[Suggestion] A Website sub catigory of Nightingale?

Krang 11-08-2004 01:18 AM
Thanks for the help, you two. How's this:

Blatant advertising: Posting a link to a website, forum, or other online resource for the sole purpose of gaining visitors or members.

If that sounds clear and includes any previous examples of blatant advertising (and nobody can find any loopholes Tongue ), then I'll add it when I update the rules.
Kittie heavenly6 11-08-2004 02:24 AM
I think that phrasing sounds good.
Seraphim 11-08-2004 06:23 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Krang
Thanks for the help, you two. How's this:

Blatant advertising: Posting a link to a website, forum, or other online resource for the sole purpose of gaining visitors or members.

If that sounds clear and includes any previous examples of blatant advertising (and nobody can find any loopholes Tongue ), then I'll add it when I update the rules.


I suppose the only loophole is that it's hard to judge someone's purpose. They could be asking for feedback, or asking for hits. I'm imagining posts like these:

"Hey guys, can you give me comments on my site? *link*"

That can be really easily abused.
Asirt 11-08-2004 10:00 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Seraphim
I suppose the only loophole is that it's hard to judge someone's purpose. They could be asking for feedback, or asking for hits. I'm imagining posts like these:

"Hey guys, can you give me comments on my site? *link*"

That can be really easily abused.


That's true. However, Krang's def. of Blatant advertising is mostly to get people to join. If it's just a site they want opinions on, I don't see anywhere in the wording where it says you can't do that. In fact, this thread is an example of that. Other than that, the wording sounds good enough.
Seraphim 11-08-2004 06:31 PM
Yes, I know, but I fear we'll see threads like the one I proposed above... and not just some, but a ton.

My vision of this forum is about 50 threads, with the same "Check out my site! *link*". The threads would probably have only three or four replies each.

Spammerific.
Dude Love 11-08-2004 06:37 PM
Wow, Seraphim, you have a severe lack of trust in the members of Paradigm. Surely, there may be a few members that'd do something like that, but I doubt every memer is going to be like "OMG liek chek 0u7 mi wbesiet!!!111! *link*.

My thoughts: Certainly not a sub-forum, but perhaps a thread dedicated to that purpose, which is stickied somewhere.
Seraphim 11-08-2004 06:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Wienberg
Wow, Seraphim, you have a severe lack of trust in the members of Paradigm. Surely, there may be a few members that'd do something like that, but I doubt every memer is going to be like "OMG liek chek 0u7 mi wbesiet!!!111! *link*.

My thoughts: Certainly not a sub-forum, but perhaps a thread dedicated to that purpose, which is stickied somewhere.


I never said anyone would be like "OMG liek chek 0u7 mi wbesiet!!!111! *link*. Don't exaggerate my point to make it look invalid.

I'm just saying, I don't think it would be a success. Intent or not, I don't think very much serious discussion about website designing would occur.
Krang 11-08-2004 10:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Seraphim
I'm just saying, I don't think it would be a success. Intent or not, I don't think very much serious discussion about website designing would occur.

If that's the case, then do you have a suggestion as to how to word this definition so that it can't be abused?
Seraphim 11-09-2004 11:08 AM
Hmm. That's tricky. Well, let's look at the issue.

Problem: People might just post to get hits instead of actually requiring help.
What would fix it: If people were sincere about it all the time.
Why that might not work: People are certainly not good all the time.
What would fix that: If people would only post if there was a real reason, other than "Go look at my site."

Therefore, posting a website should only be allowed IF there is a problem with it. For example, if I couldn't get my PHP Script to work, I would ask for help there. Including a link (for others to test the stuff) would be acceptable. Otherwise, I don't think websites should be put on there. If it has no problems, you can put it in your sig or your bio info or even your website field -- you'll certainly get enough exposure there. Making a new thread about it is sort of pointless.

But then again, that's just my opinion. You guys'll probably figure out better ideas for it, but that was the thing I had in mind.
evanASF27 11-09-2004 11:46 AM
quote:
Problem: People might just post to get hits instead of actually requiring help.
What would fix it: If people were sincere about it all the time.
Why that might not work: People are certainly not good all the time.
What would fix that: If people would only post if there was a real reason, other than "Go look at my site."

A person can post a link to their site and ask "what do you guys think I can do to improve my site?". Though if you want complete utter control of the whole thing you'll have to look at it case-by-case, and then determine if the thread is valid or not. Of course a moderator that could judge that really well would help...it's not like the section is going to be left alone and allow all hell to break loose. Posting threads that have the main purpose of saying "visit/join my site!" shouldn't be allowed in such a section because there's no point to the posts.....

But meh this really is getting confusing and getting us nowhere fast.


I'm going to agree with Wienberg. A stickied thread would be the best solution until there is enough interest to make a subsection.
Prons 11-11-2004 09:53 PM
I think a sticky would be great, I own a site its a fairly legit one, its got no message board to sign up for or anything of the like so I'd have no reason to try and get people to join.