Commercial links

[sugarbush]

it means they dont like you any more

I am on the UK landrover forum too... they don't like me there either. I'm over it.

If I was aware that Pete was the only Mod I wouldn't have said I thought that the poll was being messed with... he seems to be an upstanding guy to me. From here anyway.

 

[tonybloke]

I am on the UK landrover forum too... they don't like me there either. I'm over it.

are collecting 'non-friends', like some folk collect 'friends' on fb ? LOL

 

[sugarbush]

are collecting 'non-friends', like some folk collect 'friends' on fb ? LOL

They say to keep your enemies closer

 

[Monsieur Abeille]

To be fair to sugarbush, the numbers have been a bit odd - a couple of times now they have been close to parity, then the No vote has a huge surge.

However, Mark wouldn't stoop so low - he has no need to and as he says, the forum is run for its members so what would be the advantage in rigging such a vote.

 

[Brosville]

"a couple of times now they have been close to parity, then the No vote has a huge surge"

I've been watching them too, and if you take the posts into account, and their timing parallels it is simply explained - following a post pointing out the sheer difficulty and unreality of implementing such a system on a voluntarily staffed forum like this, there were more new votes "against" than "for" which has made a difference of a very few percent (not a huge surge) on the "against" totals..... No big deal, no jiggery pokery, just a reasonable reaction by the voters.....

 

[JamezF]

following a post pointing out the sheer difficulty and unreality of implementing such a system on a voluntarily staffed forum like this

Makes one wonder how other voluntarily-managed forums get by...

James

 

[BKF Admin]

I think they get by with the owner having to pay all the server costs like I did the first year.

There is talk of the "NO" vote being rigged,yet the bit I don't understand is that I get emails/telephone calls often from beekeeping suppliers offering to sponsor forum sections for far more than we could ever make in donations.

In fact a couple of the big boys have even offered to be the single sponsors of the forum on a yearly basis for ten times what we take in donations.

It looks like the "NO" vote is going to take it,can someone explain to me why I would want it to come out that way ?

Regards the way the no vote has swung I believe it is due to the commercial boys jumping on the yes vote at the begining while general members have been slower to vote.

 

[Brosville]

The one I'm admin on also bans commercial advertising for precisely those reasons (and I know several others that do the same) - why on earth should voluntary moderators have to waste hours on deciding "what's kosher" and what isn't? (from bitter experience it can take hours just to verify one link, and then if you do allow it, all those who's links have been disallowed start squawking "snot fair") - if there's a simple "don't do it" rule, then everyone knows where they stand, and there's no additional timewasting required of the moderators... (there's more than enough to do overseeing registrations, dealing with spam of all sorts and keeping an eye on "spats" without added complications)

 

[oliver90owner]

To be fair to sugarbush, the numbers have been a bit odd

Not a surprising scenario, I would have thought.

All the 'band-wagon commercialists' would have jumped in early to try to make it initially appear as a popular option. They are likely to predominate in the first group.

Then the discussions got going and the more people voting (at a later time) would decide, on the evidence going before them, that 'no' is the best option.

I would think there are likely more in the middle group who now wished they had voted 'no' than there are in the third group who now consider option two as an acceptable compromise.

Most of the arguments for commercial advertising on the forum have been devastatingly quashed, veritably crushed to a pulp, I would suggest.... just a case of common sense prevailing in the longer term.

For once, Brosville has made a couple of very sensible and telling additions to the thread at very opportune points. The pro-commercialism group have failed to deceive/change the views of the majority. Let this be an end to their attempts to subvert the forum from the superb system it has been set up with, by Admin. I doubt it will, but the results of this poll will be remembered for some time to come.

RAB

Sorry if re-iterating some of Admin's comments, but he started earlier than me, keys in much much faster than me (I very strongly suspect) and it took me time to get my thoughts together and set out in the right order

 

[Monsieur Abeille]

Just to re-iterate - I was not suggesting any nefarious deeds, simply that it could be one interpretation of the swing in numbers.

 

[Black Comb]

Well I'm not commercial and voted yes (part 2).

At least one good thing has come out of this. The petty banning of links to Dave Cushman's site has been reversed.

 

[Winker]

Should the Beekeeping Forum allow links to commercial websites ?

Only people who have contributed to the forum upkeep should be allowed to vote in this pole. People who do not choose to help keep this site free from advertising by making a donation should have no say.

 

[scuttlefish]

Only people who have contributed to the forum upkeep should be allowed to vote in this pole. People who do not choose to help keep this site free from advertising by making a donation should have no say.

Fair point, although there's still no harm in knowing what the wider population of users think.

 

[Black Comb]

Only people who have contributed to the forum upkeep should be allowed to vote in this pole. People who do not choose to help keep this site free from advertising by making a donation should have no say.

Those of us who have contributed in the past, but not so far this year, have had our contribution status docked to nil. I've been member for longer than many on here, have contributed in the past, intend to do so in the future and IMO have every right to vote. I hope you will re-think this post.

 

[Norton]

Yes but if the commercial members contributed in financially it would look like they are trying to bribe Admin. He doesn't want commercial sponsorship.

 

[Winker]

Those of us who have contributed in the past, but not so far this year, have had our contribution status docked to nil. I've been member for longer than many on here, have contributed in the past, intend to do so in the future and IMO have every right to vote. I hope you will re-think this post.

I hear what your saying Peter, but i hold a view of "if your not a current subscriber, you can air your view, and you view may be entirely correct, but it does not count unless your subs are paid up."

Yes but if the commercial members contributed in financially it would look like they are trying to bribe Admin. He doesn't want commercial sponsorship.

Norton there is a clear difference between commercial Sponsorship and contributing to help keep the site commercially free. As long as you are able to abide by the site rules of no commercial adverts then everything should be fine, regardless of your chosen employment.

 

[Norton]

I don't have a problem with this, but it appears you do.
I don't need anger management, you just need to shut up!

 

[Winker]

I don't have a problem with this, but it appears you do.
I don't need anger management, you just need to shut up!

Whats up not able to hold an adult conversation?

 

[Black Comb]

Winker, we don't have subs on this forum.
Did you not know that?

 

[Winker]

Winker, we don't have subs on this forum.
Did you not know that?

It was a saying Peter "coin a phrase" You do in effect have subs if you status as a contributor needs to be paid yearly to show . Which in turn allows you to sell your bees every year if that’s what you so wish to do, in the for sale section.