Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject: The "see my sig" self-promotion model
Just a quick word about that old chestnut self-promotion and forum rules...
Lately, there seems to have been an upsurge of "see my sig" posts. Surely, this is pretty much identical in effect to posting the promotional link in the body of the message in the first place.
It might get round the rules in a way, but the spirit is certainly being breached. After all, one of the tests Wally applies is "what is the principal reason for posting?".
Thoughts on a postcard,
Charlie. _________________ "Before I speak, I have something important to say."
- Groucho Marx
I've been thinking some more about this. (Yes, I understand the risks, but I just can't help myself.)
Anyway, the crux is "what is the principal reason for posting?" It's obvious that various posters are posting simply to promote - either their sig or a page on their site (which they portray as helpful, naturally)...
1) "see my sig" within the body of a message...
How about simply outlawing drawing attention to a sig in this way? It seems pretty clear cut to me.
2) including a helpful link to your site in the message body...
If anyone makes a specific and accurate summary of the link, they will mostly have the link deleted (and the summary or call to action left), so surely letting vague references to "helpful" and "useful" links as an introduction is not grounds for allowing the link to stay. I'd argue that a vague reference is actually worse, since it tempts the reader to click and check.
To be blunt, how about a change to the written guidelines and stern implementation to get us back on track?
You know me - I'd ban sigs and other promotion altogether, but I understand the arguments against. You probably realise this can make a nice compromise.
Thoughts on a postcard,
Charlie. _________________ "Before I speak, I have something important to say."
- Groucho Marx
Interesting take on it...And after sitting here thinking on your message for a few moments it makes sense. (I myself have been guilty lately of posting links off the board to my blog to promote pages and Videos I've put together)
This board exsists for helping each other and the transfer of knowledge. I'm not sure where the happy medium is... Banning Signatures, not sure this is the anwser as some people will use them to link to their personal websites etc. Whether it be as an expressive form or a "spammy" form is left to be determined.
It is a touchy subject as many have nothing but the best of intentions when they send you off the form to another site...Wether it be b/c they don't want to re-hash and anwser they've already anwsered else where or if there is a tool out there that could genuinely assist another user.
I agree there needs to be a tightening of the rules, but still keep the focus of helping others. Providing further and supporting relevant information about problems or questions can be part of that solution.
Joined: 02 Jul 2003 Posts: 1165 Location: Maryborough Queensland Australia
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:59 pm Post subject:
Ah Charlie, ever perceptive and perspicacious, don't you think I work hard enough already!!
We recently relaxed the URL posting rule to allow ones where sufficient explanation "seemed" to make them warranted, especially in replies to queries.
However, unsolicited URLs with attached hype still get sent to the promotion section where links are given a free run, even to overflow, within the 20 line space.
The signature file, now exposed to searches, is a free plug for all and some exploit every last character of the 300 allowed!!! I think of this as a "service" rather than a fault.
It is not always obvious whether apparently well-meaning advice pointed at the signature file is a promotion or not. Blatant ones have at times been moved to the promotions section and deleted if more than 20 lines.
Then there're the multiple "welcomes" that sometimes appear with whopper signatures. I PM them away. Most Intro messages are from people who have been guests here for some time and even members who just lurked and read messages. I let Allan welcome the hesitant ones and I try to guide those who seem "lost" in the system. Imagine if 20 of you welcomed 5 a day - the forum would lose its effectiveness very quickly!
All in all, we now have a pretty good mix. Except for one particular themed stack of messages, I won't mention the theme, I'm happy with the general appearance now.
Joined: 02 Jul 2003 Posts: 5839 Location: by the beach, Australia
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:27 am Post subject:
Thanks for the ideas, Charlie.
I'm very interested in hearing more views on our moderating policies. When we make changes here, we're strongly guided by the feedback we receive.
Some people might argue that we should allow ALL posts to to remain, no matter what they say. They see any moderating as "censorship". However, totally unmoderated Internet marketing forums quickly become spam-ridden and not worth visiting.
So if want to make our forum worth visiting, we're forced to have at least a minimum level of moderating.
One thing we know for certain is that we want this to be a friendly, helpful, USEFUL affiliate forum. Most of the time, it is.
If a few members seem to have different goals, we want to persuade them gently to remember our over-all aim.
While we expect people to post useful messages, we also expect them to receive benefits from the time they spend here.
While receiving a warm glow from the feeling of helping others or satisfaction at seeing one's well constructed phrases appearing in "print" may be enough for some, I don't think it's enough for many.
Judging by the percentage of forum members who use a signature file, the signature file option is liked by the majority. I see the sig file as a sort of "payment" in publicity for time spent posting a message.
Should we ban references to one's own sig file? As Wally suggests, doing this would increase his editing workload, and the more editing he is forced to do, the more likely we are to offend people. The more people we offend, the more risk we run of scaring away those particular members for good. Perhaps that wouldn't be a bad thing?
I do know that some members who have made a number of useful posts here have also blatantly referred to their sig file. I wonder if they would be scared away if we changed our policy?
At the moment, we have a policy of "If in doubt, let it stay."
I realize your above post was "directed" more at charlie...but I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in...
I agree with the concept of the SIG file...a sort of "PAYMENT" as you call it...How ever I think the members here who have posts upwards of thousands are here to help people and keep the community going. In my 2 years on the forum I've found that as the Affiliate marketing industry becomes wider known there are more "spammy" like posts etc. (i.e. the same blatent promo post in multiple categories).
The line may not be as fine as we precieve it to be in what is promotion and what is helping people. A refer to sig statement that is in context to the thread it appears in IMHO is of benefit to those taking part in the thread.
A post that is solely for promotion and requests members to refer to their sig file to get around the rules... I can understand why this would be dis-allowed.
I guess when it comes down to it... You want to keep this as a Friendly and Helpful place to visit. If changing the rules are going to discourage a few people to no longer take part in the forum so be it. You can't be something to everyone. PERIOD
For those people who are actually here to learn and start their business as I was a couple of years ago, you should regulate this forum for them.
The same old offers, attempts to sell stuff, and links to MLM's don't really help anyone including the poster. (I am quite sure the response rate is very low to such an out of place ad.)
You have created a great community for us all, and I would like to thank you for that. I've learned more in this forum then any where else on the internet.
It is a touchy subject as many have nothing but the best of intentions when they send you off the form to another site...
Wally wrote:
It is not always obvious whether apparently well-meaning advice pointed at the signature file is a promotion or not.
Yes. Reasons do vary, but if responsible posters start drawing attention to their own sites/sigs on a regular basis, the "sands of tone" will start to shift.
Also, if Wally ends up looking as though he's applying his ruler based on who rather than what, it won't sit nicely with any of us.
[Before I start sounding relatively holy, I must admit to stretching the rules a bit in other ways - is it fair to talk about Nowegians' breakfasts, for example? But with the possible exception of Phil Tanny, I think it's safe to say that people aren't likely to copy this sort of behaviour, as there's no cash in it...]
Wally wrote:
All in all, we now have a pretty good mix.
We do. It's the preservation that I'm thinking about.
AllanGardyne wrote:
While we expect people to post useful messages, we also expect them to receive benefits from the time they spend here.
Quote:
Judging by the percentage of forum members who use a signature file, the signature file option is liked by the majority. I see the sig file as a sort of "payment" in publicity for time spent posting a message.
I'm sure without this payment, there wouldn't be anywhere near as many posts.
A lot comes down to whether you think of this place as Q&A or discussion?
(No, there isn't a prize.)
Lately, it's swung more to the former, in my view. As a result, a higher proportion of posts tend to be offering a recommendation, as opposed to arguing over a technique, say. I know many people value this, but it makes the "promotion" problem more of an issue.
AllanGardyne wrote:
I do know that some members who have made a number of useful posts here have also blatantly referred to their sig file. I wonder if they would be scared away if we changed our policy?
Well, if I were worried about that, I might make the comparison with preselling...
There's a great deal of difference between what Ian is doing and what Wally forbids - but perhaps only in the eyes of those of us regular enough to have seen and valued Ian's contribution over time. It's this contextual element - and how it applies to moderation - that concerns me.
Relative sins, rather than absolute?
ihenman wrote:
The same old offers, attempts to sell stuff, and links to MLM's don't really help anyone including the poster. (I am quite sure the response rate is very low to such an out of place ad.)
I reckon so. It's all a matter of degree... that's why I mentioned the preselling analogy before.
I see a sig as a reward, too, but you probably realise it works best when a reader goes there because of a favourable impression left by the poster, as opposed to be being pushed there with a sharpened stick. It's a frame of mind thing.
Cheers,
Charlie.
P.S.
Wally wrote:
Ah Charlie, ever perceptive and perspicacious
I got the dictionary out (again), and it says...
"A perspicacious person is one who discerns or who understands something without needing an explanation: He was a perspicacious student of human nature, and knew how we would react. A perspicuous person is easy to understand..."
I'd say you're half right - at best! _________________ "Before I speak, I have something important to say."
- Groucho Marx
But here's my 1 and a half cents more on reccommendations...
The concept works for Ebay could it work for us here?
Tighten up the policy on post URLS in threads to not link to another page that makes an OFFER, or SELLS something.
This would ensure that if someone wanted to post a link to a URL providing info on programing or installing something it could still be done...It also shows that there are no underlying motives of the poster it's just HELP.
Any url that does send someone off of the forum to a page/site making an offer/selling something restrict that to the sig as it is now...
BUT hand in hand with that...
Disallow anyone from making Blatent Refer to SIG comments UNLESS they're direct resources to the thread at hand...
So a thread like one that I had posted Referring someone to my blog to see info About WP and how to use it as Charlie mentioned above... would not be allowed.
How ever if someone said geese how can I use WP as a content management system
Then we're in context...right.
These are just ideas flying out of my head at the moment while I drink my morning coffee here...But I think there is a happy medium to keep the "COMMUNITY" portion of this forum alive...and reduce the amount of wasted self PROMO done.
All while not requiring Wally to wrok 24x7 reading everything!
Joined: 02 Jul 2003 Posts: 1165 Location: Maryborough Queensland Australia
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:00 pm Post subject:
"Tighten up the policy on post URLS in threads to not link to another page that makes an OFFER, or SELLS something."
CONFLICTS WITH
"All while not requiring Wally to work 24x7 reading everything!"
As it stands, I expect every recommended URL to have a reasonably explained recommendation or it gets chopped - I don't follow every URL to check it out. I soon know if the recommendation holds as the members comment quite quickly and I can act then if necessary.
24x7 isn't an option to be sure. So far I can manage on not much over an hour a day!!
As it stands, I expect every recommended URL to have a reasonably explained recommendation or it gets chopped - I don't follow every URL to check it out. I soon know if the recommendation holds as the members comment quite quickly and I can act then if necessary.
I like this. An element of self-policing (hundreds of watching eyes), as opposed to the Butcher of Brisbane. (Mind you, with all these Americans around, I guess it sometimes feels like the Battle of Brisbane.)
[That's 1940s history for those that care.]
It's certainly nice to be reassured that lots of members are involved. It's not surprising abuse gets nipped in the bud. I'm surprised anyone even wastes their time trying at all.
Cheers,
Charlie.
Wally wrote:
So far I can manage on not much over an hour a day!!
But if that's the case, why bother working in the middle of the night? Too much blood to the head? _________________ "Before I speak, I have something important to say."
- Groucho Marx
Joined: 02 Jul 2003 Posts: 5839 Location: by the beach, Australia
Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 4:39 am Post subject:
Thanks for your valuable input, everyone.
The following new rule in our guidelines makes our policy clear:
"The link is in my sig file":
If you write "See the link in my signature file" that's a clear warning to us that your main intention is self-promotional. Self-promotional posts do not belong on this board. _________________ Allan Gardyne
... earning a good living from affiliate programs since 1998.
Learn how.
Subscribe now FREE Affiliate Program Tutorial
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Your host: Allan Gardyne. Earning a good living from affiliate
programs since 1998.
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
