Turner's Forums

[Barbara Gill]

Why was the thread about turner's forums closed?

[Jason Roehl]

Why was the thread about turner's forums closed?

Just a guess, Barbara, but I think it was to encourage participation in the thread/poll that Aaron started as a result of the thread that is now closed. I don't believe it was due to any negativity on anyone's part.

[Bobby Hatfield]

Why was the thread about turner's forums closed?

Barbara, it may be that after you vote, the poll question is closed to your browser, the notice just above the graph says it won't close till 8/3/3. Just a guess on my part, I voted (for) and now I don't see the polling post just the results. I feel probably that most folks can take it or leave it but I think the way the new post's show up on "view new posts" and all can keep up with it, that a separate forum will create a new home room where we can go to learn something more to go along with our flatwork. Looking forward to some post's from you with pictures of some of your tree size turnings.

[Bill Esposito]

Why was the thread about turner's forums closed?

I'm guessing by Aaron's reference to the SMC Terms of Service that he was referring to this "Links to other public or private forums are not allowed. Links should be submitted as references, for the sole purpose of generating or supporting discussions on SawMill Creek. "

In my opinion that kind of moderation is not in the best interest of the SMC members. There is a wealth of knowlege out there and to not be allowed to help someone out because the information resides on another message board is ridiculous.

It is also in direct conflict with the opening statment under 1. General terms, which reads; "It is our policy to support the free flow of information in a manner best befitting the woodworking community at large. SawMill Creek is an online community where woodworkers may come together to share and discuss a common interest."

It's kind of difficult to discuss the common interest of woodturning when the thread is locked.

[Barbara Gill]

I hope Bobby and Jason are correct however it doesn't seem logical to lock one thread when a poll is presented in another. It would be a self destructive act to not allow links to other sites when they are part of a response.
In any event I e-mailed Howard the URL's to some of the best public turning forums on the net. It would be a shame not to share the information with him.

[Ken Salisbury]

I hope Bobby and Jason are correct however it doesn't seem logical to lock one thread when a poll is presented in another. It would be a self destructive act to not allow links to other sites when they are part of a response.
In any event I e-mailed Howard the URL's to some of the best public turning forums on the net. It would be a shame not to share the information with him.

I am sure Aaron locked the thread so all of the responses would be located in one thread along with a poll. The thread was not locked because of the direct links to other forums. Those links are easily edited as I did to one of the posts in that thread so it would meet the SMC Terms of Service.

You did the right thing to e-mail the information (or you could have done it using the SMC Private Messaging feature).

[David Peebles]

I am sure Aaron locked the thread so all of the responses would be located in one thread along with a poll. The thread was not locked because of the direct links to other forums. Those links are easily edited as I did to one of the posts in that thread so it would meet the SMC Terms of Service.

You did the right thing to e-mail the information (or you could have done it using the SMC Private Messaging feature).

Ken,

I am curious as to what made you have to delete that link? I certainly don't know which one it was, but I am curious as to why we wouldn't want to share all we can.

Dave

[Ken Salisbury]

Ken,

I am curious as to what made you have to delete that link? I certainly don't know which one it was, but I am curious as to why we wouldn't want to share all we can.

Dave

Excerpt from The SMC Terms of Service:

3. External Linking
Links to other websites are allowed in posts. In fact, they are
encouraged. However, links for the sole purpose of marketing,
generating traffic to a site, or any other commercial advertisement deemed
to solicit commercial benefit are not allowed. Links to other public or private forums are not allowed. Links should be submitted as references, for the sole purpose of generating or supporting discussions on SawMill Creek.

[Bob Janka]

Excerpt from The SMC Terms of Service:

3. External Linking
Links to other websites are allowed in posts. In fact, they are
encouraged. However, links for the sole purpose of marketing, generating traffic to a site, or any other commercial advertisement deemed to solicit commercial benefit are not allowed. Links to other public or private forums are not allowed. Links should be submitted as references, for the sole purpose of generating or supporting discussions on SawMill Creek.

Several members here have questioned the policy of removing links to other forums. Perhaps this is related to the fact that search engines, especially Google, use links to "quantify" & "qualify" web-sites. The more links to a given site, the higher the engine rates that site. Google apparently uses a weighted rating system based on the referring site. For example, SMC might have a rating of 5 and it links to XYZ. It links to XYZ would get a higher rating than a site with a rating less than 5.

Just my $0.02 on technical issues...

Cheers,
Bob

[Barbara Gill]

Excerpt from The SMC Terms of Service:

3. External Linking
Links to other websites are allowed in posts. In fact, they are
encouraged. However, links for the sole purpose of marketing,
generating traffic to a site, or any other commercial advertisement deemed
to solicit commercial benefit are not allowed. Links to other public or private forums are not allowed. Links should be submitted as references, for the sole purpose of generating or supporting discussions on SawMill Creek.

So if I am understanding the above correctly, we cannot offer a link to another woodworking forum even in response to a question? If that is true, it does a terrible injustice to the participants of this forum. There is a wealth of information available on other woodworking forums which is not available to those who restrict themselves for what ever reason to this site. I am not being negative about this site but it is new and does not yet have the hugh knowledge base available on some of the other forums.
Some of us have been using our computers to enhance our woodworking experience for years (I think it is at least 8 for me); it would be a shame not to be able to share that knowledge here.

[Richard Allen]

So if I am understanding the above correctly, we cannot offer a link to another woodworking forum even in response to a question?

I don't think this is a big deal. The rules state that links to other forums should be submited as references. So something like this link to a reference to other woodturning forums should be within the rules.

Slightly cumersome but we have rules for a reason and I think we should all abide by those rules until the rules are changed.

BTW I was the one who violated the rule. I should not have done that. I was unaware and I thanked Ken for fixing my violation.

Thanks

[Barbara Gill]

Actually I was referring to What Ken posted "Links to other public or private forums are not allowed."
I agree that rules of each forum should be followed. I was just making sure exactly what those rules are. The quoted sentence seems fairly clear. There will be no posting of URL's for other forums even if the information on another forum can answer the question asked better than it is being answered on this forum..

[Jason Roehl]

Actually I was referring to What Ken posted "Links to other public or private forums are not allowed."
I agree that rules of each forum should be followed. I was just making sure exactly what those rules are. The quoted sentence seems fairly clear. There will be no posting of URL's for other forums even if the information on another forum can answer the question asked better than it is being answered on this forum..

What you can do entirely within the rules, Barbara, is to e-mail or private-message the links to the querying member. Then just post that you have done that, without posting the link itself. It's a little additional burden, but I think it makes sense, as it removes some of the gray area between posting links to other forums to answer questions and posting links to other forums to generate traffic (advertise).

I don't believe it is that SMC wishes to restrict the flow of woodworking knowledge in any way--just that they do recognize there is an appropriate way to share info and an inappropriate way, and have defined it in a way that they deem necessary.

I am glad that this all got hashed out a little--discussion like this helps us come to an understanding, rather than draw lines in the sand. I'm always one for giving someone the benefit of the doubt, even if the intentions don't seem right at first glance.

[Bob Oswin]

experience for years (I think it is at least 8 for me); it would be a shame not to be able to share that knowledge here.

Not too long ago I was told point blank by one of the administrative officers ( helpers) at another forum that he would screen scrape anything that I wrote. He called it "public domain" once I posted my information. That same guy posts here occasionally.

That other forum blatantly posts copywrite protection over this source of information gleaned from it's membership.

I was shocked and appalled!

Some of us are glad to contribute but not to have the info we provide copyrighted for possible and likely financial gain by some third party.
So, cutting to the chase, the Creek probably does not want to have an intellectual rights harangue going on with URLs flying back and forth around the net.
Barb, if what these other guys say is true, why not just scrape the info and post it here with acknowledgments to the authors?
That way we develop out own data bank.
just another point of view
Bob

[Barbara Gill]

Not too long ago I was told point blank by one of the administrative officers ( helpers) at another forum that he would screen scrape anything that I wrote. He called it "public domain" once I posted my information. That same guy posts here occasionally.

Hmmm, screen scrape, a new term for me to be sure. I assume it means the same thing as copy. Most of the time when I post a URL for information it is for a large article. The internet has its own special set of complications. To take a "published" article from one location where it was put by the author and post it to another site in its entirety even with credit to the author seems morally wrong without the express permission of the author. It is not something I would feel comfortable doing even if others are doing it.
It also seems to me to be a redundant use of resources. Every forum has its own flavor. IMHO the one which I consider the best all around public woodworking forum has few rules of conduct except the obvious ones of civility and respect to the owner. There are very few incidences of abuse at that site and I could probably count on my fingers the times one poster has been rude to another. This happens to also be the one that has the most information to offer. I don't know of any woodworking forum that is making money. The ones run by magazines and/or woodworking suppliers are doing it as a service and to keep their name in our minds. The ones that are being run by individuals are at best a break even proposition.
I have always supported the right of the owner of a forum to enforce whatever rules they imposed since they were the ones paying for the site either in time or dollars or both. Wayne had so many rules that it was a full time job reading all of the posts to make sure there were none being violated. In the end it was his undoing. I just feel it is not necessary for one forum to feel threatened by the posting of a URL for another forum if the action is in response to a question and not a solicitation.