Terms of Service Revision

[Aaron Koehl]

Confession

Update, 2006-08-31: Since I spent the night at the emergency room last night (sister took a spill down the steps), I didn't get a chance to revise anything. Soo, that means this thread will continue until the end of the week. Note: As Keith mentions below, I'm looking for clarification of our existing terms. Baby steps.

Well, since I originally wrote the terms of service, I figure I should be the one to amend it. I've come to terms with the fact that I can be overly articulate or verbose. In this case, the terms were obviously open to several different interpretations. Hey, have you ever tried reading Slashdot's Terms of Service? Yikes.

Anyway, I apparently failed in my original attempt to convey my thoughts on this section of the Terms clearly and simply.

This thread is open to suggestions for rewriting Section E part 3.

Please reference individual changes to the sentences or post your version in full. I'll review your suggestions and finalize the changes this evening.

E. Commercial Advertising
...snip...
3. External Linking

1. Links to other websites are allowed in posts.
2. In fact, they are encouraged.
3. 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.
4. Links to other public or private forums are not allowed.
5. Links should be submitted as references, for the sole purpose of generating or supporting discussions on SawMill Creek.
...snip...

Here is the setup (the facts behind what I want to convey):

1. I really dislike all the advertising I see everywhere I go. (One of the reasons I watch everything on TIVO). Our members have expressed the desire to keep the forums free of advertisement; In my experience, the advertising usually gets in the way of real information.

2. Unfortunately, SawmillCreek is recognized as a valuable advertising resource, and as such, companies and members do try to advertise from time to time; thus, we prohibit commercial links which are defined as: 1. those that can solicit commercial benefit; 2. those which are used solely to drive traffic to another site.

Determining What is commercial and what is not is a judgment call, but you usually know it when you see it.

3. With the exception of advertising, I really do think links add a lot to posts (and why I encourage them). For instance, my links to Slashdot at the top of this post are strictly informational, used to drive a discussion here in this thread.

4. In my professional experience with forums and the Internet, forum links become 'stale' (Page Not Found) with much greater frequency than other types of websites. (This is second only to "Marketing" pages, such as company specials, as well as product links to eCommerce sites, etc).

In an attempt to build archival value, I try to encourage interesting topics be posted here at the 'Creek in order to open up the topic to posts. Links to other forums tend to drive the conversation away from the Creek, rather than into it. (Not a hard and fast rule, but just my experience)

My inbox is full of inputs on how members feel about forum linking, both for and against. I am currently on the fence from my position when I wrote this 3 years ago. Once we reword the existing terms, I'll reconsider my position on forum linking, and take it from there.

SawmillCreek is a wonderful woodworking related archive. Without discussion, though, a thread topic isn't useful to the archive (except perhaps in the short run).

... ...

Now, all of the above doesn't need to be explicitly spelled out, but I do want the end result conveyed in the Terms.

So, yielding the floor...

[Steve Clardy]

Thank you Aaron!

I will look it over

[Lee DeRaud]

3. With the exception of advertising, I really do think links add a lot to posts (and why I encourage them). For instance, my links to Slashdot at the top of this post are strictly informational, used to drive a discussion here in this thread.

4. In my professional experience with forums and the Internet, forum links become 'stale' (Page Not Found) with much greater frequency than other types of websites. (This is second only to "Marketing" pages, such as company specials, as well as product links to eCommerce sites, etc).

In an attempt to build archival value, I try to encourage interesting topics be posted here at the 'Creek in order to open up the topic to posts. Links to other forums tend to drive the conversation away from the Creek, rather than into it. (Not a hard and fast rule, but just my experience)

I suspect the conflict between #3 and #4 above is what has driven most of the recent discussion of forum links, in the sense that links "for the sole purpose of generating or supporting discussions on SawMill Creek" are encouraged...and then prohibited based solely on the type of website at the other end of the link, rather than the value/relevance of the link with regard to the discussion at hand.

And (IMHO) volatility is not really an issue: that phrase "sole purpose of generating or supporting discussions" by its very nature is describing a transitory activity, not an archival activity. Quite frankly, if archival integrity is really that important, the thing you need to prohibit is attachment links to personal sites and places like PhotoBucket.

I'm not going to attempt to wordsmith section 3 for you, but I think you can probably accomplish most (if not all) of your goals by replacing artificial restrictions on the link destinations with stronger wording to the effect that links are strictly supportive/supplemental and not a substitute for in-post content. The obvious discriminator is "Is this post readable without following the link?" Yes, there's some "judgement call" wiggle room in there: there will certainly be times when a link points to content on another forum which would be unwieldy (due to size) or illegal (due to copyright) to reproduce here directly.

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

Great idea, I applaud your effort.

One thing that is not discussed here is the dreaded E-bay links, are the OK or not?

Sometimes I see them pulled other times not.

What if member A says "I'm looking for a widget for my XYZ tool, anyone seen one?"

and member B replies "Hey they got one on E-bay at E-Bay Link "

Now that to me is helpful and serves a purpose, but some would say, why not just have B send A a PM? Well if you do that, no one knows that A got helped, and maybe some other member is also looking for a similar widget...?

I guess I just want to say that as the E-bay links, or Craig's list links are an area of confusion, as they sometimes get yanked, and sometimes are left alone, this area needs to be spelled out.

Is E-bay a public forum, private...... neither...?

Thanks for taking the time to do this, SMC can only benefit from a frank and open discussion.

Cheers!

[Steve Clardy]

My feelings on the ebay linking is that it is ok with me.
But, a couple of years ago when it came to a head, most did not want the links here. So it was determined there would be no linking.

I think it would best to provide a auction #, that way they could go to ebay and search the item #.

Have the tos reflect that linking to ebay is not allowed, but the auction # is allowed.

[Rob Bodenschatz]

My feelings on the ebay linking is that it is ok with me.
But, a couple of years ago when it came to a head, most did not want the links here. So it was determined there would be no linking.

I think it would best to provide a auction #, that way they could go to ebay and search the item #.

Have the tos reflect that linking to ebay is not allowed, but the auction # is allowed.

I'm assuming the only reason we even care about this is that having dead links will hurt search engine rankings. If that's true, Steve's suggestion is a good one. The same should be done with craigslist items. Or any other such site.

[Aaron Koehl]

(I will journal the following post as I take on suggestions)

Wed
11:55
Issue: eBay links (Steve Clardy)
Description: For the obvious "hey come check out my auction" reasons, we dislike linking to ebay auctions.
Current Status: Nothing in the TOS covering this yet, but as Steve points out, we polled the community and decided collectively that direct eBay links are not wanted. eBay auction IDs are permitted, but again, only to support discussion on the 'Creek.
Proposed Change: Add wording to the TOS.

12:03
Issue: Topic Integrity (Lee DeRaud)
Description: A good question in regards to linking is to ask, "Will this topic/thread/post stand on its own, without these links?". While this won't always be the case
Current Status: Nothing specific in the TOS, except measures to try to reduce the number of broken links by encouraging that links be submitted for discussion purposes, rather than as just traffic-inducing objects.
Proposed Change: ?? still thinking

12:07
Issue: Dead Links and Search Engine Rankings (Rob Bodenschatz)
Description: The primary issue with dead links comes with Lee's post (referenced just above this journal entry).
Current Status: Question raised, do dead links affect search engine rankings?
Proposed Change:

12:16
Issue: Linking to Other Forums (Frank Fusco)
Description: Disallowing linking to other forums may lend itself to the appearance of elitism.
Current Status: TOS prohibits linking to other forums.
Proposed Change: Hmm, I'm not sure how to combat this perception. I suppose it stems from my comment about not being able to moderate what we're linking to, which also has some merit.

12:20
Issue: Amazon (and other eCommerce links) (Stu Ablett)
Description: Links to products can go stale, but in this woodworking discussion environment, links to books and other related woodworking products are valuable content in the form of recommendations. The distinction to eBay auctions is that, unless you're the author, you're not gaining any benefit from linking to Amazon.
Current Status: Not prohibited in the TOS.
Proposed Change: None.

1:32
Issue: Short Version (Bill Cotey)
Description: A "short and sweet" paragraph at the top of the terms of service, similar to http://mimf.com/useragr.htm.
Current Status: Nothing in the TOS. This site is more restrictive, however, it does express some of the same.
Proposed Change: Add a summary at the front of the TOS

Thurs
8:49am
Issue: Posting deals from the local megamart (Matt Warfield)
Description: "One thing I'm a little torn about is when someone finds an awesome deal at the borg or where ever. Technically, it's commercial in nature. But it's also to good not to pass that information on to the greater population. PM's don't really fit that role and it would create a grey area in the overall TOS."
Current Status: Not prohibited in the TOS. This is covered under "Indirect Commercial Affiliation" in the TOS, Part E section 2.
Proposed Change: None.

Wed Sept 20.
9:56am
Issue: Disclaimer regarding linked websites (Damien Falgoust)
Description: May need to explicitly state that we are not responsible for content linked from SawmillCreek.
Current Status: Not explicitly stated in the TOS.
Proposed Change: We may have a brief legal review of the amended TOS, with additional disclaimers added to the bottom.

[Keith Outten]

There are no artificial restrictions concerning links in our TOS.

Making the TOS less restrictive will without a doubt cause nothing less than a flood of advertising.

Should auction numbers be allowed what will we do when a thread is started with a list of auction numbers and clearly is nothing but advertising someone's wares?

[Aaron Koehl]

Keith is right- most of our wording is just trying to get a handle on advertising, and making that policy unambiguous. Your post does bring the whole "letter of the law" vs "the spirit of the law" topic to mind. We do recognize the ambiguity, so I'm putting it out there for folks to give input on making it more clear to them. I've taken a look at some of the the other issues you raised and am adding them to my journal post as I can.

[Frank Fusco]

To respond fully is asking a lot. But you have offered to be open minded on this issue. Since I picked on you a bit earlier, I commend you for considering changes. I nearly quit SMC because of what I considered uneven and heavy-handed enforcement of confusing, self-contradictory rules.
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.
I believe that what happened with the current TOS is an example of the old story of a committee setting out to design a racehorse and ending up with a three legged camel. e.g. E.3.5. Links. just doesn't make any sense and does not explain what meaning (if any) it intends to convey.
But I'll elaborate with my opinions (MY OPINIONS) on a couple key points.
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.

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

Thanks for addressing that, I think the auction ID number is a good solution, and should be spelled out as such.

"Links to items for sale on E-bay are strictly not allowed, but listing the auction ID#, when it has something to do with the discussion is allowed"

or something to that effect.

Next item, (well last one for me, as I'm off to the Dungeon here to do some work)


Amazon.com

I often see and I've linked to books on Amazon. For example there is a VERY good book on setting up your bandsaw called "The Bandsaw Book" by Loni Bird (SP?) I've linked to is as I've found this book to be well worth the $13 they want for it in setting up and tuning a bandsaw.

Is this kind of thing allowed?

I guess to answer my own question, we could use the ISBN number, like auction ID#s..........?

(Amazon could be changed with any other online book retailer).

Now I'm off to the Dungeon to do some of this woodworking stuff!

Cheers!

[Mark Rios]

Great idea, I applaud your effort.

One thing that is not discussed here is the dreaded E-bay links, are the OK or not?

Sometimes I see them pulled other times not.

What if member A says "I'm looking for a widget for my XYZ tool, anyone seen one?"

and member B replies "Hey they got one on E-bay at E-Bay Link "

Now that to me is helpful and serves a purpose, but some would say, why not just have B send A a PM? Well if you do that, no one knows that A got helped, and maybe some other member is also looking for a similar widget...?

I guess I just want to say that as the E-bay links, or Craig's list links are an area of confusion, as they sometimes get yanked, and sometimes are left alone, this area needs to be spelled out.

Is E-bay a public forum, private...... neither...?

Thanks for taking the time to do this, SMC can only benefit from a frank and open discussion.

Cheers!

Hey Stu.....While there are some issues that have been inconsistant, and will no doubt be addressed, I must respectfully disagree regarding the ebay links. Yes they come up and are there for a time, but since I've been here they have never lasted. I've always thought that if they were up for more than 8 hours then the moderator was sick, busy or in a coma. Since I became aware of the restriction I've yet to see an ebay link stay linkable more than 12 hours.

I see no negative issues with posting an auction number instead of a link to an item, except a VERY slight inconvenience to the poster and any reader who may care to go look. Highlight the auction number and paste it in search box. Not a problem.

Just a boneheads thoughts.

[Lee DeRaud]

Current Status: Question raised, do dead links affect search engine rankings?

Followup question: since we're explicitly not soliciting advertising, why do we care about search engine rankings?

[Aaron Koehl]

Followup question: since we're explicitly not soliciting advertising, why do we care about search engine rankings?

I have to reword this in my mind. If we were soliciting for advertisers, would we care about search engine rankings? Yes, I do believe we would. But since we're not soliciting for advertisers, does that mean we shouldn't care about search engines? I can't seem to jump to that logical conclusion, but I suppose it has merit.

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

However, 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. The bigger our membership, the easier it is to keep SawmillCreek running, the easier it is to implement new features (serving a larger body), and the more content SawmillCreek can provide.

[Rob Bodenschatz]

Followup question: since we're explicitly not soliciting advertising, why do we care about search engine rankings?

To solicit new members, right? I don't remember how I found this site but it was probably due to a google search. I think we'd all agree that the more members, the better. Well, maybe most of us.

I don't really know much about that search engine stuff, though. Maybe dead links don't matter.