Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Community > TalkBoard Topics
Reload this Page >

Forum Member Affiliate Links Policy Reconsideration?

Forum Member Affiliate Links Policy Reconsideration?

 
Old Dec 2, 2013, 9:11 am
  #16  
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador: World of Hyatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: NJ
Programs: Hyatt Globalist, Fairmont Lifetime Plat, UA Silver, dirt elsewhere
Posts: 46,919
I also oppose blog links as well as links to personal businesses.
Mary2e is offline  
Old Dec 2, 2013, 10:50 am
  #17  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: Gold, plat, diamond and more
Posts: 3,360
Originally Posted by yerffej201
I would say a blog link is different from affiliate links and do not significantly impede the content of the thread? (Unless now because you choose to bring it out). My whole concern was that referral links affect the content of someone's post. I doubt that the link to my blog does the same.
There are some bloggers self promoting far more than others. You can see the pattern of postings, and the fact that some bloggers desperately try to gain audience by posting glitches and other easily killable deals.

A few are notorious and for that disliked by many regulars.
travelkid is offline  
Old Dec 2, 2013, 11:41 am
  #18  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 6,384
Originally Posted by travelkid
There are some bloggers self promoting far more than others. You can see the pattern of postings, and the fact that some bloggers desperately try to gain audience by posting glitches and other easily killable deals.

A few are notorious and for that disliked by many regulars.
I'm not sure what bloggers there are that do that other than having links in their signature. I agree that certain bloggers that just post a link without any post content shouldn't be allowed - and it does get deleted quite quickly usually. So I don't think there's ever been an issue with blog spam in posts.

But I don't think there is an issue with linking to your blog in the signature.
yerffej201 is offline  
Old Dec 2, 2013, 11:49 am
  #19  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,329
I just saw and reported an abuse today: new member with only four posts, all on the same day the person joined FT and all in a thread started by this new member to drive traffic to a blog linked in their OP, which was just a "teaser" with no content except to point toward the blog. There was no signature, as it's not allowed for new members, but there was a link to the blog in the text of the OP. The person's later posts in the thread seemed to just be bump attempts. Total garbage IMO with no real attempt to conceal the self-serving nature of their "contribution" to FT.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Dec 2, 2013, 12:12 pm
  #20  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 6,384
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist
I just saw and reported an abuse today: new member with only four posts, all on the same day the person joined FT and all in a thread started by this new member to drive traffic to a blog linked in their OP, which was just a "teaser" with no content except to point toward the blog. There was no signature, as it's not allowed for new members, but there was a link to the blog in the text of the OP. The person's later posts in the thread seemed to just be bump attempts. Total garbage IMO with no real attempt to conceal the self-serving nature of their "contribution" to FT.
Finally the first talkboard member to show up
yerffej201 is offline  
Old Dec 2, 2013, 12:18 pm
  #21  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,329
Originally Posted by yerffej201
Finally the first talkboard member to show up
I started reading and following this thread shortly after your OP.

Many TB members follow this forum almost religiously but don't post just to record our attendance. Some of us also avoid posting early when our views on an issue are still in a state of flux.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Dec 2, 2013, 12:27 pm
  #22  
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,866
Originally Posted by yerffej201
Finally the first talkboard member to show up
And here's another one chiming in


Originally Posted by Mary2e
I also oppose blog links as well as links to personal businesses.
As do I


Originally Posted by mia
Signatures are different from the content of posts because:

a) Only established members are permitted to have them.



b) No one needs to read them. Any member can block Signatures.



c) If that's not enough you can block all posts from specific members.
As to a: correct but that still doesn't prevent the issue/concern

As to b: While true that one doesn't have to read them and any member can prevent signatures from being viewed, that still doesn't address the issue of what I think is giving someone free advertising. Why not have it in the reverse where signatures are turned off by default and members must "opt-in" to have their signatures shown. Perhaps this way, (at least in the beginning) there might be fewer signatures to be reviewed. Or perhaps even eliminate signatures all together. I'm not saying these suggestions are perfect (or even close to being perfect) but as I said, why should we be giving someone free advertising?

As to c: Blocking/ignoring posts from specific members imho, is actually a detriment as where a member may have a referral link in their signature, some of their posts might actually be valuable and by "putting it on the member" to ignore that poster, valuable information may be missed.
goalie is offline  
Old Dec 2, 2013, 1:17 pm
  #23  
mia
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend; Moderator: American Express, Capital One, Citi, Chase, Credit Card Programs, Diners Club, Signatures
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Miami, Mpls & London
Programs: AA & Marriott Perpetual Platinum; DL & HH Gold
Posts: 48,880
I find it useful to distinguish between referral offers and referral links, and clarify if the objection is specifically to links (as stated in the thread title) or to all referral offers. Offers require the referrer to engage with the member through PM/Email, while links create a fully automated process.

I believe banning referral offers would be a mistake for two reasons. 1. Referrals often provide members with access to better offers than are available through other channels. If this were not the case members would not respond to the offers, and they would wither away. 2. Banned activity is not abolished, it is driven underground to the PM system and to other sites. I prefer to keep the activity and players visible.

I suggest it is better to regulate referrals, and I think restricting referral offers to Signatures is a good start, but could be refined. The eligibility criteria for a Signature could be extended to 180 days/posts, same a Coupon Connection. All links could be prohibited from Signatures, but this would also affect blogs and other non-referral activity.

An alternate approach would be to eliminate referral offers from Signatures, and permit them only in designated threads in specific forums, with or without links. In the credit card forums we permit offers (without links) in two threads, but we also permit referral links in Signatures because that's what the sitewide rules allow. Members who want to offer referrals in other forums would need to petition the moderators to create a designated thread.

Last edited by mia; Dec 2, 2013 at 1:24 pm
mia is offline  
Old Dec 2, 2013, 1:25 pm
  #24  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 6,384
Originally Posted by mia
I find it useful to distinguish between referral offers and referral links, and clarify if the objection is specifically to links (as stated in the thread title) or to all referral offers. Offers require the referrer to engage with the member through PM/Email, while links create a fully automated process.

I believe banning referral offers would be a mistake for two reasons. 1. Referrals often provide members with access to better offers than are available through other channels. If this were not the case members would not respond to the offers, and they would wither away. 2. Banned activity is not abolished, it is driven underground to the PM system and to other sites. I prefer to keep the activity and players visible.

I suggest it is better to regulate referrals, and I think restricting referral offers to Signatures is a good start, but could be refined. The eligibility criteria for a Signature could be extended to 180 days/posts, same a Coupon Connection. All links could be prohibited from Signatures, but this would also affect blogs and other non-referral activity.

An alternate approach would be to eliminate referral offers from Signatures, and permit them only in designated threads in specific forums, with or without links. In the credit card forums we permit offers (without links) in two threads, but we also permit referral links in Signatures because that's what the sitewide rules allow. Members who want to offer referrals in other forums would need to petition the moderators to create a designated thread.
That solves a lot of the problems that I have in mind - the fact that referral links in signatures affect content imo.
yerffej201 is offline  
Old Dec 2, 2013, 5:40 pm
  #25  
Moderator: American AAdvantage
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Matre-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
It's so easy to make these kinds of what I perceive as overly broad and dismissive statements when one is not aware of the issues these folks are faced with. Yep, that's my opinion... (and I am not one working on the TOS, or I could have been much more specific.)

Part of the problems include relying on a platform (our current version of vBulletin) that has its own trials and limitations - FT is by far the largest BBS using the platform and perhaps some day it will be able to move - but for now, it's like any large IT project one team took over from another - one chance may cause a number of unforeseen changes. (To make it even more interesting", IB maintains and operates over 100 websites.)

So, changing the TOS relies on this somewhat - the people assigned to redo the TOS, who have jobs, family life and volunteer on FT - and because the tech side is prettu busy bailing and caulking as well.

It's all interdependent - an easy idea easily becomes a technical challenge and a heat sink for volunteer time without plenty of running things by others, testing and checking with each side of the team, lest we silo off and create more problems than we attempt to solve.

Certainly nobody at Admin or Tech, or Mods, can read every single post. So we rely when possible on automated systems - if we did not, this board would be so smothered with Spam you wouldn't be able to find any wheat through the chaff. And even with those protocols, moderators are involved on a daily basis chasing the spam that managed to get through, or to read and approve the posts that got sent to a moderation queue before appearing online.

Some may confuse silence as "no action" - but it's not so. (It would be lovely to have unlimited resources and an army of people working on this, but those just don't exist.)

Sorry for your impatience - I hope you are gleaning some benefits from your presence here on FT. We like "seeing it get done" too, but there's a lot going on on the technical end that keeps people very busy - I say that genuinely.

Person years, dog years and - FT years, right?



Originally Posted by lin821
(bolding mine)

YES, I hear you (not you as an individual, but "you" as the whoever are/were put in charge of the task).

I do, every time! First in April, 2012:


and again in March 2013:



FT already missed the window to take any preemptive measure years ago. Still counting, as of December 2013. I haven't seen anything concrete to address the referral links issues at the management level, other than case-by-case RBPs.



For me, not taking action over an extended period of time reads pretty much the same as ignoring members' concerns. It can be read in 2 ways. Either admin doesn't take it seriously, or admin can't deliver. Maybe both, I don't know. What I do know is, even without asking, plenty of input had been provided in those earlier threads.

FWIW, bloggers are not the only group that abuses referral links. Some regular members, newbies or not, do that too. The race for referral link abuses had started long before blogspam and creation of External Miles and Points Resources Forum on FT.



It appears to me IB has no issue with feeding FTers undercooked cakes (see the most recent example here). At least they have some perfect excuse, specifically technical incompetency and/or indifference. (I assume they didn't even consider the insightful suggestion from our beloved cordelli about getting a monkey on the tech team).

What's the holdup dealing with referral link abuses, giving it isn't an overnight wonder or "phenomenon?"

I don't recall it took this long for the new TB Guidelines to materialize back in 2008. After soliciting feedback publicly in September, a motion was passed in November for such a makeover. Even with some bumps along the way, it was accomplished under 6 months with rigor.

Please excuse my English, since things seem to take place in the dark room (or dark age? whichever is more respectful), I have to ask, is addressing referral link abuses in TOS a much heavier task than the makeover of TalkBoard Guidelines? How much more work-in-progress time do we need to spare before FTers can see some real action?
JDiver is offline  
Old Dec 2, 2013, 6:03 pm
  #26  
nsx
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Hyatt Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,587
Originally Posted by JDiver
Person years, dog years and - FT years, right?
The correct progression is person years, dog years, FlyerTalk years, and TalkBoard years.
nsx is offline  
Old Dec 2, 2013, 8:46 pm
  #27  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Either at the shooting range or anywhere good beer can be found...
Posts: 50,975
Originally Posted by JDiver
It's so easy to make these kinds of what I perceive as overly broad and dismissive statements when one is not aware of the issues these folks are faced with. Yep, that's my opinion... (and I am not one working on the TOS, or I could have been much more specific.)

Part of the problems include relying on a platform (our current version of vBulletin) that has its own trials and limitations - FT is by far the largest BBS using the platform and perhaps some day it will be able to move - but for now, it's like any large IT project one team took over from another - one chance may cause a number of unforeseen changes. (To make it even more interesting", IB maintains and operates over 100 websites.)

So, changing the TOS relies on this somewhat - the people assigned to redo the TOS, who have jobs, family life and volunteer on FT - and because the tech side is prettu busy bailing and caulking as well.

It's all interdependent - an easy idea easily becomes a technical challenge and a heat sink for volunteer time without plenty of running things by others, testing and checking with each side of the team, lest we silo off and create more problems than we attempt to solve.

Certainly nobody at Admin or Tech, or Mods, can read every single post. So we rely when possible on automated systems - if we did not, this board would be so smothered with Spam you wouldn't be able to find any wheat through the chaff. And even with those protocols, moderators are involved on a daily basis chasing the spam that managed to get through, or to read and approve the posts that got sent to a moderation queue before appearing online.

Some may confuse silence as "no action" - but it's not so. (It would be lovely to have unlimited resources and an army of people working on this, but those just don't exist.)

Sorry for your impatience - I hope you are gleaning some benefits from your presence here on FT. We like "seeing it get done" too, but there's a lot going on on the technical end that keeps people very busy - I say that genuinely.

Person years, dog years and - FT years, right?
Is it possible to implement a signature restriction prohibiting links, and have it automatically reject those that try to include it?
kipper is offline  
Old Dec 3, 2013, 4:05 am
  #28  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Home
Programs: AA, Delta, UA & thanks to FTers for my PC Gold!
Posts: 7,676
What are referral links, exactly? And TOS on referral links...

Reading the first 2 pages of discussion, it appears folks are talking about more than just referral links. Maybe I am truly confused in the English world, so I have to ask:

What exactly are referral links?

Correct me if I am wrong, my understanding of referral links is hyperlinks that direct visitors to sign up certain offers while the referrers get referral credit/bonuses upon referrals' signups. Referral links always come with some imbedded codes to identify the individual referrers who will harvest their due incentives. From reading OP, I believe OP and I are in sync on this. (OP, am I correct?)

Originally Posted by mia
I find it useful to distinguish between referral offers and referral links, <snip>
Members who want to offer referrals in other forums would need to petition the moderators to create a designated thread.
(my underline)

All my posts in this thread are meant for referral links as stated above. Our TOS hasn't been clear on the acceptable or proper use of referral links on FT as a whole. MODs handle referral links differently in their assigned fora. Some police them, while some just don't deal with them. My POV is our TOS needs to be revised to address the handling of referral links to prevent abuses, and in return a more pleasant browsing experience and standardized moderation w/r/t referral links.

Case in point. From what I see, SPAM is the only forum that's specific with referral bonuses with clearly spellout forum rules for conducting conga lines. Whoever jumps the line and ignores the rules is called out and referral link deleted. Because of the clear term and prompt action of forum MOD, our community spirit is honored, conga lines are formed orderly, and referral links properly used in SPAM Forum as of today. I don't follow other fora with referral deals closely, so I can't comment on how orderly or chaotic they are.

What are NOT referral links?
Referral links are NOT links to outside sources, let them be news, banks, blogs, , shopping portals...etc. Those links are just hyperlinks that draw traffic to sites other than FT. When a FTer posts a travel news with a link to CNN in Travel News Forum, we don't call that CNN link referral link. When someone posts a holiday promo with the link to the airline shopping portal, we don't consider it a referral link. When someone else shares the link to say our longstanding "Free Frequent Flyer Miles" blog by pgary, we don't say it's a referral link. Unless we all see the need to regulate the use of hyperlinks on FT, no need to muddy the waters.

In terms of blogspam and how bloggers either aggressively or distastefully promote themselves on FT, I think that is for another discussion thread on bloggers that triggered the creation of External Miles and Points Resources Forum. Since there's already a whole EMPR forum devoted to it, I don't see the need to drag that battle over to this thread.

As for signatures, there's a current policy on signatures. Since referral links can be in both posts and signatures, after a more defined and/or refined policy on referral links is developed, we can always come back and revisit that issue in a different TB Topics thread that focuses on signatures. @:-)


Originally Posted by MSPeconomist
I just saw and reported an abuse today: new member with only four posts, all on the same day the person joined FT and all in a thread started by this new member to drive traffic to a blog linked in their OP, which was just a "teaser" with no content except to point toward the blog. There was no signature, as it's not allowed for new members, but there was a link to the blog in the text of the OP. The person's later posts in the thread seemed to just be bump attempts. Total garbage IMO with no real attempt to conceal the self-serving nature of their "contribution" to FT.
I don't think that's what we are talking about here. What you reported is no doubt a true spammer and I easily report a dozen of those in any given month. Spammers are simple cases since MODs just remove their posts and suspend them without hesitation. Our current TOS already covers spammers.
lin821 is offline  
Old Dec 3, 2013, 8:18 am
  #29  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Programs: UALifetimePremierGold, Marriott LifetimeTitanium
Posts: 71,007
Originally Posted by yerffej201
Finally the first talkboard member to show up
In fairness to TB members, you posted on a Sunday of a 4-day holiday weekend in America. TB members, like many FTers, were/are traveling.


Originally Posted by MSPeconomist
I started reading and following this thread shortly after your OP.

Many TB members follow this forum almost religiously but don't post just to record our attendance. Some of us also avoid posting early when our views on an issue are still in a state of flux.
What she said.

Cheers.
SkiAdcock is offline  
Old Dec 3, 2013, 11:12 am
  #30  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: LHR
Programs: DL DM 2MM, BA Bronze, Various Hotels
Posts: 10,187
Originally Posted by SkiAdcock
In fairness to TB members, you posted on a Sunday of a 4-day holiday weekend in America. TB members, like many FTers, were/are traveling.
Yep, been in transit and working to catch up.

I know there are frustrations with those who promote referrals, blogs, etc. and I often feel the same.

Any thing wrong with simply NOT clicking on said link.

Occasionally, I have Floyd the Flamingo in my signature...not a referral, just the fb page for the flamingo I carry around on my travels.

Is there really any difference? Again, nobody is forced to look at Floyd...
rwoman is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.