can we mention other forums?

[Aaron Koehl]

Lee, this isn't specific to woodworking forums, it's forums in general; and in my professional experience linking to dynamic content, in particular discussion forums, is bad practice in the context of building an archive, which is what SawmillCreek becomes after you click 'Mark all posts as read'.

[Andy Hoyt]

I too have found the TOS cumbersome to understand (and in dire need of grammatical & structural corrections). But after the passage of time and being yanked outta the water by the lifeguards a few times, I have developed an understanding of them which suits me. And I have no reservations with any point it makes. But.....

Just because it is what it is does not make it perfect and above modifcation. Jeez. Where would we be if the Constitution of the USofA didn't get modified from time to time. And I'm pleased to see that a modification is indeed on Keith's long list of stuff to do.

Perhaps those who feel most strongly about this could make the task easier and the changes happen sooner by proposing responsible edits through a private channel with Keith. Taking that process public (at least in the early stages) would be ineffective.

[Rick Doyle]

Rick...Just click on the members name...if they have a site it's there.

Thanks, but I was aware of that. I just think it would be nice to know when reading the post - otherwise, it's just a lot of extra clicking. To me it just seems like an extra hoop to jump through.

But, I would like to hear the 'reason' for it - that's all.

[Jason Roehl]

Thanks, but I was aware of that. I just think it would be nice to know when reading the post - otherwise, it's just a lot of extra clicking. To me it just seems like an extra hoop to jump through.

But, I would like to hear the 'reason' for it - that's all.

The reason for it, and this was largely member-driven at the time, is that we didn't want signatures to get too obnoxious with links that were basically advertising. Maybe I just turn a few pens and sell them here and there, but I have a website, so a link wouldn't be too bad, but the next guy does a few more, then there's the guy who cranks out 10,000 a year. Where do you draw the line? So the members basically decided against links in sigs.

[Matt Meiser]

The reason for it, and this was largely member-driven at the time, is that we didn't want signatures to get too obnoxious with links that were basically advertising.

Right on. And if you create a link and say Joe Battery Rebuilder puts a link to his site after seeing yours, why is his not OK and yours is? Anyone can link to whatever site they want in their profiile.

[Keith Outten]

Hi Aaron,

I can accept that - threads to disappear after a while!

But, could you please explain to me, what the reasons are for not allowing members to put their website addresses in their signatures? I really enjoy looking at other ww websites - what is the reason for making it more difficult to do this?

Rick,

The answer to your question is simple. Signature lines will quickly become blatent, in your face, advertising. Asking Members to edit their signature has to be done frequently here at The Creek and some just refuse to comply and we have to edit their signature lines for them. Should this become a major work item for our Staff and Moderators we have the ability to turn off all signature lines from our back office.

We have allowed everyone the opportunity to link to their personal or business web page via your User CP (Control Panel). It requires just one click if you want to visit their web site by clicking on their name, then their web link. This procedure keeps The Creek neat and tidy for those who prefer not to see advertising.

.

[Bart Leetch]

Well I tried to understand the TOS. But it was easier to read in extra curricular posts about what was meant by the way it was written & then just stay within the lines in the sand, its just easier this way.

[Steve Clardy]

Well I tried to understand the TOS. But it was easier to read in extra curricular posts about what was meant by the way it was written & then just stay within the lines in the sand, its just easier this way.

10-4

[Frank Hagan]

That at least makes some sense.

That said, I'm a bit skeptical (based on experience) that links to other woodworking forums are more volatile than (allowed) links to sites on the web at large. And the difference between a broken explicit link and a broken "go here and search for X" isn't particularly compelling...it's not like SMC has to beg forgiveness from the Web Gods for broken links.

Well, search engine rankings do care about broken links. And links to forum posts and auction sites are much more likely to be broken than a link to DeWalt's home page; some forums regularly purge old messages.

SMC does put its money where its mouth is ... SMC pays quite a bit in bandwidth because they encourage people to upload pics to their server instead of hot-linking them in from another site and stealing that site's bandwidth. Most forums go the other way, but as Aaron explained to me in a post a while ago, most of the other picture - hosting sites go down after a while, and they want the content at SMC to be valid even as long as the forums are up.

[Keith Outten]

Well, search engine rankings do care about broken links. And links to forum posts and auction sites are much more likely to be broken than a link to DeWalt's home page; some forums regularly purge old messages.

SMC does put its money where its mouth is ... SMC pays quite a bit in bandwidth because they encourage people to upload pics to their server instead of hot-linking them in from another site and stealing that site's bandwidth. Most forums go the other way, but as Aaron explained to me in a post a while ago, most of the other picture - hosting sites go down after a while, and they want the content at SMC to be valid even as long as the forums are up.

When your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren join SMC we would like them to be able to see the pictures of your work.

Considering all the time and effort spent by our Members posting messages and sharing the photos of their work it would be a shame if our archives were empty when the next generation of woodworkers arrive at The Creek.

.

[Lee DeRaud]

When your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren join SMC we would like them to be able to see the pictures of your work.

Considering all the time and effort spent by our Members posting messages and sharing the photos of their work it would be a shame if our archives were empty when the next generation of woodworkers arrive at The Creek.

Try not to let that strawman get too close to an open flame.

No one has even hinted at the idea that links should replace original member-produced content. What I said was:

And the difference between a broken explicit link and a broken "go here and search for X" isn't particularly compelling...

As stated in the TOS, "Links should be submitted as references, for the sole purpose of generating or supporting discussions on SawMill Creek." Deliberately obscuring a particular class of links hardly supports that goal.

[Matt Warfield]

I still do not understand why a document such as our Terms of Service, which has served us so very well for more than 3 ½ years, could possibly be so confusing. Actually it is well understood by the vast majority of our membership. There seems to be a very small minority who want every "I" dotted and every "T" crossed which would require the TOS to be like a legal brief that would be so long that no one in their right mind would even start to read the thing much less know what it means.

Ken,

Welcome to intercultural relations. Every culture, sub-culture, and micro-culture interprets statements differently even if they speak the same language. I've read the TOS and I understand the gist of it but can easily see where some would not. Take the word ornery for instance. If my wife is ornery then I might as well run up the electric bill in the garage instead of focusing on family time. For my good friend in the south, if his wife is ornery then the kids are going to the grandparents and he and she will have a big smile on their faces in the morning. Same word, two distinct meanings, same language, same country. From what I can tell, SMC is home to many different nationalities and many different interpretations while be derived from any phrase. Well, except maybe "free tools."

To help you understand why a revision to the TOS would be helpful to all, consider the amount of time spent and the level of frustration you've publicly displayed on this topic and ask yourself, "wouldn't it be nice if I didn't have to deal with this?"

FWIW,

Matt

[Rick Doyle]

When your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren join SMC we would like them to be able to see the pictures of your work.

Keith, the problem with a lot of the rules designed to accomplish the goals established by SMC administration, a lot of us, while obviously liking SMC, know that they may not be as effective as you might think.

Take images for instance. I have never uploaded a pic to SMC - I always use my own ww website to host my pictures. That way I can post them wherever I want(even on 'other' forums) without having to go thru too many modifications to conform with different site restrictions. So, my grandchildren, and anyone else on SMC, will have to depend on my site, not SMC, if they link to images from my post. I hope now I haven't given anyone the idea that all images must be hosted on SMC to be displayed!!! There are other examples of this where some of the rules, at least IMHO, just add a level of unwarranted hoops to jump thru but in the end do not accomplish the goals of what the hoops were designed to do.

As for the TOS - Ken's argument to me is like saying "I can read my handwriting - why can't you?" I would just like to repeat what I said earlier because I still think it applies with respect to the TOS - "when a lot of people are telling you the same thing - you just might want to listen"! The TOS are confusing and contradictory - if they weren't, you would not have so many frequent questions about them.

[Ken Salisbury]

"when a lot of people are telling you the same thing - you just might want to listen"! The TOS are confusing and contradictory - if they weren't, you would not have so many frequent questions about them.

Everything is relative. We have almost 9,000 members. And actually the number of folks questioning the TOS is very small. In addition there are a few folks who continue to question it on a regular basis, making it look like it is a big deal.. Evidently they have an obsession with making SMC a democracy, which it is not.

"Your Friendly Moderator"

[Bart Leetch]

Evidently they have an obsession with making SMC a democracy, which it is not.