You last visited: Today at 12:36 AM
|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|11-14-2012 07:19 AM|
This quote from a user is spot on: "Instead of spending all your time hating and being jealous of success, you should look to these young hard working people as a model and a hope for this country. A nation full of arm-chair quarterbacks who think they have a "right" to whine on a forum they didn't lift a finger for..."
As a fellow programmer, we both know that there are people who will resist ANY change you make to a program (or website in your case) and you just have to do the changes that you think do the most good, and modify if the complaints (that ALWAYS roll in afterward) make sense.
Don't ever give in to the people who complain about you somehow harming their "free speech" if you don't let them direct traffic to your competition. The reality is people like that would only harm your business and do very little good for the user base. You can tell how badly they want to redirect traffic by the imaginative ways they disguise the name of the sites to which they are trying to push people.
The Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" and the last time I checked, you AIN'T Congress. So keep abridging the "traffic re-directors" and be happy with that policy forever.
Thank you for one of the best sites on the Web... EVER.
|10-03-2012 07:55 AM|
|MSUSteve280||This has been a very interesting read. As one who was a lurker in 2003 and 2004, then joining in 2005, being active for a couple years, then taking an extended hiatus, it has been extremely interesting to see this site with a loyal community turn into such an enterprising site. What has been particularly interesting--from a business POV--is that many of the mods were just regulars back in the day. Great way to attract a committed workforce.|
|08-26-2012 03:34 AM|
You can't fool me, bot.
|08-26-2012 02:29 AM|
|06-29-2012 03:37 PM|
Again, both Ed and I offered both substantive and logical arguments for ending broad urlbans. And the constructive part was offered multiple times in the suggestions to continue excluding spam with moderators and to show URLs in deal discussions, but not linking.
Arguing with you was substantive, but not constructive; it was just for fun.
|06-28-2012 04:25 PM|
As to all the other parts, I don't have a dog in this fight and I just feel that it is rather annoying to me for people to worry about the techniques of arguements other than the content that was given. Especially when at the core there is no substance for constructive intelligence. That was basically all I was tryign to say. Too bad I got lured into the QQ fest and I will stop now. =)
|06-20-2012 09:00 AM|
|06-10-2012 08:09 PM|
Holy Smokes! I offered logical arguments supporting a suggestion about how to make SD better to the CEO, in hopes of change. And you are accusing me of argue for the sake of arguing, when your entire post addresses none of the my points, is a list of red herring fallacies, and does nothing to improve Slickdeals?!?!
However, I will argue with you for the sake of it. In case you don't understand why your post is so flawed:
1) This is an appeal to authority, which is the fallacy that something must be true bases on the authority of the person asserting it. I know that is Bryant's opinion and I am giving some reasons why it might not really matter much in terms of business sense. You offered nothing to counter this.
2) This is a Straw man argument, where one misrepresents the opponents position in order to defeat something easier. You imply here that I am suggesting that anybody can put up ads on slickdeals with no oversight, which is simply not true no matter how much more convenient it would be for you to argue against. If you read point number 4 you will see that I support the moderators removing spam. We are talking about users discussing deals in the forums not ads. And you are absolutely right about permission, that is exactly what I am asking for here!!
3) First I already showed above that you are the one arguing for the sake of it. Second, this an Appeal to the people, which is a fallacy that something must be true if many people believe it. Thirdly, II don't even think many people would believe it. Its not common sense that something proven wrong can somehow be right. In your "common sense" world how many counter examples are sufficient to disprove something? what is necessary to disprove something?
4) I don't understand how this is a circle. Its as if you didn't even read my post and decided to just argue. As I already explained in my reply to Bryant, this is a straw man argument. I agree with moderators blocking spam. But that has no bearing on my position on url blocking of deal discussions. I do understand they have reason for the policy. My point is to offer other reasons why it might not be the best policy and ask for a change.
|06-08-2012 12:11 PM|
|06-07-2012 04:50 PM|
2) Slickdeals has owner(s) and users/customers. It is way more similar to a restaurant than a country as countries have citizens, laws, foreign policies, taxations... It is silly to try to justisfy that it is a more appropriate analogy at this point. With that said, you may see advertisements being posted in a restaurant from other vendors. But I bet you that the owner has final say on what and if anything can be posted there. Permission is the key here, and you as a customer has to follow the rules. And yes, I may be a bad businessman since I don't own any business. But if I were to open a McDonald's you can bet that I will not have Burger King advertisements in my store.
3) Please stop to argue just for the sake of arguing. Are you really intent to make the site better? If so, please be constructive instead of picking on concept of arguements. I don't think Bryant is trying to publish a logical proof here via deduction. So even though your counter example proves that it is not 100% true in his statement, essentially it's worthless in common sense.
4) You are going in circles. Bryant already stated the reason why links for certain sites are not allowed multiple times. The reason to mention 12 years is a polite way to tell you that this decision has been carefully determined, even if you don't understand it.
|06-04-2012 12:47 AM|
|bryantq||We agree to disagree.|
|06-02-2012 12:44 PM|
In response to your points:
1) Just because "they" get a +1 on inbound links doesn't necessarily hurt slickdeals. The only way would be if it somehow was the critical factor to allow the linked page to surpass a SD page. How often does that even matter? And if it really does matter, it has already been suggested earlier in this thread, is to allow the url text, but do not hyperlink it. That way no link strength gained. BTW it also makes it very difficult to discuss competitors if the URL cannot be displayed, but I'm guessing that wasn't an accident.
2) I think the whole point of an analogy is to place the argument in the context of a drastically exaggerated situation in order to make obvious the pros and cons. Otherwise, it doesn't have a clear point. You are free to disagree on the comparison although I do believer there are many similarity in the economics of countries and companies. I refer only to the economic aspects. Speaking of which, the trade restrictions (of which embargoes and tariffs are examples) that you mentioned apply to goods and services, not people. In this analogy the "goods" for slickdeals are its content and information on deals, which Slickdeals has every right to protect. As I originally mentioned your solutions of banning links which prevent users from leaving can be compared to banning travel via hyperlink, which is a travel restriction not the same as a trade restriction. Travel restrictions are not done for economic reasons.
If we move on to your preferred analogy of a restaurant and flyers, I would have to say you don't know enough owners or aren't looking hard enough. Coffeeshops and cafes around me regularly have the free local magazines and newspapers that are full of advertisements and coupons to other places to eat. Lest you protests that cafes don't count, I was also recently at a local Italian restaurant, where entrees range $15-$40, and in the front by the hostess were stacks of "clipper magazines". For those who don't know, the title varies from place to place, but they are compose entirely of advertisements for local businesses, of which at least half are restaurants. You are correct in saying that owners have a right to remove advertisements, just like SD has a right to ban links. However, the point I am trying to convey is that customers/users can be shared. The meal I ate at restaurant A does not equal a lost sale to restaurant B.
3) I agree now with your revised statement. However it was you who first made a statement of absolute fact when you said and I quote "our competitors don't give us credit for content they copy, so why should I promote them?" As such, it was only necessary to provide one counter-example to disprove your argument. I did, thereby proving your statement untrue, which consequently makes my statement a fact.
4) Allowing something to happen is not he same as encouraging it to happen. Instead you are erecting a barrier, which is at best annoying. Why would you want to annoy your users?
This other point that you repeated bring up about spam ad posts and shilling for companies/blogs, is unrelated. I'm not sure if you are purposely trying to set up a straw man's argument, but it is not a point with which I ever disagreed. I absolutely agree that there is a place for the moderating team and eliminating the aforementioned spam. Unless you are somehow claiming that the moderators cannot tell the difference between a legitimate deal discussion and spam, this point bears no relation to the argument I am presenting. Like you said, these rules have evolved over 12 years, so lets continue to evolve them.
|05-28-2012 11:18 PM|
1) There is a difference between allowing the discussion of competitors (which for the most part we allow, especially for users crediting sources), and allowing links to them. As I said, building link quality for our competitors does not make any business sense.
2) The analogy provided is a pretty bad attempt at trying to pigeon-hole the situation into a drastically exaggerated comparison. First of all, business economics and policy are far different than those of national economics and foreign policy. It would be asinine to attempt to argue that an internet company and a business would share similar mechanics and solutions.
I would say however, that if you wanted to explore that analogy, let me point out that nations regularly enact tariffs, embargoes, and trade restrictions. However, if we're going to talk in analogies, as another user pointed out quite poignantly, this would be similar to a customer going into a restaurant and posting a flyer on the wall that advertises a competing restaurant. A store owner surely has the right to remove that flyer, and I don't know of any that would idly allow or encourage that.
3) There are plenty of users who give credit to slickdeals, and many users on slickdeals that give credit to other websites. That's completely fine. However, there are plenty of other competing websites that regularly take our content and do not give credit, nor do they have any community of users posting deals. You say "This is untrue." like its some sort of absolute fact.
4) I'm sure many users use all sorts of deal sites, I'm not naive enough to say it wont happen, but I also do not have to encourage it. Furthermore, these rules have had 12 years to evolve into their current state. It's not just competing websites that get blocked, but also merchant shills, product shills, etc. Sometimes competitors try to post urls to their own sites, sometimes stores try to post their own deals, sometimes users try to post their own blogs. I'll point out that our moderating team consists of users who came from our forums/community, so as they develop policy, they do so with the understanding of being a user and have considered all of these things.
|05-27-2012 05:17 PM|
|05-25-2012 06:04 AM|
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|