Suggestions and Feedback

**ADAM Web Design** · 02-09-2008, 02:37 AM

The amount of free ads on here is starting to get out of hand. Personally, I suggest a 10:1 rule, whereby people would have to post at least 10 original things for every 1 ad they put in the ad section.

Take this (l)user for example. 3 posts, 3 started threads, 3 ads. What's that guy going to contribute? Nothing. There are a few users just like this guy kicking around, too.

**jamestl2** · 02-09-2008, 01:26 PM

I like it, but......

How would it work exactly? The posts in that forum do increase your post count. Do you suggest something like turning it off (as the RLE forum already is)?

**ADAM Web Design** · 02-09-2008, 04:26 PM

That would work. I'd be down with that.

**Bernard** · 03-10-2008, 09:00 PM

Someone who is looking to advertise on his sites would think he is contributing something of value to the forum. One man's junk is another man's treasure ...

**ADAM Web Design** · 03-11-2008, 03:06 AM

If that's the case, would it not make more sense that a poster in here with, say, 4 digits' worth of posts and a solid reputation would represent a better advertising opportunity, based on the number of members said poster would have brought over to his/her site(s)?

**dansgalaxy** · 03-11-2008, 10:07 AM

I think this could be a good idea but would be messy to implement

**Bernard** · 03-11-2008, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

If that's the case, would it not make more sense that a poster in here with, say, 4 digits' worth of posts and a solid reputation would represent a better advertising opportunity,...

I'm not talking about the specific case you highlighted, but in general, the metric I would use for determining the potential value of an ad buy would have to do with the actual site content and traffic stats that I was considering - not the forum activity (or lack thereof) of the owner.

Your question may have merit with regards to whether or not you find the owner trustworthy, but media owners have a vested interest in keeping their clients happy.

**ADAM Web Design** · 03-11-2008, 12:19 PM

But therein lies the problem, Bernard...if the "traffic" comes as the result of forum spam or one-off ad posts such as the one above, and the site owner uses a traffic stats package such as Webalizer or some other useless pile of garbage (and most of them are), then the advertiser gets screwed over.

Not only that, I would personally consider the methods used to promote a website beyond just the traffic stats in order to try and determine quality of traffic and therefore the likelihood that my ad would generate an ROI. If a publisher goes around cross-posting forum spam or posts one-off ads all over the place or advertises looking for "targeted visitors to buy", that suggests that the traffic isn't as of high quality.

Not only that, the publisher really isn't contributing to the community in general. They're just taking something for nothing, and the benefit that they draw from it is a potential advertiser base generated by the efforts of a community that they didn't participate in. When people like Forrest, John, James, the two Dans, myself, Chris Hirst, LadyNRed, and others help to contribute and build this thing by actually providing something useful and helpful once in a while, then if anything we should draw the benefit from it (not that any of us would...none of us really need it).

Quote:

Your question may have merit with regards to whether or not you find the owner trustworthy, but media owners have a vested interest in keeping their clients happy.

That's true, but why should we be concerned about that? Let them have whatever vested interest they want...if they don't contribute, they shouldn't be able to advertise.

**Bernard** · 03-11-2008, 01:34 PM

Hope you don't mind if I continue playing devil's advocate...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

...if the "traffic" comes ...

That is an entirely different subject from the one I was discussing. Just because someone only posts advertising opportunities here doesn't mean the only source of traffic for his network is from forum ads. Ultimately, it's up to potential advertisers to vet the offers.

If w-t forums wanted to institute some QA/QC and vet advertising offers, that's fine, but I'm not sure your suggestion of 10:1 posting necessarily leads in that direction. I see it as knee-capping the marketplace.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

Not only that, the publisher really isn't contributing to the community in general.

This was the point I was trying to address with my first comment. Your view (as I understand it from reading your posts) is that the very act of posting a commercial opportunity is not "contributing to the community".

My point was that posting advertising offers *is* contributing to a vibrant marketplace forum. As a marketer with a range of interests, I see value in that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

They're just taking something for nothing, and the benefit that they draw from it is a potential advertiser base generated by the efforts of a community that they didn't participate in.

The benefit to the community is a wider selection of commercial opportunities.

There are ways the forum could capitalize on a vibrant marketplace forum to enhance the community if that is the concern. Off the top of my head - prohibit posting of URLs (force members to exchange details via PM). This forces guests to register to take advantage of opportunities. In this scenario, the members you are objecting to will be contributing to the growth of the forum on top of making the marketplace more dynamic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

That's true, but why should we be concerned about that?

You missed the point. My point was that just because they don't contribute elsewhere in the forum doesn't mean their offers are any less valuable to the members here than any other offer (from a more well known member).

**ADAM Web Design** · 03-12-2008, 02:24 PM

I don't mind it at all.

Quote:

That is an entirely different subject from the one I was discussing. Just because someone only posts advertising opportunities here doesn't mean the only source of traffic for his network is from forum ads. Ultimately, it's up to potential advertisers to vet the offers.

I agree that it's ultimately up to advertisers to vet the offers. But as far as forum ads being the only source of traffic goes, I never really suggested they were as such; what I suggested was that the type of traffic that such a publisher would draw in would be via tactics like this (come in, drop an ad, leave). In the process, people who contribute to the community and wish to place ads end up having their ads diluted by those who offer nothing, and that presents a certain imbalance.

Now I'm not someone who advertises in the forum, so it's of no vested interest to me one way or the other. I'd just rather see members get rewarded for contributing as opposed to just getting a free ad for no other reason than it's a free ad.

The other angle behind it is the number of spam/low-quality ads for services that end up in that section. It makes the section look cheap.

Quote:

This was the point I was trying to address with my first comment. Your view (as I understand it from reading your posts) is that the very act of posting a commercial opportunity is not "contributing to the community".

My point was that posting advertising offers *is* contributing to a vibrant marketplace forum. As a marketer with a range of interests, I see value in that.

That's correct. A poster with vested commercial interests isn't contributing. And if you're suggesting that a poster that contributes to the forums, has a solid reputation and therefore would likely draw traffic based on that reputation to his/her site as well as other means will not be any more likely to provide a solid ROI on an advertising investment than a one-off forum ad poster, I'd say we'll have to agree to disagree on that...there's no way I'd ever subscribe to that theory.

Quote:

The benefit to the community is a wider selection of commercial opportunities.

There are ways the forum could capitalize on a vibrant marketplace forum to enhance the community if that is the concern. Off the top of my head - prohibit posting of URLs (force members to exchange details via PM). This forces guests to register to take advantage of opportunities. In this scenario, the members you are objecting to will be contributing to the growth of the forum on top of making the marketplace more dynamic.

That's only one aspect of the community, and what worries me about that is that WMT, if left to continue down the path, would end up allowing enough spammy ads such that other spammers would "contribute" and we end up with the forum deterioriating to Digital Pointless levels. The last thing any one of the respected members around here wants is for WMT to resemble DP.

Again, let them contribute. Let them show that they've got others' best interests at heart and thus will be more likely to work with advertisers to find a mutually beneficial solution. Then let them post.

The PM idea is an okay idea in theory, but would likely fall apart in practice. Person posts ad asking for PMs, person gets PM spammed all sorts of unrelated crap, person gets annoyed and complains, Tim Schroeder has a headache.

Quote:

You missed the point. My point was that just because they don't contribute elsewhere in the forum doesn't mean their offers are any less valuable to the members here than any other offer (from a more well known member).

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I'd much rather hear a marketing pitch from someone like John or Forrest, knowing who they are and what they stand for, vs. a one-off poster.

**Capt Quirk** · 03-12-2008, 04:37 PM

Great. I have 82 posts, which would mean I now have to come up with... 8 free ads? Or would it be 8.2 ads? Way to go Adam, make things more difficult for me >

**Electric-Shadow** · 03-15-2008, 01:45 PM

It's a busy forum so wouldn't be that hard imo to come up with the posts I would be more than happy for this rule to be implemented and I wouldn't mind posting in return for a free ad.

Sorta you give something to the community and the community says thanks by letting you have an ad, seems fair to me.

I will try to post more often in other forums myself anways

- I like the way this site is run, you don't get the same crap replies to threads here like you do on other forums and usually its only from interested parties, even if they dont offer anything.

**mork29** · 03-21-2008, 12:27 PM

The problem with this method will boil down to seeing more crap posts in the sections of this forum that are good.

Check out the website review section. Already it gets filled with posts of, "Good site" or "needs more work, but good start" and absolutely nothing of actual content, just for the sake of being able to post their own site up. The rules specifically forbit that, but it happens alot already. Imagine if all of a sudden we have to see 10 crap posts like that ever time somebody wants to put up an ad.

**DaveMo~** · 03-24-2008, 01:00 PM

One rule for the Ads forum is:

Quote:

Only one thread/post per week. That is the maximum. Do not post a new ad, offer, or service everyday! Note: You may bump your thread after one week.

If you see someone that has placed ads the go above the maximum, please feel free to use the report post feature so we can remove the last one. That goes for the Site Review forums, too. "Nice site" is not an acceptable review.

I do like the suggestion, but may be hard to implement.

Dave