FAQ on acceptable & unnacceptable links in user posts
04-09-08, 08:42 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
FAQ on acceptable & unnacceptable links in user posts
Where's the FAQ regarding acceptable and not acceptablee links in posts? Thanks in advance.
04-09-08, 05:13 PM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 6,879
Bikes: Trek Domane SLR 7 AXS, Trek CheckPoint SL7 AXS, Trek Emonda ALR AXS, Trek FX 5 Sport
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 765 Post(s)
Liked 1,735 Times
in
1,011 Posts
Funny you should ask, we are currently discussing and looking at revamping several of the guildlines. In general helpful links are ok, stuff for sale not. Porn, hate sites, stuff like that not good, just use your best judgment but if in doubt, send a PM to a Mod and we can let you know if the link is cool or not.
04-09-08, 07:32 PM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
What do you mean by things for sale? We are not allowed to post a link to eBay or Craigslist? Not even our "Nubmskull of the Day" or the Ebay and/or Craigslist Finds" ones? If someone asks about attaching a doohickey to their Faslab handlebar, we can't point to JensonUSA's page with the adapter that fits the Faslab handlebar?
04-09-08, 08:03 PM
#4
tired
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 5,651
Bikes: Breezer Uptown 8, U frame
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Discreet links are fine. I think jaxgtr was thinking more along the lines of the really outlandish, GIF-filled signatures that peddle people's wares.
__________________
"Real wars of words are harder to win. They require thought, insight, precision, articulation, knowledge, and experience. They require the humility to admit when you are wrong. They recognize that the dialectic is not about making us look at you, but about us all looking together for the truth."
"Real wars of words are harder to win. They require thought, insight, precision, articulation, knowledge, and experience. They require the humility to admit when you are wrong. They recognize that the dialectic is not about making us look at you, but about us all looking together for the truth."
04-09-08, 08:04 PM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Between the mountains and the lake.
Posts: 16,681
Bikes: 8 bikes - one for each day of the week!
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
What do you mean by things for sale? We are not allowed to post a link to eBay or Craigslist? Not even our "Nubmskull of the Day" or the Ebay and/or Craigslist Finds" ones? If someone asks about attaching a doohickey to their Faslab handlebar, we can't point to JensonUSA's page with the adapter that fits the Faslab handlebar?
You spelled "Numbskull" wrong. Normally I wouldn't make a big deal out of that, but it's kinda funny.
04-09-08, 08:38 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sale, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 665
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I don't think there should need to be a highly detailed FAQ for anything and everything on a forum. Provided information should give an introduction to the type of participation invited and allowed, rather than be a detailed deliniation of the limits of behaviour, IMO.
That said, I think the Guidelines in place here are so minimalist that they are almost useless, and where defintions or explanations are included in them they are ones which portray too narrow a range of options. (see the definition of 'spam' in the guidelines, for instance.)
Compare to this site, a computer gaming magazine provided public forum, where the dedicated "Read before posting" section provides guidance to participants. (Most of it written by me
)
That guidance includes:
The formal/legal conditions and disclaimers imposed by the commercial site owner.
Guidelines which describe, in general terms, the "spirit of participation" expected from participants, and which establish/formalise the discretion forum moderators can use when making and acting on decisions.
An 'etiquette' document, which contains general forum-related information which a newcomer to internet forums might not be aware of.
With such documents in place the question of "Is a link suitable/acceptable?" becomes simply a matter of weighing up guidelines and common sense, as do many other questions people might ask.
'For sale' links? There's a For Sale section here, the posting access to which is a privilege for people with upgraded memberships. Outside of that posting links to your eBay itens or other For Sale items is only really a rather rude exercise in abusing the facilities provided to get a bit of freebie advertising.
Posting links to commercial vendors? If it's a helpful response to a query then what's the harm? But again, if it's a vendor seeking freebie advertising then that should be a 'no-no'.
Posting links to other forums? Spamming links to your own forum is a rudeness. Posting links to forums which are actively trying to 'poach' members from here shouldn't be done. But a link to another cycling forum topic, which contains answers not appearing here, shouldn't be a problem. It's polite and reasonable to give credit to the source of the information you find and then pass on to others.
All common sense stuff, as said.
Overall, given the minimalist nature of guidelines in place here it's a credit to site owners, supervisors and forum community that more sh*tfights than we see don't occur. Kudos. With the exception of maybe a couple of sections I'm very impressed indeed. More comprehensive or clear guidelines won't eliminate the frictions either. They just give clearer indications of how frictions get decided upon and handled.
I hope nobody sees my comments here as presumtuous or pushy, by the way. They're merely reflections, from an old fella who has been around a lot of forums, and is currently very much enjoying a break from supervising any of them.
That said, I think the Guidelines in place here are so minimalist that they are almost useless, and where defintions or explanations are included in them they are ones which portray too narrow a range of options. (see the definition of 'spam' in the guidelines, for instance.)
Compare to this site, a computer gaming magazine provided public forum, where the dedicated "Read before posting" section provides guidance to participants. (Most of it written by me
)That guidance includes:
The formal/legal conditions and disclaimers imposed by the commercial site owner.
Guidelines which describe, in general terms, the "spirit of participation" expected from participants, and which establish/formalise the discretion forum moderators can use when making and acting on decisions.
An 'etiquette' document, which contains general forum-related information which a newcomer to internet forums might not be aware of.
With such documents in place the question of "Is a link suitable/acceptable?" becomes simply a matter of weighing up guidelines and common sense, as do many other questions people might ask.
'For sale' links? There's a For Sale section here, the posting access to which is a privilege for people with upgraded memberships. Outside of that posting links to your eBay itens or other For Sale items is only really a rather rude exercise in abusing the facilities provided to get a bit of freebie advertising.
Posting links to commercial vendors? If it's a helpful response to a query then what's the harm? But again, if it's a vendor seeking freebie advertising then that should be a 'no-no'.
Posting links to other forums? Spamming links to your own forum is a rudeness. Posting links to forums which are actively trying to 'poach' members from here shouldn't be done. But a link to another cycling forum topic, which contains answers not appearing here, shouldn't be a problem. It's polite and reasonable to give credit to the source of the information you find and then pass on to others.
All common sense stuff, as said.
Overall, given the minimalist nature of guidelines in place here it's a credit to site owners, supervisors and forum community that more sh*tfights than we see don't occur. Kudos. With the exception of maybe a couple of sections I'm very impressed indeed. More comprehensive or clear guidelines won't eliminate the frictions either. They just give clearer indications of how frictions get decided upon and handled.
I hope nobody sees my comments here as presumtuous or pushy, by the way. They're merely reflections, from an old fella who has been around a lot of forums, and is currently very much enjoying a break from supervising any of them.
Last edited by Catweazle; 04-09-08 at 09:38 PM.
04-09-08, 09:31 PM
#7
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal
Posts: 309
Bikes: Specialized Roubaix - 2008, Trek 7600
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I don't think there should need to be a highly detailed FAQ for anything and everything on a forum. Provided information should give an introduction to the type of participation invited and allowed, rather than be a detailed deliniation of the limits of behaviour, IMO.
That said, I think the Guidelines in place here are so minimalist that they are almost useless, and where defintions or explanations are included in them they are ones which portray too narrow a range of options. (see the definition of 'spam' in the guidelines, for instance.)
Compare to this site, a computer gaming magazine provided public forum, where the dedicated "Read before posting" section provides guidance to participants. (Most of it written by me)
That guidance includes:
The formal/legal conditions and disclaimers imposed by the commercial site owner.
Guidelines which describe, in general terms, the "spirit of participation" expected from participants, and which establish/formalise the discretion forum moderators can use when making and acting on decisions.
An 'etiquette' document, which contains general forum-related information which a newcomer to internet forums might not be aware of.
With such documents in place the question of "Is a link suitable/acceptable?" becomes simply a matter of weighing up guidelines and common sense, as do many other questions people might ask.
'For sale' links? There's a For Sale section here, the posting access to which is a privilege for people with upgraded memberships. Outside of that posting links to your eBay itens or other For Sale items is only really a rather rude exercise in abusing the facilities provided to get a bit of freebie advertising.
Posting links to commercial vendors? If it's a helpful response to a query then what's the harm? But again, if it's a vendor seeking freebie advertising then that should be a 'no-no'.
Posting links to other forums? Spamming links to your own forum is a rudeness. Posting links to forums which are actively trying to 'poach' members from here shouldn't be done. But a link to another cycling forum topic, which contains answers not appearing here, shouldn't be a problem. It's polite and reasonable to give credit to the source of the information you find and then pass on to others.
All common sense stuff, as said.
Overall, given the minimalist nature of guidelines in place here it's a credit to site owners, supervisors and forum community that more sh*tfights than we see don't occur. Kudos. With the exception of maybe a couple of sections I'm very impressed indeed. More comprehensive or clear guidelines won't eliminate the frictions either. They just give clearer indications of how frictions get decided upon and handled.
O hope nobody sees my comments here as presumtuous or pushy, by the way. They're merely reflections, from an old fella who has been around a lot of forums, and is currently very much enjoying a break from supervising any of them.
That said, I think the Guidelines in place here are so minimalist that they are almost useless, and where defintions or explanations are included in them they are ones which portray too narrow a range of options. (see the definition of 'spam' in the guidelines, for instance.)
Compare to this site, a computer gaming magazine provided public forum, where the dedicated "Read before posting" section provides guidance to participants. (Most of it written by me
)That guidance includes:
The formal/legal conditions and disclaimers imposed by the commercial site owner.
Guidelines which describe, in general terms, the "spirit of participation" expected from participants, and which establish/formalise the discretion forum moderators can use when making and acting on decisions.
An 'etiquette' document, which contains general forum-related information which a newcomer to internet forums might not be aware of.
With such documents in place the question of "Is a link suitable/acceptable?" becomes simply a matter of weighing up guidelines and common sense, as do many other questions people might ask.
'For sale' links? There's a For Sale section here, the posting access to which is a privilege for people with upgraded memberships. Outside of that posting links to your eBay itens or other For Sale items is only really a rather rude exercise in abusing the facilities provided to get a bit of freebie advertising.
Posting links to commercial vendors? If it's a helpful response to a query then what's the harm? But again, if it's a vendor seeking freebie advertising then that should be a 'no-no'.
Posting links to other forums? Spamming links to your own forum is a rudeness. Posting links to forums which are actively trying to 'poach' members from here shouldn't be done. But a link to another cycling forum topic, which contains answers not appearing here, shouldn't be a problem. It's polite and reasonable to give credit to the source of the information you find and then pass on to others.
All common sense stuff, as said.
Overall, given the minimalist nature of guidelines in place here it's a credit to site owners, supervisors and forum community that more sh*tfights than we see don't occur. Kudos. With the exception of maybe a couple of sections I'm very impressed indeed. More comprehensive or clear guidelines won't eliminate the frictions either. They just give clearer indications of how frictions get decided upon and handled.
O hope nobody sees my comments here as presumtuous or pushy, by the way. They're merely reflections, from an old fella who has been around a lot of forums, and is currently very much enjoying a break from supervising any of them.
04-09-08, 10:10 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Ok, I'm lying. I had a typo.
All sounds good. I didn't think there would be a problem, but I wanted to be sure. And the Numbskull and eBay/Craigslist threads in C&V are some of my favorite threads.
04-10-08, 07:51 AM
#9
Lanky Lass
We would be lost without our Numbskull threads
. And, how would I find out about all the East Hill size bikes without the eBay/CL threads ?East Hill
__________________
___________________________________________________
TRY EMPATHY & HAVE LOVE IN YOUR HEART, PERHAPS I'LL SEE YOU ON THE ROAD...
___________________________________________________
TRY EMPATHY & HAVE LOVE IN YOUR HEART, PERHAPS I'LL SEE YOU ON THE ROAD...
04-10-08, 03:50 PM
#10
Pedal pusher...
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,766
Bikes: I've got a bunch...
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
04-10-08, 06:02 PM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sale, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 665
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Nope. I'm merely stipulating stuff which should be applied, by owners, 'admins' and participants alike. I'm not suggesting that it is applied, or that any of those involved actually have the capacity to do so.
