Commercial links

[The Cumbrian]

Those of us who have contributed in the past, but not so far this year, have had our contribution status docked to nil.

Going on my admittedly limited experience the banner about supporting appears to run for 12 months from your contribution not by the calendar year.

 

[Monsieur Abeille]

Going on my admittedly limited experience the banner about supporting appears to run for 12 months from your contribution not by the calendar year.

No, I think its calendar year although Admin may have left some leeway for contributors late in the year. The banner also appears to be a manual process as it doesn't appear as soon as you have contributed

 

[Black Comb]

The "forum culture" on this has changed recently.
In the past once the monthly target was hit most of us felt no need to contribute "this" month.
If £60 is enough why do we need to pay more.

Also, many months recently the target is surpassed, what happens to the "overpayments"?

 

[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.

Just another thought. Using this logic then such people should not be allowed to post in this debate. One of the members who put a lot of argumentS forward for no (one of he forums extreme posters) has never contributed to the forum if my memory's correct.

 

[roche]

The "forum culture" on this has changed recently.
In the past once the monthly target was hit most of us felt no need to contribute "this" month.
If £60 is enough why do we need to pay more.

Also, many months recently the target is surpassed, what happens to the "overpayments"?

Actually a lot of people felt the need to contribute more, otherwise the target would not have been surpassed....

Additional features appear, possibly as a result of "overpayments". But this all seems to be getting rather off topic. The question is about commercial links.

 

[Brosville]

"One of the members who put a lot of argumentS forward for no (one of he forums extreme posters) has never contributed to the forum if my memory's correct"

That'll be me! - The poll was open for all members to vote, so I did, and added some good reasons for my vote in the thread - the vast majority of posters don't contribute cash - presumably as I'm viewed as an "extreme poster", then had I given funds it would be construed as trying to influence things..........

Incidentally, my post supporting a "no" vote was based purely on pragmatism - it would be impossible for a forum run like this one to implement the "yes" vote easily, and would be a total pain to maintain - this based on some years of experience as being a forum admin myself - should we perhaps preclude those who know diddly squat about running a forum from voting?........or those who might possibly post a commercial link, or perhaps anyone who owns/runs/works for a company, or those that do help fund the forum lest they are biasing things...................

 

[Winker]

Just another thought. Using this logic then such people should not be allowed to post in this debate. One of the members who put a lot of argumentS forward for no (one of he forums extreme posters) has never contributed to the forum if my memory's correct.

post 137 in this thread i said:

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."

 

[Brosville]

I was under the impression that contributions were entirely voluntary, and not "subs" in the obligatory sense - if we follow this line of reasoning, something over 98% of the membership (who don't pay) should be precluded from voting, posting, and probably visiting the forum as well...........

 

[BeeJayBee]

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.

Really?

Are you saying that anybody who wants to sell something, and posts in the 'for sale/wanted' or even in the 'courses' sections (because some advertised courses are clearly privately run), has to pay for the privilege?

 

[Winker]

Really?

Are you saying that anybody who wants to sell something, and posts in the 'for sale/wanted' or even in the 'courses' sections (because some advertised courses are clearly privately run), has to pay for the privilege?

I believe Admin was a bit slack on enforcing that rule the past year, But i believe i read some where on here that's the way it is. Not that i paid my contrabution for that reason.

I paid my Contribution so the site can stay advert free. But that's not how i polled my choice in the poll!

 

[Winker]

I was under the impression that contributions were entirely voluntary, and not "subs" in the obligatory sense - if we follow this line of reasoning, something over 98% of the membership (who don't pay) should be precluded from voting, posting, and probably visiting the forum as well...........

I payed my "subs"/Contribution so the site can stay advert free. One of the other reasons for running the "Subs"/Contributions is also so you can sell your bees and such in the forsale section, or so i believe. So if you want to sell your bees here yearly you need or should pay for a Contribution to the site.

Adding, that this is a poll to allow adverts, i think those who help pay to keep it advert free should have teh say. IMHO and thats all it is remeber! MHO

 

[wightbees]

I thought it was Nucs only.

 

[Winker]

I thought it was Nucs only.

Quote: Admin
"Please advertise any Nucs you have for sale during 2010. Remember to add your location and contact details frame type etc. If you are selling bee's a donation to the forum would be appreciated."

Ok so that may not make it a hard and fast rule for selling bees, but after being told that, it would be kinda rude not to make a contribution if selling your bees

 

[AnotherNewBee]

Adding, that this is a poll to allow adverts, i think those who help pay to keep it advert free should have teh say. IMHO and thats all it is remeber! MHO

My understanding is that this is a poll to determine if links should be allowed.

 

[Black Comb]

"One of the members who put a lot of argumentS forward for no (one of he forums extreme posters) has never contributed to the forum if my memory's correct"

That'll be me! - The poll was open for all members to vote, so I did, and added some good reasons for my vote in the thread - the vast majority of posters don't contribute cash - presumably as I'm viewed as an "extreme poster", then had I given funds it would be construed as trying to influence things........../QUOTE]

No Bros, I was not thinking of you at all.
By "extreme posting" I mean posting in nearly every thread - therefore using the forum a lot but not contributing.

I agree it's off topic, but what Winker was saying needed to be challenged.

Also, as I understand it you now have to make a contribution before you can advertise anything in the "for sale" section.

 

[Brosville]

fairy nuff!

 

[Winker]

My understanding is that this is a poll to determine if links should be allowed.

There was and advert, i mean thread, posted about a company who was having a sale at the time. The thread had the company name in the header, saying ****** sale now on (or something to that effect). For 3 weeks it sat in the top 15 postings. It may not have been posted as an advert, it was in fact posted as a discussion thread. But it sure gave that one company a hell of a lot of viewers from forum readers, which we have quite a few of. It was probably the best none paid for advert they could have ever hoped for. Striking straight at the heart of the community you want to sell your wares to.

I understand that that's its the software doing the staring out, and its not cleaver enough to know if its an advert or a discussion about beekeeping with a genuine link. so as humans we have to make a decision, allow the company names to be spoken out loud or not and star them out. So while you may think this only affects links it has much broader implications.

 

[AnotherNewBee]

Don't you think that beeks would like to know that company ****** (or any other company) has a sale on? If it's posted by a regular user, probably not a problem - especially if it's in a sub-forum set aside for that sort of thing.

What about product reviews? I think the widget sold by ******* is much better than the one made by *******. What do you think?

It's simply not a major issue. Prolific link posters can be slapped easily enough if it appears they're spamming.

As for a thread with a link giving free advertising to a commercial company, I do that down the pub most weeks. "I see so-and-so wants to sell his tractor/car/house." Should I send him the bill, should the pub send him the bill, or should I be barred for unsolicited advertising?

There is a huge difference between posting links which are in context and spamming.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

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.

Should we have a vote on that?

 

[Winker]

Don't you think that beeks would like to know that company ****** (or any other company) has a sale on? If it's posted by a regular user, probably not a problem - especially if it's in a sub-forum set aside for that sort of thing.

What about product reviews? I think the widget sold by ******* is much better than the one made by *******. What do you think?

It's simply not a major issue. Prolific link posters can be slapped easily enough if it appears they're spamming.

As for a thread with a link giving free advertising to a commercial company, I do that down the pub most weeks. "I see so-and-so wants to sell his tractor/car/house." Should I send him the bill, should the pub send him the bill, or should I be barred for unsolicited advertising?

There is a huge difference between posting links which are in context and spamming.

Hey, i am one of the 59 who voted for the option "Yes but only if the poster does not own/or is in no way connected with the business"

So your preaching to the converted

I was pointing out that people like me help contrabute/donate to the site up-keep so that we dont have to put up with comercial links/adverts/etc. So if thats what were paying for, we should have bigger say in whether or not the site should or should not allow these.



I never once said i was anginst any option in the poll!