs system, the nature of human interaction, of our vast communication differences, not to mention sex-politics-religion, and the general nature of textual communication - the ultimate policy is simple: keep the peace. Sometimes that is easy to do and other times it requires bending a rule here or there. It also often involves me falling on my sword for the site or for a admin/moderator.
Then there is also the issue of keeping the doors open. Trying to do this site without any direct advertising income (yes *wink wink* on the "exhibitors" logos) is more difficult than people think. aka: [searchengineworld.com...] The subscription model is very difficult to sustain and has required many choices I have not been comfortable with. It didn't always work (eg: see WebmasterWorld 98-2003 in the hole for well over a hundred grand building the site and keeping it afloat. There were numerous days when the doors were almost closed. It was only by the good graces and commercial inspiration of a few mods that the system even exists today.)
Then there is the issue of competition. After doing forums/bbs's for 21 years... ummm, I've learned a thing or two you know? Given that some mods do mod their own forums, and others have come from/gone too other forums, - sure, I flat admit there are some strategy points I keep too myself. After all, I don't' know of too many people who put their own biz strategy on the web for all to see. Most of the bigger points about forums are already out there anyway. However, I get the question all the time about why WebmasterWorld can do 7 figure page views while others struggle to hit 5 figures a day? It is just an accident really - you can't do WebmasterWorld again today ;-) ya, that's the ticket, it's just an accident ;-). Then there is all the legal stuff and work that has been done. I know it grates on a few people here, but I do not talk about the legal work/rulings we have had done here, and on going stuff that is even being done right now. All that costs a fortune, but I feel it is the difference between being here and not. It is hard to see how that relates to this conversation, but when you think about some of the legal actions that have taken place by large companies/sites against bloggers, forums, and the like - it is very significant.
back to frogs and blogs:
Right now, there is so much junk on the web (multitudes more than ever before) that people don't know what to believe. They are reading stuff generated out of thin air and taking it as fact.
In the last couple of months, I have seen two blog stories go mainstream that ended up to be wrong. One even involved a top 20 sites legal department to get corrected. Those stories involved WebmasterWorld members to a certain degree. They also were blog entries that people wanted to put into the forums here as news worthy. At the time, I did not know if the stories were correct or not, but I knew we weren't linking a blog for the source on it. As it turns out, the policy served us in spades. We also did not get into a soap opera tit-for-tat drama-of-the-month with them on the story.
With soo much inaccurate info being shoved on the web, I feel strongly that we must link to accurate, authoritative, and generally accepted as high value sources. That is true for code and education matters, and it is 10 fold as true for timely news sources.
If we did implement such a policy (link to quality blog stories...which is sorta what we having been doing off-the-cuff anyway - eg: first define blog), it would come down to a judgement call on a per moderator basis. Those would sometimes be right, and sometimes be wrong. I believe those kinds of conflicts would cause difficulties on moderators and problems with members and hurt the quality of postings out there. I believe that the quality of the postings in the forums is a good - if not better on the whole - than they have been in quite awhile.
I find it amazing that so many people are unwilling to try something new.
Outbound links aren't new, many forums are FULL of them... My comments were to blogs, because that was what the question was about, but I would have the same response to links in general.
It's absolutely fine with me if blogs are decided to be included, but after I submit mine and get it approved, then link to it a few times, I would probably 301 to my main site... would be some nice links to have and who's going to follow up? (not really, but I think the point is made.)
Justin
I've had some of my past products misconstrued by journalists in computer magazines and some of those same geniuses now write blogs AND articles for the magazines. Guess I don't see how linking to their misinformation in one source is technically better or worse than linking to it elsewhere.
This group seems to be pretty smart and links to biased content or plain misinformation would probably be brought to light within a couple of posts as these threads tend to be self-policing.
Maybe the best way to handle it is let it be open season on linking and just blacklist bad sources as you go along so the system filters them out.
I've seen a few good bits of news break on blogs, and two days later, after some "newsworthy" site like CNET, (sorry Brett ;)) yammers about it, it gets picked up by WebmasterWorld. If it is two days old, it isn't news.
Tech blogs in particular offer up some early news. The decision lies with Brett. I'm simply advocating a trial run.
That's just again a pathetic trivialization of the language. This is a forum (says so at the top of the page...) A forum is a forum, not a blog. A blog is whatever it is. The two different words exist not just because it is fun to make up extra words meaning the same thing as other words.
True, some people don't give a crap about discussion and think their own spouting of opinion is all that matters, but webmasterworld is about interaction while blogs are about presenting personal views. These have something in common, but they are completely different.
Still, I don't see how that stuff is the point. If you liberalize linking, then just do that. Allow linking to forums, message boards, web pages, specific search result pages, whatever that a poster thinks is valuable. Blogs should have ZERO preference over other stuff. A link to a searcheng*newatch thread will normally be more useful than a link to some blog. Blogs should be literally just about the last type of thing link to.
>Wow. Do they take network news seriously? Journalists? Media pundits? Do they assume the truth is being told because it is ink? Or being relayed by an anchor?
>Bestowing faith (or lack thereof) in veracity based on the medium is silly at best and dangerous at worst. Placing trust in an anchor or journalist has been proven in the past to be somewhat naive.
I am not really referring to people like you or me. We are somewhat tech savvy. :)
I am referring to those who don't use the Web like use, they use the Web like "normal" people. Go ahead, talk to someone in your family, work, affiliations and ask them. "What does a blog mean to you?" See what they say. "Personal Diary" and variations like that, I assume.
Blogs are, undoubtedly, maturing with more and more businesses and organizations using them.
Now, I have a need to link to a study done by Eric Ulken [ojr.org] about "Non-traditional sources cloud Google News results". "Non-traditional sources" here refer to blogs. Now the study only factors in one case, which was the Bush versus Kerry stories, but its valid. There are obviously not enough data and studies published at this point in time to generalize if blogs pollute the Internet or not. If there was, then we can get into the discussion about is this blog a blog or a site.?-)
Who cares what a blog is and what not?
There also seems to be an incrase in link drops throughout the forums I read here on WebmasterWorld.
I like WebmasterWorld the way it is: with the news on the forum and not somehere I have to click through to. I also trust that when I see a link and a small quote I like, the link is worth clicking and the destination worth reading. Please keep it that way.
I support the idea of making a list of allowed destinations that are safe to link to. On that list can be the major SE's, news sites, some other forums and blogs alike. If a site has proven itself, or is from a really reliable source (like a big company), put it on the list. Personally I wouldn't miss a link to a blog with a one time primer. The news will make it to WebmasterWorld fast enough if it's worth it. Once a source prooves to be reliable several times, no problem adding it to the safe list.
Composing such a list is another issue and would involve a lot of time and discussion, especially in the beginning. But once the list is active, it's fairly easy to maintain: the system can prevent linking to anything not on the list. Approving links to be listed would probably be a daily/weekly mod issue. Only in very exceptional cases has a link to be added to the list at short notice (in my opinion), like when one of the major SE's buys some really interesting other company. Most of us are perfectly capable of finding a site if it's properly described without a link.
Hope this makes sense :)
However, I really disagree with the idea that linking will diminish the forum experience. Whether blogs or other URLs I'd suggest that even unmoderated links are generally far more helpful than harmful. Links are, after all, at the HEART of the web's success.
Using the now available "nofollow" tag plus perhaps only allowing senior users or higher to post links would eliminate most of the usual "self promoting" link problems.
This is exactly the reason why not to allow outbound blog links from within WW
If we really need to link to non-authoritative sources then let's figure out a better way to link that says more about the destination. Why not compare any domain's which are linked to against different lists then display different types of links in unique ways.
For example: authoritative/technical, edited news, independent journalist (aka blogger), foo, banned, etc. could be some of your lists.
And, essentially, make the best links stand out a little and the lower "quality" links blend in more. Your edited news and independent news links might not be underlined, just have a light grey arrow (→) next to the anchor text. Maybe foo links are in red comic sans... No matter what, all links get neutered so they don't pass any PR benefit.
Any link that isn't categorized get's pushed to a "mod-only links to be categorized page" and displays in the thread as (link pending) until it get's categorized. Once categorized, it gets updated or removed to reflect it's status.
Minor edit: those -> all
According to dictionary.com:
Blog Source: Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6) Main Entry: weblog Source: Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6) blog Forum Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University forum Contrast real-time chat or point-to-point personal e-mail. [Jargon File] My commentary Admittedly, there is a good deal of overlap in these definitions and in what blogs and discussion forums have become. And they continue to evolve... The definition for blogs consistently includes the word "personal," the forum definition consistently includes the word "discussion." There's a clue in there somewhere... Help me out here! :) I submit that a "culture" develops around any publicly available "place to post." The first "sign my guestbook" pages were a simple and naive attempt at friendliness and perhaps site stickiness and we all know how that "culture" eventually evolved. So what we're talking about here is how the WebmasterWorld culture will evolve. While I agree that traditional media is being undermined by the Internet, it will not disappear, it will simply evolve and adapt. Credible news sources will always be important to many folks. And I'm confident a few serious bloggers will eventually employ fact checkers and morph into credible news sources. The tag line on the home page says "News and Discussion for the Independent Web Professional," it doesn't say "Breaking News and Discussion for the Independent Web Professional." Personally, I have yet to see an issue of significance to people in our business NOT get discussed at WebmasterWorld. Also, I don't recall loosing one dollar because an issue was not discussed here first, so the "breaking news" argument carries little weight with me. My impression is that most WebmasterWorld members have an interest in SEO. If that is correct, perhaps it's time to start a "white list." Steveb's suggestion about permitting Google, Yahoo, and MSN blogs was sound although IMHO, "equal time" should be offered to struggling second tier engines for some of the reasons Brett mentioned in his initial post. Personally, I'm opposed to linking to blogs at all at this time. As a mod, I struggled along with the rest of the staff to define and to help build a professional culture. Until it becomes clear how traditional media will adapt to the Net and until a few blogs begin employing fact checkers and/or become credible news sources, I think it's premature to put our professional culture at risk by linking to questionable sources.
Main Entry: blog
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: an online diary; a personal chronological log of thoughts published on a Web page; also called Weblog, Web log
Example: Typically updated daily, blogs often reflect the personality of the author.
Etymology: shortened form of Weblog
Usage: blog, blogged, blogging v, blogger n
Copyright © 2003-2005 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: a personal Web site that provides updated headlines and news articles of other sites that are of interest to the user, also may include journal entries, commentaries and recommendations compiled by the user; also written web log, Weblog; also called blog
Usage: computing
Copyright © 2003-2005 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC
n : a shared on-line journal where people can post diary entries about their personal experiences and hobbies [syn: web log]
forum
n 1: a public meeting or assembly for open discussion 2: a public facility to meet for open discussion [syn: assembly, meeting place] 3: a place of assembly for the people in ancient Greece [syn: agora, public square]
<messaging> (Plural "fora" or "forums") Any discussion group
accessible through a dial-in BBS (e.g. GEnie, CI$), a
mailing list, or a Usenet newsgroup (see network,
the). A forum functions much like a bulletin board; users
submit postings for all to read and discussion ensues. I have a question: What is the objective here? What is the issue behind the issue?
I suspect the "issue behind the issue" is simply an unresolved debate among the Mods. Historically, unresolved issues have been tossed into the Community Center forum for member reaction and input, member feedback is the reason that forum was created. I suspect this issue is in Supporters to get the reaction of the folks that have paid the admission fee and have a vested interest, and to avoid newbie noise.
I just read a book called "The Tipping Point", which discusses critical events in a product, fad, fashion statement, ect.. which starts a change in trends, rockets a product into mainstream, or causes a celebrity to fall from grace. One the case studies is the NYC mass transit system of the late 80's, early 90's period, which at the time was plagued with crime, gangs, and lots of graffiti. I think most of us are familiar with the subway vigilante (Goetz) whom shot the four gang members trying to rob and intimidate him on the NYC subway.
Well, this was a tipping point for NYC mass transit, which inspired the NYC government to demand changes in light of the very bad press. The changes are the most interesting and relevant to my apparently rambling message. One the first things done, was to remove the graffiti, apparently people tend to respond to their environment. With a dirty, and vandalized subway system, this seemed to attract people comfortable in that environment. It is said that even mainstream society tends to care much less when faced with a lack respect for property and environment. By cleaning up the subway cars and removing the graffiti, crime and disrespect for the transit system dropped radically.
My point is; the same will apply here, lower the quality of links, message, drops, and WW will eventually be plagued with the internet version of the NYC mass transit system of the late 80's early 90's. Quality attracts quality and builds innate respect for a system.
A possible compromise is to create a separate thread for "external resources of interest", and allow other threads to refer/link to specific postings within that thread. This thread would be easy to moderate, should have a "no follow" attribute, and could be a members only thread as well.
We really appreciate all the responses here. I am mildly surprised that so many feel strongly that we should keep the no link zero tolerance policy. I really thought members would push more towards open linking.
> Who cares what a blog is and what not?
This is a good question. The issue is one of a quality linkage policy that we all can live with that avoids ambiguity.
Having a no blog link policy is clean, clear, crisp, and generally easy for members to understand and work within the policy. Unfortunately, "what is a blog" can break up that policy quickly. We have often linked to John Battelles (a reporter and Wired magazine founder) site (which he calls a blog) because he has come up with many breaking stories no one else has produced. Yet, there are others out there that have broke stories, that we have historically not linked too (rusty, loren, andy, danny...etc etc).
So right there we have a conflict and paradox in the policy.
> It's more a matter of editorial policy and decision making;
And that is the crux of the situation. When the linking policy is gray - no one understands it, and it leads to many conflicts. That in turn has left members unsure of what is acceptable and not.
> news or editorial
Yes, there is a distinct division in why people use and visit WebmasterWorld.
C: the code hungry crowd.
N: the news hungry crowd.
The C crowd is more the newer users who are in the learning phase. (not that we all don't go there some times). They are more interested in website performance than in news.
The N news crowd knows how to get the coding job done and need news to run their business effectively. They know, what happens today in news, is tomorrows ramification that will effect their bottom line.
I think we all use both from time-to-time. However, it is the News crowd that DRIVES the code crowd. You could drop the code forums and stil have a site, but you can't drop the news sections and still have a site.
>Is the feeling that WW is missing
Yes, we are missing news from time-to-time. Couldn't care less about traffic - we have too much of it as it is - this is about quality news sources.
There are a couple of forums (code mainly) that could be linking to some quality tidbits on blogs (css tips, html, security warnings..etc) that we are missing out on.
> is a huge distinction to blog owners
> or authors linking to entries they wrote themselves
> over outside readers linking to someone's blog.
There is no way to effectively determine who wrote it and who linked to it. Only those like me and you that don't hide our sites could be used in that situation. We've seen it all Rusty and if we allow open linking, there would be a rash of signups by strange new nicks linking to blogs ;-)
> That policy may be the single most important
> decision WW has faced in a very long while.
Yes it is.
> just allow paid members to post
> links and only in this forum?
Who has commercial interest in linking? Those that pay a fee to belong to a btob forum? aka: this may sound crass, but the worst blog link offenders would be a minor percentage in this very forum.
It is hard to imagine, but in the premoderated forums like the Google and Yahoo forum, there is NO correlation between member age or post status, to that of post approval. eg: age and experience often do not equal quality.
> it's not about who reports it first,
> it's about who reports it accurately.
Thanks Dave - that is a fresh reminder, that being first isn't always the best the best place to be.
> enormously cunning promotional forces.
Yes they are. Buzz marketing is the most fascinating thing quantified I have seen in years. (reread the Tipping Point again and again as that is todays marketing reality.)
> poster had their blog link deleted
Yes, as webwork said, "enormously cunning promotional forces".
> I get the sense Brett that you
> want to get around the policy
Not really. I only want what the membership wants. This thread is trying to find a general consensus. (dipping the toe in the scalding and passionate hot water of blogs)
DMOZ. Although he eventually was dumped from the editorial staff, he admitted to promoting his links while abolishing the links of competitors - and he did this successfully for some time and was able to reap handsomely as a result.
Dmoz is the perfect analogy that we want to avoid.
Yes, yes, yes, Brett!
I hesitate to take issue with DG, as he runs one of my few bookmarked blogs. However...
The difference which is coming up time and again in this thread is that there is a concern the WebmasterWorld is missing out by failing to link to news contained in blogs.
Brett also referred to the concept of a blog - what is this strange creature and environment that has sprung into being?
Nothing more than a "website-lite". No choosing and paying for a domain, hosting and design (although you can agonise about a witty title tag) - blog operators will provide you with a streamlined method to beam your thoughts to millions.
So the content is vital. Most people have no individual content apart from their views. And thus the "blogosphere" is full of commentary.
To return to DG's points: of course, it is simplistic to say (if anyone actually did) that print journalism should be believed and blogs ignored.
However, it is likely, by their nature, that news will tend to appear in print journalism and commentary will tend to appear in blogs.
Yes, there is a line that is blurred between news and marketing and, yes, of course, newspapers contain commentary in their opinion sections and in their news choices.
If you are asking me whether Rupert Murdoch is involved in news or marketing I would have a hard time answering you.
However, in general, traditional news organisations have more "bottom" (in that lovely phrase of Queen's English). That means more gravitas and more heft - they are actual organisations so they can be sued, they are part of a community and so they are subject to public pressure (UK Sun and Liverpool post-Hillsborough, for example), their community possesses a codex and sometimes a regulatory body, their employees belong to bodies with professional standards.
Bloggers can also be interesting and important, and not only with news but also with commentary. But it is important to distinguish what makes those blogs important on those days.
And when it comes down to it it is traditional news value. If I say that I consider cloaking to be a respectable tool in promoting a website, is that interesting? Is that news? But what if Matt Cutts says it?
>>There are a couple of forums (code mainly) that could be linking to some quality tidbits on blogs (css tips, html, security warnings..etc) that we are missing out on.
Again, in their own context, news...
Dog bites man. Man bites dog. The time-honoured journalism cliché illustrates the point of the unusual and the context being all.
And so to return to the point, yes, blogs can be interesting and even valuable to WebmasterWorld. But only when they cross the boundary of their "blog-ness" and become sources of news. And few blogs, as blogs define themselves, ever manage to do that.
I will say that it is not often that I've seen something on a blog that I felt the need to post about here, just a few times, but in those instances, I really thought the link and topic was worthy of discussion. It wasn't that it was "news" so to speak, but rather that I wanted some opinions (and commentary) from the people here.
In the original post that started this thread Brett mentioned mod self promotion, and mod blogs have come up several times in this thread.
I think WebmasterWorld mods are a rare breed. They are selected for their quality and knowledge. If they have a site or blog of good standing, shouldn't they be on the safe list so they can link to it when appropriate? A self promoting mod would probably soon be a ex mod, so I'm not afraid for abuse. And if a mod thinks there is something really worthwile to link to on his own site/blog/whatever, we'll be assured of his/her coorperation to post it here.
The first theng to do then is divorce the word "blogs" from any of this. The issues should be whether to liberalize the linking policy; and, ways to liberalize the linking policy (as a spectacular idea for the latter might change minds about the former). These liberalized links could be to anything on the Internet, static html, blogspot, forums... with "quality" as the guiding light, not mode of presentation (blog, html/forum, etc.)
Personally I like the curent policy, and see no reason whatever to change it. I'm sure I could also like a link-to-anything policy that nofollowed links. I also could like a link to anything except calling out sites policy. And I'm sure I would NOT like some approved list of opinion-spewing blogs. That sort of oligarchal elitism would be more harmful than good.
Keep it Simple
Keep it Clean
Keep out of a legal slippery slope
No Links.
My two cents.
Don
Does no one in here notice that we are allowed in some instances to link out? Hasn't exactly brought the house down, yet.
When Brett looks at what sites he might link to, he knows the good ones when he sees them. Someone else, even a trusted mod, might disagree to small extents. OK, start with a small list of allowed external sources. Too bad if you're not on the list and you want to be. Editorial prerogative. Then, expand it slowly over time if the feeling is that it's a good idea, and assuming the initial effort has gone well.
There IS news not being very well covered in here right now. The question still is, do the powers that be really care? I think this would be a richer resource with better news coverage. Like steveb says, it has nothing to do with blogs or not blogs...only external or no external.
Happily it's also a great resource as is. Hard to lose with a little testing. Like DG says, if it doesn't work, trash it and move on.
from a really reliable source (like a big company)
Oh yes, we can trust those big companies. ROFLMAO
I trust big companies as much as a doctor heading my way with a hacksaw to "fix" my broken arm chanting "you'll be just fine..."
If we had to ride herd on blogs, BT might have to double or triple our salaries.
It might serve y'all Mods better if you were to ask him for lifetime free membership to the "hair club" in stead. ;)
As it is now, many of the links posted at WW stretch the screen so wide that they make reading threads much more difficult. I'm talking about links that are sometimes two full screens wide at 1024.
More links are just going to mean more of that. Which means the threads are devalued for many folks, at least in my mind.
I tend to just backout of a lot of threads like that, when I'd really like to read them. It's just not worth the effort to have to keep scrolling back and forth toread the thread.
So in my mind, more links could easily equal less value, just from that particular perspective.
Leave WebmasterWorld the way it is, but tack on a WebmasterWorld blog. Let a few trusted mods post on it. The forum can point to the WebmasterWorld blog posts, which in turn point to the source posts.
OK, so everyone doesn't get to put their oar in.
Which is just as well...
THAT was a huge post again.. thanks for your insights and good luck in managing the growth of your business.
I have 0.0 problems with the link policy as it has the whole "unspecific rule" really proved to be a good thing in the last years...
No forum links, there's no way to exercise editorial discretion and monitor the integrity of the information - or the language used. A few are OK, but it's very hard to have to explain why, when people see such links they think the can drop their URL, too.
No blog links, ditto the massive drop-fest on those out there and ditto selling adverts. Ditto not being able to exercise editorial discretion. There's a fine line between a blog and a forum, some are actually forums calling themselves blogs to get the benefit of getting picked up in the feeds.
If there's anything really worth while, anyone can sticky a mod or admin to ask, and an occasional exception may be OK (with a mod note in the post included to make it clear that it's been pre-screened). But the general blanket rule is very wise to NOT do it.
Exception: the major search engines' blogs for sure should be allowed, imho. If they're worthy to warrant having a dedicated forum here that should be credential enough for them to be considered OK and that can only benefit members and encourage more good discussion.
I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but someone mentioned something about allowing links only in this Supporters forums. Anyone wanting to spam at least is paying for that privilege, so its not a free benefit anyone can take advantage of. Because it only gets shown in this forum as well, it gets severely more limited exposure.
In addition, one could implement the 'report spam' like they do it with CraigsList - after 10 or so reports by unique users (and we can make it users with 100+ posts, if we want to cut down the chance of bogus users reporting everything in sight), the post gets removed temporarily for mod review. After analysis, the user might get flagged for spam attempt and because s/he's paid will not be making too many of these spam attempts, or risk being banned without refund.
This could even be taken outside of the supporter's forum because people who are paying for the supporters forum imho are more dedicated users to WebmasterWorld and probably wouldn't go that route and 'contaminate' the forum. And if they did, they risk getting banned. Just in case.
Granted that's a boatload of programming to implement, but I think this system would make things very self policying, while allowing for a bit more freedom with links.
This forum (like all others) is about gaining relevant information as fast as possible, whereever this information is to be found. I don't want to read between the lines, search via google, etc. to find the source of some news that gets posted on WebmasterWorld where the poster didn't include the relevant URL or it was removed because of the no-link policy. This has happened too many times to me and this really decreases the usefulness of WebmasterWorld.
Brett, you've got a great crowd of moderators who're all experts in their field. They are able to distinguish which links / threads are not useful to the users and which are not. Let them be moderators and not censors.
