RULES and CONSISTENCY

I notice that links to Helium articles are still present on this site, despite the Helium critique forum being open for a while now.

Thank you for the reminder.

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

As Helium members directly gain by reads to their reviews by members or non-members, linking on this site is providing them with income which goes way beyond plugging a review here for Ciao or Dooyoo and getting some non-member reads. However, even something as innocuous as pointing people towards your Ciao and Dooyoo reviews is (rightly) frowned upon. . . .

. . . . I think it is right that the blanket rule of 'any advertising' is upheld and I think such a rule still has a place here. It's an integrity thing as well as a consistency thing.

Do you not then think that members of RWF shouldn't include links to their profiles on the review sites in their Signatures?

I was going to ask you (via private message) to teach me how to make an "invisible" link as you have done, Aaron, but if you feel so strongly about non-advertising, perhaps we should remove all such links as well?

My signature was carried over from the previous RWF, and had never been an issue before the rules were introduced (a few weeks after I joined the new RWF, just over a year ago).

I did ask Rachel when I was made aware of the new rules last July whether it meant we needed to change our signatures as well, and was told it did not; however, I DO wonder if, for consistency's sake, we SHOULD remove these links . . .

I don't feel strongly about "non-advertising", I feel strongly about consistency. It doesn't matter what rule you wish to enforce, but do it consistently and correctly, not just when you pick and choose to.

jesi wrote:

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

. . . . I think it is right that the blanket rule of 'any advertising' is upheld and I think such a rule still has a place here. It's an integrity thing as well as a consistency thing.

Do you not then think that members of RWF shouldn't include links to their profiles on the review sites in their Signatures? . . . .

. . . . I DO wonder if, for consistency's sake, we SHOULD remove these links . . .

I am talking about consistency here . . .






Did you answer my question about how you are paid on Helium?


?

FOIB Rules wrote:

3.Any advertising of your reviews or anyone elses reviews is a no go. The reason for this is that it almost begs for reads, and also can cause unpleasantness between members, for example if you draw members attention to what you think is a revenge rating for example. People look. People join in the argument, and that is not the purpose of the forum, and goes against everything we stand for. Same if you see a dire review on a site, rate it and move on. It is not up for discussion here.

The rule regards reviews, not profiles. Your points are moot.

Anyway, why should I answer your questions, Jesi? You've never addressed one single question I've asked of you or any points I've raised with you, but yet you've been so very interested in my Ciao account over the years.

Jesi, could you please cut back on the text formatting on your posts? It spoils the flow and the last thing we want is people trying to out 'format' each other to be heard.

sorry drew

jesi wrote:

sorry drew

Not a major problem, just wanted to point it out