Commercial links

[peteinwilts]

I personally think yes.

I also thing it should be restricted to a seperate folder.

each 'new' supplier has its own thread, and only the owner of the thread can post. (to stop it being spammed)
The thread\business owner can then post special offers, new products etc.

In addition to the thread, the stall owner would have geographical placement to allow the visitor quick and easy access if they choose to because it is in their area.

I have missed sales and am sure i am not aware of suppliers out in the market place.

in addition to owning a 'stall', it could have a positive and negative thread. This should up the stall owners game as negative press on a website such as this could cost them a lot of business.

as the stalls would be in a seperate folder, the visitors can choose whether they want to browse or not, therefore not having anything 'rammed down their throats'

For me an example would be for buying queens. I only know one source, but am sure there are plenty out there.
Also, we would hopefully see some healthy competition in the marketsplace.

just my two cents

 

[BeeJayBee]

Some commercial forum members advertise, with prices but without links to their own sites. Which way is their 'serious bias' likely to be?

Correct me if I am wrong, but this may be a reference to me putting up what the real prices stuff is traded at for all to see.

I will correct you, and it was not a reference to you quoting trade prices.

 

[Hivemaker.]

I personally think yes.

I also thing it should be restricted to a seperate folder.

each 'new' supplier has its own thread, and only the owner of the thread can post. (to stop it being spammed)
The thread\business owner can then post special offers, new products etc.

In addition to the thread, the stall owner would have geographical placement to allow the visitor quick and easy access if they choose to because it is in their area.

I have missed sales and am sure i am not aware of suppliers out in the market place.

in addition to owning a 'stall', it could have a positive and negative thread. This should up the stall owners game as negative press on a website such as this could cost them a lot of business.

as the stalls would be in a seperate folder, the visitors can choose whether they want to browse or not, therefore not having anything 'rammed down their throats'

For me an example would be for buying queens. I only know one source, but am sure there are plenty out there.
Also, we would hopefully see some healthy competition in the marketsplace.

just my two cents

We already have something that does this,its the directory.

 

[Dusty Rhodes]

I voted "Yes but only if the poster does not own/or is in no way connected with the business".


My reasoning is that equipment and services are fundamental to the whole art and are legitimate areas for comment - both complimentary and critical.

There's a categorical difference between third party comment and self-promotion.

IMNSHO* it would be a sad day if I could not pass on my delight at good service or a good product, or post an opinion of bad service/product.

Dusty.

*"In my not so humble opinion". Which, IMHO, is what people really mean when they put IMHO.

 

[alanf]

An example:

http://www.beekeepingforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=15811

References to a 'West Sussex' supplier are interpreted as intended by some. Others work out it is Pay-nes but not that they have a separate site for live bees at i-want-bees. Others have no idea which supplier is being talked about. For every poster who admits they are not following there are many who either go away puzzled or guess wrongly. I might be guessing wrongly too, I have no idea.

The discussion itself is potentially of interest to beginners or any level of experience; why some queens can justify a price of 75 quid when others are only 40 (established retailer rates obviously). A URL would allow all to see what's being talked about. It's not one way advertising, the price is clearly high for a provenance they don't reveal - possibly because other resellers or direct are cheaper.

To clarify the principle, is a link to the beekeeping directory always permitted: beekeepingdirectory.co.uk/detail.php?id=133 ? It does depend on that particular supplier maintaining an entry there, but what is the directory there for otherwise?

 

[VEG]

I voted
Yes but only if the poster does not own/or is in no way connected with the business

But comercial/business needs to be defined as say I wanted to offer 10 nucs for sale does that put me in the commercial/business bit or just a hobby beek selling off a couple of nucs (I dont have any for sale by the way).

 

[AnotherNewBee]

Personally, I think this is descending into complete farce. There will never be a consensus so, eventually, a decision will have to be made by the owner/admin/mods. Whichever way it goes, ordinary forum members will have to like it, tolerate it, or - sadly - move on.

All hobbyists, of any type, are dependent on commercial organisations for at least some of their supplies. Inevitably any group of people with similar interests will want to discuss suppliers from time to time. The 'West Sussex Supplier' is a case in point. As a newbie it was over my head anyway, but I can understand that an experienced beek not familiar with West Sussex might have liked to see a name at least. Where would the harm have been in that? If a name, why not a link to the page on the suppliers web site? One purpose of the internet/www is to allow a document to link directly to another, thus eliminating potential confusion and saving time.

My conclusion - at this point in this thread - is that

- unobfuscated links should be allowed anywhere on the site as long as they are in context.
- blatantly commercial messages ("Sale starting at Acme on dd/mm/yy") should be confined to a subforum.
- the Beekeeping Directory (if retained) needs to be kept up to date and inclusive (rather than exclusive).
- supplier/product reviews may need their own subfora.
- signatures need to be considered. Use of a commercial link, or a declaration of interest, should be required if there is one. This would help to keep members informed in cases where, for example, an employee of Acme posts "I think the Acme widget is a far superior product to all other makes."

Just my thoughts. If it stays as it is it's still a useful and helpful forum, just not as useful or helpful as it could be.

 

[mbc]

If it stays as it is it's still a useful and helpful forum, just not as useful or helpful as it could be.

Well summed up. I voted undecided because although I find starring out harmless links irritating, I do like the forum spam free, and I have little concept of how difficult it is to manage the technical wizardry to do so.
I'd like to say well done to admin for his efforts so far.

 

[The Cumbrian]

Well summed up. I voted undecided because although I find starring out harmless links irritating, I do like the forum spam free, and I have little concept of how difficult it is to manage the technical wizardry to do so.
I'd like to say well done to admin for his efforts so far.

 

[Brosville]

I think a lot of people are forgetting the sheer amount of time that a moderating team has to spend on dealing with spam of various sorts, from the simple "get your herbal todger pills here" to sophisticated scams whereby "double acts" work a flanker......... ("newbie" innocently asks "is there anybody in Surrey/Sussex selling queens?" in reply to which the spam post is made "yeah, go to Ripoff Apiaries, Buxted"......)
SO I have every sympathy with "blanket bans" as the sheer amount of time wasted in deciding whether links are kosher or not is faintly ridiculous - this is a free forum, run by volunteers - if there is a slight inconvenience at not being able to post some links, then so be it....- it's actually no big deal!

 

[AnotherNewBee]

I think a lot of people are forgetting the sheer amount of time that a moderating team has to spend on dealing with spam of various sorts, from the simple "get your herbal todger pills here" to sophisticated scams whereby "double acts" work a flanker......... ("newbie" innocently asks "is there anybody in Surrey/Sussex selling queens?" in reply to which the spam post is made "yeah, go to Ripoff Apiaries, Buxted"......)
SO I have every sympathy with "blanket bans" as the sheer amount of time wasted in deciding whether links are kosher or not is faintly ridiculous - this is a free forum, run by volunteers - if there is a slight inconvenience at not being able to post some links, then so be it....- it's actually no big deal!

Exactly why this cannot be an entirely democratic decision. The owner/admin/mods must have a bigger say than anyone else as they will be the most affected by it.

 

[tonybloke]

I think a lot of people are forgetting the sheer amount of time that a moderating team has to spend on dealing with spam of various sorts, from the simple "get your herbal todger pills here" to sophisticated scams whereby "double acts" work a flanker......... ("newbie" innocently asks "is there anybody in Surrey/Sussex selling queens?" in reply to which the spam post is made "yeah, go to Ripoff Apiaries, Buxted"......)
SO I have every sympathy with "blanket bans" as the sheer amount of time wasted in deciding whether links are kosher or not is faintly ridiculous - this is a free forum, run by volunteers - if there is a slight inconvenience at not being able to post some links, then so be it....- it's actually no big deal!

well said Brossy!!

 

[wightbees]

All we need is a few more mods.
I Know ....how about Norton and ITTLD










only Joking

 

[Norton]

We must try to get rid of the negative expression on this thread.

 

[Headnavigator]

I think a lot of people are forgetting the sheer amount of time that a moderating team has to spend on dealing with spam of various sorts, from the simple "get your herbal todger pills here" to sophisticated scams whereby "double acts" work a flanker......... ("newbie" innocently asks "is there anybody in Surrey/Sussex selling queens?" in reply to which the spam post is made "yeah, go to Ripoff Apiaries, Buxted"......)
SO I have every sympathy with "blanket bans" as the sheer amount of time wasted in deciding whether links are kosher or not is faintly ridiculous - this is a free forum, run by volunteers - if there is a slight inconvenience at not being able to post some links, then so be it....- it's actually no big deal!

Well said, what we will never know is how protected we have been over these past months and years by good Moderators, and we have no way of quantifying this. The only way we might find out is if we were to plead for open commercial access and get it. As they say, "Be careful of what you wish for . . . . "

 

[sugarbush]

I voted yes and have nothing to gain... The only thing I sell is bees and it would be illegal for me to ship them to Europe.

I think it should be done for the good of the forum....When I put "bee Forum" in google...this one is 5th in line.... The number 1 one allows commercial links, which is why they rank # 1.

 

[Hivemaker.]

When I put "bee Forum" in google...this one is 5th in line.... The number 1 one allows commercial links, which is why they rank # 1.

This one comes up as the first (number 1) and second, when i google bee forum,Beesource comes up in 5th place.

 

[Suzi Q]

Yes, when googled, beekeeping forum is no. 1, and anyway if it wasn't is that a good reason to allow commercial links? Just so that the forum is no 1 and not 2, 3, 4, or fifth?

 

[sugarbush]

Huh?.... I guess forget that argument than

 

[AnotherNewBee]

Huh?.... I guess forget that argument than

Go figure.

I'm not sure, as my search engine optimisation works by good luck rather than good judgement, but I think links to external sites are bad for SOE whereas links to a site from elsewhere are good - but links on link farms are very bad.

At the moment I'm getting the Beekeeping Forum 1st in Google.co.uk searches for 'bee forum'. It's also 1st in Bing.com and Yahoo.com