Moved from main forum- site review discussion

[sysops]

I have removed a post from this thread, please don't post any kind of a comment about the thread starters website, as that constitutes a site review, and theya re not allowed.

Thanks

About once a year I forget why I don't come here any more, and end up here. Thank you for the prompt reminder.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

About once a year I forget why I don't come here any more, and end up here. Thank you for the prompt reminder.

Site reviews are a paid membership feature plain and simple. So you no longer come here because we don't allow free members to have features that they need to be paid members for?

I made my post to prevent members wasting their time visiting the site, and crafting a long post laying out what they need to do to their site to put it right, only for a moderator to delete it as soon as it is seen. Surely that is better than just deleting each and every post that reviews the site, and not say why?

 

[JamieM]

Site reviews are a paid membership feature plain and simple. So you no longer come here because we don't allow free members to have features that they need to be paid members for?

I made my post to prevent members wasting their time visiting the site, and crafting a long post laying out what they need to do to their site to put it right, only for a moderator to delete it as soon as it is seen. Surely that is better than just deleting each and every post that reviews the site, and not say why?

I can't speak for sysops but for me I have no problem with your moderation as per the rules. I do however strongly disagree with UKBF's rules on this.

I don't understand why website reviews are a paid feature. You can ask for advice freely about any other aspect of business. Why is asking about your website so different? The Ecommerce section would be a much more interesting place if people could openly discuss and advise on websites.

Personally I would contribute a lot more, the private section for website reviews is pretty dull as there is not a big enough range of views from different people.

It's up to UKBF of course but I think it has a negative impact on the forum as a whole.

 

[linux]

Website without a homepage is like a store/shop without a window where items are being on display. Usually homepage needs to display a sneak peak of what website offers if client dicide to enter click further on a website.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I can't speak for sysops but for me I have no problem with your moderation as per the rules. I do however strongly disagree with UKBF's rules on this.

I don't understand why website reviews are a paid feature. You can ask for advice freely about any other aspect of business. Why is asking about your website so different? The Ecommerce section would be a much more interesting place if people could openly discuss and advise on websites.

Personally I would contribute a lot more, the private section for website reviews is pretty dull as there is not a big enough range of views from different people.

It's up to UKBF of course but I think it has a negative impact on the forum as a whole.

Site reviews are currently being discussed as part of changes to the forum. However until then, the rules are as they are so mods have to apply them

 

[sysops]

Site reviews are a paid membership feature plain and simple. So you no longer come here because we don't allow free members to have features that they need to be paid members for?

I made my post to prevent members wasting their time visiting the site, and crafting a long post laying out what they need to do to their site to put it right, only for a moderator to delete it as soon as it is seen. Surely that is better than just deleting each and every post that reviews the site, and not say why?

I have a problem with this on two levels.

First, the "no site reviews" rule is ridiculous - the forum encourages discussion of all aspects of business, so why single this one out?

Second, the mods (including you OWG) interpretation of what constitutes a site review is inconsistent. Some posts which are essentially a site review but couched in the right terms are allowed, while others which are far too brief to be called a review are deemed to be a review and removed.

 

[Faevilangel]

First, the "no site reviews" rule is ridiculous - the forum encourages discussion of all aspects of business, so why single this one out?

I can answer this one, because if we allowed anyone to post a website request, there would be literally hundreds of them and a large majority would be people looking to just have their link in the post.

Go to any forum which has web reviews and the majority are over run with "requests" which say "review my site"...

e.g. no thought into the review like asking how it displays on mobiles etc

As James hinted, the website reviews are currently being looked at by Sift and could see the gates opened.

 

[sysops]

I can answer this one, because if we allowed anyone to post a website request, there would be literally hundreds of them and a large majority would be people looking to just have their link in the post.

I don't think this would be the case. Even if it was, it would only serve to increase the quality of the forum content.

 

[Faevilangel]

I don't think this would be the case. Even if it was, it would only serve to increase the quality of the forum content.

That's the problem, it wouldn't as the genuine requests would get lost in the numerous spam requests.

We currently get a lot of spam, for the links (sigs and posts) now if we let anyone have a web review, this spam would increase heavily.

I have seen good forums go down hill quickly because of the lack of moderation on stuff like web reviews.

Sift are working on an idea to open up the web review section though, where free members can be involved.

I do think the current hidden web reviews works well as it enables 2 things:

1) Members to get critical advice on their website away from praying eyes (like Google)
2) The reviewers can go into much more detail than anything in public view

I know a members get a lot of vital feedback from the website reviews but we do need a 2 tier system to bring the free members into the equation.

 

Slightly off but if I may....

I see a lot of posters on here with the URL of their website in their signature, however I just tried to edit my signature & wasn't allowed to enter a URL (an error message along the lines of 'no html' allowed)

What gives?

 

[Faevilangel]

Slightly off but if I may....

I see a lot of posters on here with the URL of their website in their signature, however I just tried to edit my signature & wasn't allowed to enter a URL (an error message along the lines of 'no html' allowed)

What gives?

You need to be a paid member to have a link in your sig (like mine) but you can add something like:

Myweb shop - mywebshop.co.uk

If you leave out the http://, it won't make it a link and it will save.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

If anyone has an issue on how UKBF is run, this thread is not the place to do that. Hijacking a thread to push a personal position with regard the rules is not allowed.

If you wish to debate this, then please start a thread in feedback.

 

......it won't make it a link and it will save.

Thanks - done

 

[JamieM]

I don't think this would be the case. Even if it was, it would only serve to increase the quality of the forum content.

I completely agree.

That's the problem, it wouldn't as the genuine requests would get lost in the numerous spam requests.

We currently get a lot of spam, for the links (sigs and posts) now if we let anyone have a web review, this spam would increase heavily.

I don't buy that argument. Spam is obvious and is already being dealt with anyway. Do you think spammers are deterred from posting because they don't have a paid membership?

 

[Henry Osadzinski]

It's a delicate balance and one we're keen to address as best we can. Currently, site reviews are a Full Member feature because the nature of the private areas means that members can enjoy frank and open discussion about the negative aspects of their own sites without it being seen by the wider audience, which may include potential customers (especially likely when UKBF posts show up so high in search results).

The more open things are, the more prone they can be to spam as well (it's probably useful here to note that spam isn't just automated link dumps that are easy to deal with but a large mass of junk content and keyword dropping that's harder to track down and remove) and we want to make sure that, whatever we do, the focus is on useful, informative content for both people posting and reading the site. There are a few ideas being discussed and we're keen to hear from both Full Members (there's a thread in the site reviews areas for you folks with some thoughts ) and Free Members so that we can make both offerings as valuable as possible.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I completely agree.



I don't buy that argument. Spam is obvious and is already being dealt with anyway. Do you think spammers are deterred from posting because they don't have a paid membership?

Maybe the use of the term 'spammers' wan't clear enough, so try 'link droppers' as a better description, i.e. people who make a post to get a site review, but in reality they are not interested in what others have to say and are only looking to have a free link to their website.

As Henry said, there is already a discussion on this in the paid members area, so now it is up to non paid members to give thier thoughts and justification for change

 

[Henry Osadzinski]

I should also add, our big aim for any change is to provide something that's useful to Free Members and then has the potential to open up greater benefits for Full Members. For example, limited but still helpful site review options for Free Members to balance the wider options in the Full Members' area. It takes planning but we're keen to know what you think as it does have an impact on our decisions.

 

[JamieM]

It's a delicate balance and one we're keen to address as best we can. Currently, site reviews are a Full Member feature because the nature of the private areas means that members can enjoy frank and open discussion about the negative aspects of their own sites without it being seen by the wider audience, which may include potential customers (especially likely when UKBF posts show up so high in search results).

Private forums are a more understandable paid member feature. If someone wanted privacy on their website review they could still use the private forums. Why not give them a choice?

Maybe the use of the term 'spammers' wan't clear enough, so try 'link droppers' as a better description, i.e. people who make a post to get a site review, but in reality they are not interested in what others have to say and are only looking to have a free link to their website.

Well as long as the site represents a business I don't see why that is such a big deal. It still potentially creates useful content for others.

I should also add, our big aim for any change is to provide something that's useful to Free Members and then has the potential to open up greater benefits for Full Members. For example, limited but still helpful site review options for Free Members to balance the wider options in the Full Members' area. It takes planning but we're keen to know what you think as it does have an impact on our decisions.

I think website reviews open up benefits to every member with an online business. Limited is no good, why restrict discussion on a discussion forum?

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Private forums are a more understandable paid member feature. If someone wanted privacy on their website review they could still use the private forums. Why not give them a choice?
I have already proposed there be 2 areas open and closed, so you gert a thumbs up from me on that option.


Well as long as the site represents a business I don't see why that is such a big deal. It still potentially creates useful content for others.
Link dropping isn't allowed, if we allow links to be dropped then we end up with the world and their brother asking for reviews purely to get a link. This results in the quality getting gradually worse as those who help review get disillusioned with one post wonders never returning.



I think website reviews open up benefits to every member with an online business.
I agree, but I also proposed that in the free area a strict template system needs to be used before a review is allowed. Again this prevents one post wonders, as it means they have to sit and actually think about their website, their target market, what they want the site to achieve etc.

Limited is no good, why restrict discussion on a discussion forum?
For the overall benefit of the discussion forum. There are other items in the private area such as franchising, press release, all private facilities for a reason. The first duty of any CEO of a business is to ensure the survival of the business,

I answered in red inside.

 

[JamieM]

Whilst I understand your point about link dropping I think you are overstating the problem and guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Whilst I understand your point about link dropping I think you are overstating the problem and guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

Every forum I have been involved with that allowed unconotrolled linking from the review area, ended up removing the links because of the spamming issue. I assure you it is a big issue.

So who decided is a 'site review' is genuine or well written spam? We can't allow links anywhere on the open forum as it will get spammed to hell and back.

If site reviews are also allowed on the main forum, then we absolutely must not allow live links in there, because I assure you from bitter experience it will be a spamfest.

 

[Fred_the_frog]

I think if the thread starter is not specifically requesting a website review and I post a post that comments on their website it shouldn't be classed as a website review. Why? because i'm not promoting their website, i'm simply providing a solution to their problem.

For example,

"I'm getting a lot of hits on my homepage but only 3% of them end in a sale. How can I improve this?"

How can you answer that in detail without looking at & commenting on their website?

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I think if the thread starter is not specifically requesting a website review and I post a post that comments on their website it shouldn't be classed as a website review. Why? because i'm not promoting their website, i'm simply providing a solution to their problem.

For example,

"I'm getting a lot of hits on my homepage but only 3% of them end in a sale. How can I improve this?"

How can you answer that in detail without looking at & commenting on their website?

Put simply, you can't, and if they want you to then they would have to pay to become a full member and post it in the review section. I know you disagree with that, but trust me on this in the private members area the overwhelming majority want no review facility on the free section of the forum.

A 'site review' is a process not a specific request, in short anything that needs somone to visit their site, and comment!

I understand it might appear petty that no element of a review is allowed, but as long as it is a paid members feature, it will be applied as rigourously as it currently is.

 

[ITsoldUK]

If you guys don't think that there would be a problem wit spam review requests then may I suggest the mods stop work for 1 day...

...leave ALL the spam trash that is removed BEFORE many people even see it.

I think you would then think again.

I have seen this kill many a forum and I have also seen (as OWG knows) how a structured and formalised approach to web reviews works and works well whilst maintaining it as a benefit for paid members.

It is all about balance and I for one am glad NOT to be making the call...

...just adding my views.



Regards
Daren

 

[JamieM]

What if you had a Review Section in the main forum and only existing members and paid members could start threads? Everyone can reply. Existing members would mean people with 50 posts or 100 posts or something.

This would also mean startups seeking advice and new to the forum could pay to get a review in the main forum if they wish and would cut out the spam.

Paid members can also still get reviews in private.

Publicly visible reviews would also likely have the added benefit of attracting new paying members looking for a review and overall I think would make the forum a more valuable resource.