Spam policy

[Pseudonym]

I'd like some feedback on our spam policy. Here's what we've got at the moment, as defined in the FAQ...

What is your policy on spam?

You may give positive feedback on a product or service, but we do not tolerate spam. As a general guideline, we define spam as being an unsolicited advertising message. If you wish to advertise, we have spaces available - details here. If you wish to post a balanced review of a certain product, or reply to a question with a product recommendation, that's fine. But any spam will be deleted immediately.

The key phrase here is "unsolicited advertising". This means:

- If a member posts a question, and someone replies by recommending a service or product, that's fine.

- If someone starts a new post for the sole purpose of promoting a service or product, then that's spam and gets deleted.

Too harsh? Too soft? I want to find the balance - members have to be able to say, "Hey this thing is good!", but at the same time we can't have every retailer in the country using this forum to promote their weekly specials.

Ultimately, it's your forum. So whaddya think? How do we define what's acceptable, and what's not?

[jono]

i think it really needs to be judged on a case by case basis. of course this takes up time, however it is the most fair way.

[Mossley]

The key phrase here is "unsolicited advertising". This means:

- If a member posts a question, and someone replies by recommending a service or product, that's fine.

- If someone starts a new post for the sole purpose of promoting a service or product, then that's spam and gets deleted.

I think this pretty much sums it up. I agree that people should give their opinion on certain products, but not be allowed to do the whole sales pitch. I think it would be relatively easy to spot those who are trying to make a buck off it.

[Growth]

I think what you have already thought of is a pretty good idea, but like jono said case by case would be the ultimate.

I vote case by case.

[deegee]

I dont believe in democracy or case by case, it does sound good but rarely works, members will disagree.

there is a poicy, I think it is fine. the Mod(s) apply that policy to posts as they see fit. even if some members think it is good the board rules come first.

[Growth]

I dont believe in democracy or case by case, it does sound good but rarely works, members will disagree.

there is a poicy, I think it is fine. the Mod(s) apply that policy to posts as they see fit. even if some members think it is good the board rules come first.

Im not sure i understand. You say you dont like the idea of case by case, but then you say the mods are free to apply the policy as they see fit. That is case by case. The members are not the people who decide, the mods are.

Too harsh? Too soft? I want to find the balance - members have to be able to say, "Hey this thing is good!", but at the same time we can't have every retailer in the country using this forum to promote their weekly specials.

Like Pseudonym said, he wants to find a balance. Of cource there will be posts that fall into the 'grey area' from time to time, and the mods will have to judge it on a case by case basis, thats what mods are for, taking the time and checking on all the latest posts as frequently as possible to delete source posting, spam, inapropriate content etc as soon as possible.

For instance look at the quote below defining the spam rules

The key phrase here is "unsolicited advertising". This means:

- If a member posts a question, and someone replies by recommending a service or product, that's fine.

- If someone starts a new post for the sole purpose of promoting a service or product, then that's spam and gets deleted.

Now lets say im a spamer, i work for a company and i go around on boards overly promoting my product. However im a clever spammer so im not going to start a new post and get snapped out, so i wait for someone to bring it up and then SPAMMM. Not only does this spam piss off board members because people new to BBing can be easily swayed to go out and purcase products recommened, but it also throws shit in the face of the companies who have paid for advertising. So in reference to the above quote, my spam post would technically not be spam.

So i cant see why you would disaggre with a case by case decision.

[deegee]

What I thought you meant by case by case was members posting in a thread that contained possible spam, and by consensus of post for or agains a message deciding it should be deleted.

Growth the way you have explained you case by case in your last post. I agree with you, that that is the best.

sorry my english and grammer are just all off today, I hope you understand what I am trying to say! :oops:

[Growth]

What I thought you meant by case by case was members posting in a thread that contained possible spam, and by consensus of post for or agains a message deciding it should be deleted.

Growth the way you have explained you case by case in your last post. I agree with you, that that is the best.

sorry my english and grammer are just all off today, I hope you understand what I am trying to say! :oops:

Hey its all good mate, we just werent sure what each other meant. I had a feeling you may have thought that members were to decide if it is spam or not, but thats not the case. I mean sure, a member can make a comment on a post that it may be spam, but that person has no decision as to if the post is to be deleted. That is of corse up to the mods.