referrel links in signatures

Random

i recently had my signature removed because it had my referrel link to dropbox. i personally don't see anything wrong with this. i think it should be allowed as there have even been threads where people were encourage to post their dropbox referrel links in them.

i'm not trying to con anyone, i'm not making any money from it. i simply get an extra few meg (i think it's 250 but i'm not 100% sure) when someone signs up (for free) to dropbox.com using my link.

can we discuss boards policy on this please and why it's not allowed?

thanks

Xavi6

There's a discussion about this happening in Help Desk at the mo -

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056020983

Apparently you can't have a linked image yet linked text is fine

Gordon

Xavi, that discussion is not about referral links.

The reason we've deleted referral links in the past is because they have always been the source of spam. If it's something that is good for the community, cool, but I've always seen these as spam. I'd rather not have an ever growing list of what referral websites are to be white-listed, as I prefer an all or nothing approach, so Random, you're saying that all referral links in signatures are OK?

Eoin

Gordon wrote: »

so Random, you're saying that all referral links in signatures are OK?

No, he said that the dropbox links are OK.

Gordon

As you're answering for Random, is he also saying that that's the only referral link that should be allowed?

Eoin

I'm not answering for Random. Your opinion that it's all or nothing with regards to referrals doesn't mean that it was Random's opinion that all referral links are OK.

Gordon

Considering the title of the thread, I think this discussion is about all referral links. Therefore, the question is: all links, no links or some links. If some links, which? And if some links, how do we vet them?

Random

i dislike the "all or nothing" approach. they're a common sense approach used throughout this site (generally) when it comes to deleting "advertising" or "promotions" from companys, when allowing various posts and deleting other posts.

i dislike a number of referrel links myself .. mainly the ones that lead to spam. i dont' see anything wrong with a whitelist, what do you see wrong with it? it's not the ideal solution but it's one that might work.

considering this thread was allowed (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055945495) i would argue that the dropbox referrel links must then be ok.

i'm not saying i have all the answers. i'm hoping we can come up with some solution that's better than the current outright ban which i feel is unfair.

Gordon

I know there are a number of people that want to have My Protein referrals in their sigs as a number of them have been removed recently also.

My only problems with some referrals being allowed are the difficulty in judging which ones should be whitelisted. If we ban some people for some referrals, they will then say, well - xyz referrals are ok, so why not mine? Then we have to go into the core of what the referral is doing, is it advertising, is it simply benefitting the signature holder, what exactly is the nature of the business behind it?

That eats up administrative time, as does the whitelisting itself. Once we've decided on what to whitelist, we have to update our sigrules to contain allowed referral links. Then when people undoubtedly report whitelisted referral sigs, we still have to check against the whitelist and communicate with the reporter why that is whitelisted when others are not whitelisted.

Once we start accepting some referrals then administrative time increases, so are the whitelisted benefits outweighing the drawbacks of having more admin time taken up by such a whitelist?

Don't get me wrong, even though I'm dead set against referral links because they have been a scourge of spam on boards, I'm not necessarily dead set against these types of links in sigs. But you guys have to understand that allowing exceptions to rules means more work for the workers.

Random

simple solution maybe then - what about people adding a note so their sig reads "click my dropbox referrel link" or "click my protein referrel link" so that people know what they're clicking?

i'd have thought at a glance it should be obvious enough what links are spam and which ones are not anyway though, given most of the admins would be fairly net savy?

Gordon

Random wrote: »

i'd have thought at a glance it should be obvious enough what links are spam and which ones are not anyway though, given most of the admins would be fairly net savy?

Yeah, to me referral links are spam. They are advertising something, if clicked and used the advertiser gets a kickback, and the clicker gets something extra. In this case it's extra space, in other spam it's cheap goods. I don't want to see lots of signatures that say "click to get something extra" as a boards user. Granted, there isn't that much of them about, but that's most likely because we've been strict in the past with such links.

Ludo

Xavi6 wrote: »

There's a discussion about this happening in Help Desk at the mo -

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056020983

Apparently you can't have a linked image yet linked text is fine

That is the impression i get from reading that thread and the rules also which is very confusing.

e.g read this thread in FeedForward about sigs:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055925395

Are all the people there with image links breaking the rules? :eek:

parsi

I don't mind referral links that lead to both parties getting something. I got a cheap rate on BlackVPN thanks to some posters referral code.

I dislike posts where the post itself is a referral link disguised under "gee look at this fab offer..." but what's wrong with a basic sig-based code ?

What about only posters with X posts being allowed to have referral links ?

Random

in the case of the dropbox ones both the person who signs up and the person who refers them get 250meg each extra.

TommyKnocker

Hi All

Just my 2 cents. I was one of the Mods/users who had a MyProtein referral code & link in my sig until it was recetnly deleted, which I just accepted. Tbh I was a little embarrased that I as a Mod had been doing something that was against the rules of Boards.ie. Rules that I am asked to help enforce.

Only last week another poster on the Forum I help moderate (Fitness) asked if a Mod could tell them exactly what the policy was with MyProtein referral codes/links in sigs, so I posted a question in the Admin Dropbox which Gordon replied to, explaing why referral links we banned. Gordon advised that if we felt strongly about this we could open a thread on Feedback and it would be looked at by the Admins and that maybe they could make an exception for these referrals.

I declined this offer because AFAIK the Admins are volunteers just like us Mods, and I think that this white list idea would add considerably to the Admins workload. I see what they currently have to deal with in Feedback, Helpdesk & Prision etc, and have no wish to add to that. Therefore I am happy to go along with the "All or Nothing" approach and have advised the posters in Fitness that MyProtein links are considered as referral links and breach the sig rules of the site and as a Mod I will have no hesitation in reporting these links to the Sig Police.


Best Regards,

M

Random

anyone have any thoughts on this?

Dav

Referral links are one of those potentially grey areas cause if we allow some, then we get arguements about whether we should allow others. Maintaining a white list is time consuming, but not a terrible idea. Let me have a think about that and see what's involved and consult with the people who'll have to maintain it