Commercial links number 2

[The Cumbrian]

Two nationally known beekeeping suppliers (actually three as I've just found someone who supplies the unframed version cheaper)? No, I can promise you no one would have to check they are bone fide, happy to PM you the names if you like.

No, nobody might have to check them in this case but soon there would be along an example which wasn't so clear cut.

I have sympathy with both sides of the argument (yours and Brosville). In fact the staring of links was one of the things which very nearly scared me away from the forum in the early days of me lurking. Thank goodness it didn't.

However the longer I am on the forum the more my attitude swings to Brosvilles side of the fence.

 

[alanf]

I can't post this information which is only to the detriment of those that may not know to check the supplier concerned. Daft and "unnecessary bureaucracy" IMHO, absolutely zero to do with manners.

FWIW

If the existing practice did completely ban 'commercial' links, then I might see some logic behind it. The ban actually appears to be 'commercial links to a select few UK bee related suppliers'. No bans for Tesco links. No bans for Amazon links. No bans of links to foreign suppliers such as Lyson, Swienty, Thomas or Dadant. By 'no bans' I mean the .com turns up on searches with posts going back a couple of years so they have been around a while. No bans on mentioning 'Hooper' meaning the author of the most mentioned book in the country. Is 'Hooper' a charitable publication? Looks like a normal 'commercial' book deal according to my flyleaf, just like the Haynes manual and most of the other general books.

I just cannot see any reason to obscure reasonable debate about legitimate suppliers like Thornes and Paynes. We can see links to products that some posters have made clear they believe should be banned immediately such as the neonicotinids Bayer produces*. Would Tesco immediately become 'commercial' if they went beyond sugar and glucose and added frames to their inventory? But if Tesco added an agri-chemicals division that would be perfectly acceptable?

Banning 'commercial' links as it is currently implemented is just as difficult to police as any other boundary. I agree entirely that the aim is to avoid spam or overt promotion that gets in the way of honestly held opinion. However, the current position is no more than an historical accident, it is not a definition of 'commercial' that makes any practical sense.

*Apologies if this comes over as bit ranty, I'm not deliberately trying to troll by mentioning any specific company, I'm aware of previous posts. It's just an example of the absurdity of which companies can be mentioned and which cannot. Ultimately. the forum founder makes the rules and there is no suggestion that those involved from the early days have had anything other than good intentions, just that the accumulation of specific decisions does not produce a coherent position.

 

[Hivemaker.]

If the existing practice did completely ban 'commercial' links, then I might see some logic behind it.

An even better idea could be to ban all links, of any kind,even easier to implement than the way it is now.

 

[region2]

An even better idea could be to ban all links, of any kind,even easier to implement than the way it is now.

Then the forum would quickly die - there's a wealth of info. on the net so links are essential to allow people to access the World Wide WEB. Surely it cannot be to hard to spot blatant plugs?

R2

 

[region2]

Bros
I understand your argument but what I can't understand is that on all the other fora I inhabit they are allowed and they are not a problem.

Some much fuss over begger all - allow all links and trade names and delete any blatant plugs. It's not rocket science guys and all this to'ing and fro'ing is making me not want to come here. I wonder how many have voted with their feet, never to return?

R2

 

[Hivemaker.]

Then the forum would quickly die - there's a wealth of info. on the net so links are essential to allow people to access the World Wide WEB. Surely it cannot be to hard to spot blatant plugs?
R2

Maybe we should just give it a try for a few weeks...see how it goes,much easier than all the bickering that this issue has started,been better if those that started it had not done so...things were not too bad as they were.

 

[Black Comb]

Well to some extent yes, but what p***** me off was the banning of links to Dave Cushman's site (now thankfully reversed).
Started me thinking about all this.

As I said earlier, forum is split with significant minority in favour.

Also, just the 2 of you doing it must be time consuming? (no I am not looking to be a mod.)

 

[Hivemaker.]

Also, just the 2 of you doing it must be time consuming? (no I am not looking to be a mod.)

It can be at times,but would be less so with no links at all, perhaps there will be more mods needed in time,perhaps someone experianced with forums like Bros,but i suspect he has enough to do already,or maybe ask RAB, if maybe he had the time to fill in occasionally.

 

[Black Comb]

OH dear, what have I initiated?

 

[Brosville]

I've got enough to do on another forum - but thanks for thinking of me! - RAB would be an excellent choice - no nonsense there!

I'm just making a mental list of all the spam links I can bung in if there's a trial period of a "free for all"......... tee hee!

 

[region2]

It can be at times,but would be less so with no links at all, perhaps there will be more mods needed in time,perhaps someone experianced with forums like Bros,but i suspect he has enough to do already,or maybe ask RAB, if maybe he had the time to fill in occasionally.

Obviously if moderators notice blatant plugs then they can delete but don't forget the 1000's of unofficial moderators on here who can report any that they see - that's how it works elsewhere...

R2

 

[Hivemaker.]

Obviously if moderators notice blatant plugs then they can delete but don't forget the 1000's of unofficial moderators on here who can report any that they see - that's how it works elsewhere...
R2

Do you think it may also be beneficial to ban copying and pasting as well?

 

[region2]

That's down to netiquette really - it can get tedious when someone copies half a page and then adds 'hear hear'! if they're pasting from another site then they should be encouraged to paste a link and a description so the reader has a choice to go there. or not!

R2

 

[Winker]

Do you think it may also be beneficial to ban copying and pasting as well?

thats me screwed then

 

[AnotherNewBee]

The way this is going, the discussions about links are doing more damage than just giving it a trial for a month would.

However, the majority of members voted 'no' on the original thread so perhaps it's time to just accept that that's what the majority wants and leave it at that.

 

[region2]

Therein lies the rub - no to commercial links doesn't mean no to links, just to blatant plugs. In my opinion. So the original poll was flawed so the result cannot be relied on. Again IMHO...

R2

 

[Queens59]

What's a QR code??

 

[Norton]

The answer is to G***le it.

ripoffbeekeepingsupplies.com use QR codes in their advertising. I think QR codes should be banned as they are commercial links.

 

[Luminos]

What's a QR code??

It's a bit like a square barcode, but looks more like a miniature crossword puzzle.

 

[Into the lions den]

Also, just the 2 of you doing it must be time consuming? (no I am not looking to be a mod.)

It can indeed be time consuming. I was one of the four moderators on Bee-L for a while and compared to this place that was a zoo. The one thing about moderators that should be dealt with promptly is than the moderators decision is FINAL, there should be no debate, and that is a condition of membership that must be respected. On Bee-L almost any relevant post was allowed, subject to strict conditions about quotes and links, which if included had to be working properly and not, as sometimes happened, turn out to be infected. The four moderators oerated independently, were in different countries, and post were being approved all the time as it was rare for no moderator to be on duty. It only took ONE moderator to say yes for the post to appear, so to fail to appear you had to have four black balls.

Clearly laid out in the rules was the fact that no threads were allowed regarding moderation itself, as these end up in sterile slanging matches between those who are severe on everything they do not agree with and those who are total libertarians who think its a net right to operate in an unregulated manner, including being as foul and unpleasant and offensive as you like to other members.

The two walk a tightrope. I think they are doing just fine.