Can the TB revisit the Commercial links in Signatures issue?
Jul 30, 2012, 11:02 pm
#166
Moderator: Hyatt Gold Passport & Star Alliance
Join Date: May 1998
Location: London, UK
Programs: UA-1K 3MM/HY- LT Globalist/BA-GGL/GfL
Posts: 12,089
Jul 31, 2012, 12:10 am
#167
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: back to my roots in Scotland!
Programs: Tamsin - what else is there to say?
Posts: 47,843
I explained that in the post I gave some moments ago:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/19029066-post155.html
See the third or fourth paragraph and also further down where i highlight the differences between someone making commericial posts and someone with a commericial sig making posts that add value.
Now I've answered your question, can you answer mine?
What is the benefit of banning commercial sigs?
I've never asked a question of a TB, some of which members seem SOOO determined to act, but who cannot actually identify a benefit for the course of action they seem determined to pursue. This is just not logical that some members seem determined on a course for something they cannot actually describe a benefit for
Surely it's not much to ask that you can describe the benefit to us, the members you represent, before you actually make a change which negatively impacts on members using commericial links and on the mods you expect to enforce the change you make.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/19029066-post155.html
See the third or fourth paragraph and also further down where i highlight the differences between someone making commericial posts and someone with a commericial sig making posts that add value.
Now I've answered your question, can you answer mine?
What is the benefit of banning commercial sigs?
I've never asked a question of a TB, some of which members seem SOOO determined to act, but who cannot actually identify a benefit for the course of action they seem determined to pursue. This is just not logical that some members seem determined on a course for something they cannot actually describe a benefit for
Surely it's not much to ask that you can describe the benefit to us, the members you represent, before you actually make a change which negatively impacts on members using commericial links and on the mods you expect to enforce the change you make.
Jul 31, 2012, 6:54 am
#168
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,611
No, which is why I believe they ought to be in full conformance with the TOS.
It is ok to talk about abortion in O/PR, but it does not serve the community well to allow abortion talk in sigs, which also appear in airline forums, hotel forums, etc. It's distracts from the core function of FT, the altruistic sharing of points, travel and miles knowledge.
By the same token, it should be ok to promote your commercial venture in a commercial forum but not in sigs, which also appear in airline forums, hotel forums, etc. It distracts from the core function of FT, the altruistic sharing of points, travel and miles knowledge..
What is the benefit of banning commercial sigs?
I've never asked a question of a TB, some of which members seem SOOO determined to act, but who cannot actually identify a benefit for the course of action they seem determined to pursue. This is just not logical that some members seem determined on a course for something they cannot actually describe a benefit for Surely it's not much to ask that you can describe the benefit to us, the members you represent, before you actually make a change which negatively impacts on members using commericial links and on the mods you expect to enforce the change you make.
I have answered that question twice now (including once in the post that you selectively quote in your post!):
It is ok to talk about abortion in O/PR, but it does not serve the community well to allow abortion talk in sigs, which also appear in airline forums, hotel forums, etc. It's distracts from the core function of FT, the altruistic sharing of points, travel and miles knowledge.
By the same token, it should be ok to promote your commercial venture in a commercial forum but not in sigs, which also appear in airline forums, hotel forums, etc. It distracts from the core function of FT, the altruistic sharing of points, travel and miles knowledge..
What is the benefit of banning commercial sigs?
I've never asked a question of a TB, some of which members seem SOOO determined to act, but who cannot actually identify a benefit for the course of action they seem determined to pursue. This is just not logical that some members seem determined on a course for something they cannot actually describe a benefit for
Surely it's not much to ask that you can describe the benefit to us, the members you represent, before you actually make a change which negatively impacts on members using commericial links and on the mods you expect to enforce the change you make.And to me, best practices are typically simple and consistent. I would think that any moderator would agree with that notion, as simple and consistent practices are the easiest to enforce.
As you say, FT is primarily about sharing travel information altruistically, so keeping sigs on-topic related to travel or personal (like a quote, etc), non-commercial, non-political and in conformance with the TOS seems like a simple and consistent best practice.
Giving posters a forum to flog their books or plumbing skillz or their drop shipping web site seems to me like a good way to build community. Yes, rules to keep spam out will be required. But with post minimum to play, that is easily overcome.
There is no reason that FTers cannot have their cake (tos enforcement applied consistently) and eat it too (have a proper and well defined place to be commercial with each other, provide commercial links, etc).
And mods can tell those who wish to be commercial in their sigs or posts or profiles or anywhere else that such activity is welcome on FT, but only in the proper forum.
As you say, FT is primarily about sharing travel information altruistically, so keeping sigs on-topic related to travel or personal (like a quote, etc), non-commercial, non-political and in conformance with the TOS seems like a simple and consistent best practice.
Giving posters a forum to flog their books or plumbing skillz or their drop shipping web site seems to me like a good way to build community. Yes, rules to keep spam out will be required. But with post minimum to play, that is easily overcome.
There is no reason that FTers cannot have their cake (tos enforcement applied consistently) and eat it too (have a proper and well defined place to be commercial with each other, provide commercial links, etc).
And mods can tell those who wish to be commercial in their sigs or posts or profiles or anywhere else that such activity is welcome on FT, but only in the proper forum.
Jul 31, 2012, 8:01 am
#169
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 1999
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 15,352
I'd like to see examples of signatures that are (or were) a problem. Can someone point me to some of those?
Jul 31, 2012, 4:44 pm
#170
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
Being that the two Talk Board members that have posted the number of complaints they received were zero and one, maybe some of the other Talk Board members that are getting all the complaints can post a dozen or so here to better explain the problem. Excellent idea.
Jul 31, 2012, 7:06 pm
#171
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador: World of Hyatt
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: NJ
Programs: Hyatt Globalist, Fairmont Lifetime Plat, UA Silver, dirt elsewhere
Posts: 46,919
I wish I could find the problem signatures, but the last I reported, for being an ad for a personal business, apparently was OK because the TOS had been changed to allow it and I was unaware.
However, I had reported a few when I'm certain it was against the TOS and never received a reply and the signature remained.
However, I had reported a few when I'm certain it was against the TOS and never received a reply and the signature remained.
Jul 31, 2012, 10:03 pm
#172
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SGF
Programs: AS, AA, UA, AGR S (former 75K, GLD, 1K, and S+, now an elite peon)
Posts: 23,194
I wish I could find the problem signatures, but the last I reported, for being an ad for a personal business, apparently was OK because the TOS had been changed to allow it and I was unaware.
However, I had reported a few when I'm certain it was against the TOS and never received a reply and the signature remained.
However, I had reported a few when I'm certain it was against the TOS and never received a reply and the signature remained.
If you reported it to the forum moderator, perhaps the moderator wasn't aware of the proper channel to then pass the information along to the appropriate parties. (Regular moderators don't have any direct oversight of signatures.)
Aug 1, 2012, 2:51 am
#173
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: back to my roots in Scotland!
Programs: Tamsin - what else is there to say?
Posts: 47,843
Also, before there was the sig com it would be up to the mod who it was reported to to review it. Perhaps they reviewed it and their view of it differed from yours?
I know I spent a fair amount of time killing signature spam before the rules were changed.
I know I spent a fair amount of time killing signature spam before the rules were changed.
Aug 1, 2012, 6:31 am
#174
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador: World of Hyatt
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: NJ
Programs: Hyatt Globalist, Fairmont Lifetime Plat, UA Silver, dirt elsewhere
Posts: 46,919
Sorry, I can't remember. It was a while ago.
If someone is advertising a personal business, and it clearly says so, well, that was a violation of the TOS at the time. If their view differed, well, then they weren't abiding by the rules. At a minimum, I would have expected a response from the mod, such as I got when I was told the TOS were changed.
If someone is advertising a personal business, and it clearly says so, well, that was a violation of the TOS at the time. If their view differed, well, then they weren't abiding by the rules. At a minimum, I would have expected a response from the mod, such as I got when I was told the TOS were changed.