Terms of Service Revision

[Rob Bodenschatz]

I was unaware about dead links affecting search engine rankings, so this didn't play into my drafting of the TOS.

Not to hijack the thread but here is how google ranks pages:

http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html

Be sure to read the last line in the article.

[Rob Bodenschatz]

I was unaware about dead links affecting search engine rankings, so this didn't play into my drafting of the TOS.

I don't know if that's true or not. I read it recently (I think on SMC) but I don't want to put it out there as fact. I just don't know.

[Lee DeRaud]

IHowever, like any private website, we do want SawmillCreek to be searchable and linkable from the search engines. For instance, I use Google to search SawmillCreek when I need more flexibility in my search criteria. We do want SawmillCreek to grow as big as it can grow, and search engines are usually the biggest entrance point to the 'Creek.

I guess I'm unclear how search engine ranking could possibly affect searches internal to SMC, but your second point is well taken.

It would be interesting to know how much (or whether) broken links affect that ranking. I would expect broken links into SMC to be an issue for the search engines...broken links out of SMC is less clear.

(I'm assuming (and may be wrong) that 'search engine ranking' refers to where SMC will appear on the listing if you (for instance) google for "woodworking forum"...bottom of the first page, out of 103K hits, if anyone is interested.)

[Ian Barley]

I just don't see the ambiguity that others seem to in the existing text but I have a few thoughts to share, for what little they may be worth.

Ebay links are a problem. It is difficult to ensure that the post does not exist mainly to drive traffic to the auction. "hey - look at this really interesting item on Ebay" posted by a member of 5 years standing with 3000 other posts is a safer bet than one posted by somebody who joined yesterday and this is their first post. Personally I don't feel that I miss anything by them not being here and would rather it stays that way. Don't care about auction numbers one way or the other but would not like to see direct hotlinks.

Other Forums. Again the problem is the extent of the work involved in making sure that they are the kind of discussion that we, by coming here, have chosen to be involved in. Somebody posts a link today and the other forum is all lovely and friendly as checked by one of our mods. Tomorrow Sammy the spammer goes onto that forum which is not moderated and posts links to a bunch of porn sites. Everybody still happy?? The problem with forums is that their content is more variable and volatile than other types of websites that could be linked to. I believe that an explicit statement that links to other public forums are not allowed is perfectly reasonable and conducive to SMC maintaining the character that we work at creating here. If it makes me elitist to not want to be involved in a childish brawl then I am elitist.

[Steve Clardy]

Quote:
E. Commercial Advertising
1. External Linking

2. Links to other websites are allowed in posts, and encouraged, if they are submitted as references, for the sole purpose of generating or supporting discussions on SawMill Creek.

3. However, links for the sole purpose of marketing, generating traffic to a site, or any other commercial advertisement deemed to solicit commercial or personal benefit are not allowed.
4. Direct Linking to Ebay is not permitted. The Auction# is permitted, IF it pertains to the subject.

[ For instance ]
OP. Where can I find a cover for my 1953 14" bandsaw?
Poster #2. I seen one on Ebay the other day. Here is the #.
OP. Why does this Stanley plane so high priced? Item#
Poster #2. It commands top dollar because blah blah blah.

[Vaughn McMillan]

Thanks for addressing the TOS, Aaron. Seeing as how I was one of the people calling for changes, it'd only be fair for me to offer some assistance. I get paid to write unambiguous and concise text (although it's hard to tell reading my long-winded posts on SMC). Looks like you've got plenty of input for changes, but I was hoping to offer editing help if needed. Unfortunately, I've got a family emergency to attend to in New Mexico, so I simply don't have time to help. Maybe next time.

- Vaughn

[Aaron Koehl]

Hope everything turns out okay!

[Keith Outten]

Being one who subscribes to the KISS principal of doing things. I would suggest that a long disertation of rules is not necessary. A couple sentances would do it IMHO. Start with the current first sentance:
"It is our policy to support the free flow of information in a manner
best befitting the woodworking community at large." Then give a brief admonishment that such things as profanity are not permitted. Then stop. That should do it.

The advertising part is very difficult to control. Cussin' and discussin' tools is a huge part of threads here. Deciding where "advertising" begins or ends is, at best, foggy. I say allow discussions and links to products related to woodworking. Don't sweat it.
Other forums: To even suggest that other forums are not worthy of linking to here is arrogant and elitist. Links to other woodworking forums is in conformity to the opening sentance of the current TOS. Nothing more needs to be said.

Don't Forget!!!!!

Our TOS must address certain legal issues. Without key parts of the TOS SMC would immediately cease to exist. A couple of sentences won't cover our backside in a legal challenge.

Advertising here at SMC is currently not allowed outside of our Manufacturers Forums. We don't provide bandwidth and give our labor away for others to make money.

Other Forums often do not contain the kind of material that we feel comfortable linking to, let's not forget my earlier statement that SMC isn't a club just for men.

Any rule made must be enforced as best we can. Asking our volunteer Moderators to do more isn't an option unless we all agree to pay them for their service. Eliminating the rules will surely mean that most of our Members will leave.

.

[Frank Fusco]

Aaron said (in part) "I suppose it stems from my comment about not being able to moderate what we're linking to, which also has some merit."

Aaron, just the fact you are considering wanting to be able to moderate content of other forums strikes me as a totaly repugnant dictatorship mentality. Sorry to be so strong. We aren't Red China or North Korea and you aren't (I hope) ambitious to be that kind of leader. You are thinking about that philosophy, that is good.

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

Aaron said (in part) "I suppose it stems from my comment about not being able to moderate what we're linking to, which also has some merit."

Aaron, just the fact you are considering wanting to be able to moderate content of other forums strikes me as a totaly repugnant dictatorship mentality. Sorry to be so strong. We aren't Red China or North Korea and you aren't (I hope) ambitious to be that kind of leader. You are thinking about that philosophy, that is good.

Aw geez Frank, come on.........

"Not being able to moderate what we link to"............

How the heck did you make the leap to Aaron having "a totally repugnant dictatorship mentality." Sheesh.......

From where I sit, Aaron is saying that the link content is not part of SMC, which means we have no control over it, which is stating the obvious.

How you then take that and suggest what you are suggesting, come on, cut Aaron some slack for crying out loud!

[Mark Rios]

................let's not forget my earlier statement that SMC isn't a club just for men.

HEY, WAIT A MINUTE.................I had just worked up the nerve to start asking about hair transplants. This isn't Hair Club for Men??????????












(just trying to lighten it up a bit)

[Frank Fusco]

Aw geez Frank, come on.........

"Not being able to moderate what we link to"............

How the heck did you make the leap to Aaron having "a totally repugnant dictatorship mentality." Sheesh.......

From where I sit, Aaron is saying that the link content is not part of SMC, which means we have no control over it, which is stating the obvious.

How you then take that and suggest what you are suggesting, come on, cut Aaron some slack for crying out loud!

This was a continuation of pm between Aarnon and myself. Congratulating him on his just thinking about changing that philosophy is about all the slack he will get from me, for now. Simply questioning the value of other forums as being suitable/not suitable for SMC members is the definition of a dictatorship mentality. In our pms I accused him of trying to be the "Mommy" for the (adult) members of SMC. Sorry if that bothers anyone, it is as how I see it.

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

This was a continuation of pm between Aarnon and myself. Congratulating him on his just thinking about changing that philosophy is about all the slack he will get from me, for now. Simply questioning the value of other forums as being suitable/not suitable for SMC members is the definition of a dictatorship mentality. In our pms I accused him of trying to be the "Mommy" for the (adult) members of SMC. Sorry if that bothers anyone, it is as how I see it.

Just a point Frank there is a reason they are called "Private Messages"

[Jim Becker]

Frank, it is clear to me that Aaron's (and previously Keith's) comments about forum content foreign to SMC has to do with genuine concern for our membership...which is of both genders and includes a bunch of folks who are under 18 years old...not "censorship" in the negative context the word can be used. There is dialog and goings-on that I certainly would not want my 11 and 7 year old daughters (who occasionally browse SMC with me) to see if I were to click on a link to another forum that is contained in a thread we were viewing. If it were just me, I'd be unhappy with such content, but I'd be less likely to be harmed or offended. Frankly ( ), this is one of the things I happen to like about the SMC community...it tries to act responsibly for the entire membership, including minors.

[Jeff Horton]

wanting to be able to moderate content of other forums

OK that statement has always bothered me too. I don't go as far as Frank though.

Every time I have included a link to another forum it has been yanked out by the same person. If the post was to something profane or a link to porno or advertising my business or something similar I could understand. The links I have included were very relevant to the subject, it was just on a competing forum.

Please don't say the mods can't check each link because the moderators spend as much (I suspect more) time deleting the link as it would take to click on the link and see that it was subject related. For the sake of argument lets just say they don't have the time or don't want too check every link.

I have a simple suggestion, Why not just ad a "Notify a moderator" button? Then allow links to other forums (and maybe loosen up on some of the others rules). Let the readers notify you if there is a problem. I have moderated on other forums and this worked extremely well. I was always amazed at how fast people would report posts that violated the rules. All the mods got the email and it was quickly taken care of. Very simple solution.