URLs in signature removed

I keep seeing this in forum postings in bright red:

 

[urls in signature removed. Violation of Photo.net policy]

 

Based on the very provocative shade of red and the stern language I would guess this is a serious issue, but I can't seem to find the

photo.net policy anywhere that this violates. This makes me think I am missing a big list of verboten behavior. I've read through the TOS,

FAQs, searched in google, etc...maybe I missed it.

 

It's a minor detail, (I'm just curious) but in the eleven or so years I've been hear I've never noticed it until recently. If it is not actually in the

TOS or somewhere else a policy-abiding user might look, it lends an appearance of arbitrary rules, made up as we go along, which

historically speaking, is pretty bad for a community.

I believe that Josh is working on a document that will detail most of the "rules" of photo.net. Given that he has 100 other things to do (including, but not limited to answering vast amounts of email) it won't likely be posted tomorrow.

 

A basic "rule" which you may or may not find written down anywhere right now, is that photo.net frowns upon self promotion. That includes aribtrary links to your website. A link is welcome to a particular page on your website if the material there directly addreses a point under discussion in the forum thread in which it appears. Posting your URL and effectively (or actually) saying "visit my website" isn't something we want to encourage. You can post your website URL in your user profile, so anyone who wants to find if you have a site can click on your name and find the URL.

It's certainly obnoxious. There's more eloquent methods of achieving the same result.

If it got your attention and you remember it, it's served its intended purpose. Now you know the rule.

The problem is that it serves more than its intended purpose. It is serving as a big red badge under a post that someone volunteered

the time to write that says, "You broke the rules (even though you couldn't have known about them because we're not too busy to go

around and moderate all your signatures out, but we are too busy to document the rule you broke." People have been signing posts with

urls since the inception of photo.net and now for some reason it can't wait until the rule is documented before you start slapping people

on the wrist? If you don't believe me, here's a thread with a Bob Atkins signature that you can replace with a big red "you broke the

rules sign":<br />

<a href="http://www.photo.net/business-photography-forum/00BNd3">http://www.photo.net/business-photography-forum/00BNd3</a>

For the sake of political correctness I think that rules should be posted first AND only then should actions be taken

to enforce those rules.

 

It's as if people used to park in the one spot start getting tickets, there are no signs indicating it's now a 'no parking'

zone but hey, someone will put it up soon ?

So far this type of public notice of removal of links has generally been confined to users who have repeatedly posted these links despite having been asked privately via e-mail to discontinue this practice on the discussion forums. While this rule may not be obvious to the general public, by the time we resort to seemingly extreme and obvious measures the policy has already been made clear to the offending individual that this practice was unacceptable.

 

For several years discrete personal links were tolerated and generally overlooked. Then some people began using graphic signature links. Earlier this year one particular fellow began promoting his business using graphic signature links featuring nudes.

 

It's the old slippery slope problem. How can we, in fairness, say that some types of links are okay and others are not? The best solution is to discourage all personal links in discussion forums.

 

My own approach is similar. The first time or two I'll simply delete the link and privately e-mail the individual to explain why personal links are generally unacceptable. In one or two cases I've temporarily suspended users who chose to ignore these private requests. In comparison, while the "red badge of disapproval" may seem extreme, it's an alternative to suspension. As Bob noted, it gets attention.

I'm as anxious as anyone for a complete list of "rules and guidelines" to be published. I do agree that it's important to have such a list easily accessible and easily visible. Having a set of rules that all moderators and administrators know about, but which users can't easily find (or can't find at all) isn't good for the site.

 

Some of these rules used to be included in the Terms of Use agreeement, but that was recently revised and I think the intention is to keep the Terms of Use agreement more focused on the legal aspects of the site, while the as-yet-unpublished "Rules and Guidelines" will deal with the non-legal stuff that isn't included in the Terms of Use. They would cover things like signature files (we don't like them), self-promotion (we don't approve), attachement of gratuitous images unreleted to a thread's topic (please don't), attachment of large images (again, please don't), posting for-sale and wanted ads (only in the classifieds please), user names (please keep them reasonable and preferably use your real name) and so on.

 

Perhaps until the offical document is finalized we might post a "sticky" in this forum which will cover the basics. I'll run that idea by Josh.

 

BTW the red signature notices aren't meant as a slap on the wrist for users. The problem has been that quietly asking users not to do it hasn't been working well. While those users may stop when asked (and most do), others don't see that happening and so start doing it (possibly because other forums on other sites allow you to make a 1 word post with a 1 paragraph signature file listing all your equipment, your life's goals and links to your website). The red notice was simply designed to get the word out, not to act as a scarlet letter stamped on the forehead of the user. Sorry if that was the impression that was given.

Bob is correct. The URL thing was in the old Terms of Use. The new TOU is more of a legal document (as it should be) and along with it should be a corresponding "community guidelines" document that lays out the little nitty gritty details. However, that document does not exist yet. Why? Because I am awful. I just haven't had time to get it done.

"If it got your attention and you remember it, it's served its intended purpose. Now you know the rule."

 

Intended purpose? And what would that be? To yell at the hand that feeds you as rudely as possible that they've

broken a rule that isn't in the rule book? I've never posted a click-able link in my signature. It doesn't apply

to me.

 

I'll say it again, it's beyond obnoxious and seems counter to the vibe of PN. Hey, why not do it in caps lock as

well? And put the blinking html code around it while you're at it. "YOU BROKE A RULE THAT ISN'T IN THE RULE BOOK

YOU NAUGHTY LITTLE DWEEB"

 

Point is, it's disruptive to the flow of the thread and there's more eloquent ways of achieving the same result

with your CUSTOMERS. Delete someones entire post and tell them why. That's a yellow card. Do it again, ban them

for a week, that's the red card.

Calm down everyone.

 

Photo.net has no internal messaging system and people frequently do not use email addresses that they regularly check, so it can be hard to contact people to get the message through to them. At some point moderators and admins get tired of wasting time trying to contact people who don't listen, so people get a public post. It's easy to just say "oh well ban people if they don't do what you say" but do you have any idea how much time is wasted every time you have to ban someone? I get email and posts that say "why did you ban so and so" "where is so and so" "why is my account closed" etc. It is a huge waste of time and contributes to the inaccurate crackpot belief that photo.net is run by tyrants.

 

Photo.net has never allowed "signatures" or self promotional taglines, links, or images. If you want that crap, go visit a kiddie php forum site. We have worked really hard to keep photo.net as graphically clean as it is and we'd like it to stay that way.

 

It's obvious that photo.net is past the "people learn the rules by watching what others are doing" stage. Which is too bad, since once I write the rules, I'm going to have 500 bitchy emails complaining about how we have too many rules. Such is life I guess. Nobody is ever happy.

 

Thread closed. Anyone can email me if they want to discuss the issue further.