Sorry for posting a link.

[project-blu]

Originally Posted by KYThrill

As to point 3, I understand if someone is starting a duplicate thread (announcing a title) when one already exists. Totally understandable. But in the other case, are users supposed to be psychic? How do we know that HDD might be posting a review? You might post a review of any title, at anytime (import or domestic). So if a thread will be deleted because HDD might post a review, then why not make the rule simply no linking or quoting at all of outside reviews?

good idea. we'll call it the KY clause.

you're not gettin' me, though. a thread created to pimp and advertise another site, that's a no no in existing rules already unless given approval. a thread already existed for said title, to boot.

again, if people want me to talk it out, pm me. you'll find me much more candid and blunt, too.

[Arkadin]

well it is certainly nice to have this thread moved to the feedback area because that is where the discussion should certainly take place.
as far as all kinds of pming of mods of points regarding this, I also think it is far better for all answers and inquiries regarding rule changes or sudden new enforcement of existing rules to occur openly in the "feedback" forum where all members can see them.
imo that's what this forum is for.
as far as "pimping" sites, I don't even think the examples so far have anything to do with that.
I'm confused why it is even being brought into the discussion.
If bd.com or some other site was hiring people to come make threads on hdd trying to get traffic to that site that would be one thing.
I think we all know that is clearly not the case here.
we are all established users posting these threads for the benefit of the long time members of this forum.
For over 2 years members have been posting threads with links to reviews on "other" sites, and posting release news from "other" sites.
If HDD wants to make changes to its posting rules or in how the rules are being enforced that's all well and good, but there is no need to say that HDD is not obviously trying to make some changes,
The fact of the matter seems to be that HDD has simply grown tired of people posting news about releases before HDD gets around to it.
The fact of the matter seems to be HDD has grown tired of people posting reviews from other sites of discs that the HDD reviewers haven't posted yet.
And they want it too stop.
If that's the case then fine.
just be clear about it.
If HDD wants to ban posting review links then just do it.
imo the "forums" of all of these dvd serve as a nice adjuct to the main site.
imo HDD should concern itself with the "NEWS" of the site, and on the "REVIEW" portion, and should focus on making those areas better.
If those areas get better, then imo traffic will increase because of the increased quality of the information available on HDD.
imo the last thing HDD needs to do right now is try to start micro-managing the forum area.
imo this whole thing is still very unclear despite all attempts to clarify.
Am I right in assuming that members can still post release "news" as long as there is no link?
Or that one can post a review of a bd not as yet reviewed by HDD if one doesn't include the link?

[Cochise]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

The fact of the matter seems to be HDD has grown tired of people posting reviews from other sites of discs that the HDD reviewers haven't posted yet.

No. The fact of the matter is that HDD has grown tired of threads created to pimp and advertise another site.

Originally Posted by Arkadin

imo this whole thing is still very unclear despite all attempts to clarify.

That's because some folks insist on trying to make something rather simple into something rather complicated. Project-blu stated it quite clearly -

a thread created to pimp and advertise another site, that's a no no in existing rules

[KYThrill]

Originally Posted by Cochise

No. The fact of the matter is that HDD has grown tired of threads created to pimp and advertise another site.



That's because some folks insist on trying to make something rather simple into something rather complicated. Project-blu stated it quite clearly -

Your answers are still confusing...

So is what you are saying now is that it is okay to pimp and advertise another site, along with violating that sites intellectual property, as long as that site doesn't compete with HDD?

This is what I have gathered from your last couple of posts.

Isn't rule #13 of this forum?

Do not post MATERIAL where you do not have permission to distribute it electronically or otherwise.

You just said in your last post that the other threads I referenced were okay because a) it is something HDD probably wouldn't cover, b) wasn't just a link, but had fully quoted the content of the link.

It seems to me that your reasoning is contradictory to the published rules of this forum. It seems to me that the rule should be, you can only post a link, or at most, small excerpts with credit to the original source (along with the link). But then that rule would be contradictory to the new rule.

It would seem to me that HDD now has rules that contradict each other, which means something needs to change...

[Badger3920]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

not sure what is going down.
I have been told by a mod not to post threads that have an original post linking away from HDD.
Now if they want to be super strict about this then obviously the forum will die a pretty quick death because no one will be able to post news about releases unless HDD has already announced them.
I mean I am still not clear if it pertains to foreign releases also.
this is going to be interesting for sure.

In and of itself, that rule is retarded. Sorry for being crass, but that's the best and only descriptive word to use here.

However, if there is some sort of test to define whether such a thread is okay, then it easily becomes a good rule. A test, somewhat alluded to by a mod already, could look like this:
If thread has a link in the OP serving it's main topic of discussion:
1) and the link only serves to show a full article, or verify the OP's source; then it will not be deleted

2) and the link serves to boost traffic, with the OP's clear intent being to "site pimp" (run traffic through a site, using unnecessary links, or intending that posters would stay on the new site and not return here to discuss) -- then delete


Taking a hardline approach to this rule would be ridiculous. You'd have legitimate threads being closed because they linked to sources that either cover something before, or better than HDD. That's wrong, and would be a CLEAR indication of rule enforcement aiding in the probable decline of this site.

[Cochise]

Originally Posted by KYThrill

Your answers are still confusing...

Then read my post you quoted again. I don't know how to make it more clear or simply stated.

Originally Posted by KYThrill

So is what you are saying now is that it is okay to pimp and advertise another site, along with violating that sites intellectual property, as long as that site doesn't compete with HDD?

Then read my post you quoted - I said no such thing, in fact, pretty much exactly the opposite.

Originally Posted by KYThrill

It seems to me that your reasoning is contradictory to the published rules of this forum. It seems to me that the rule should be, you can only post a link, or at most, small excerpts with credit to the original source (along with the link). But then that rule would be contradictory to the new rule.

You seem to have mistaken the Feedback Forum for the Smackdown forum. If you have Feedback to leave, fine, but I'm done debating with you. And the Staff and Moderating team can do just fine with making the rules, thanks anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Here is an example of what we're saying: This is fine, posts in the Walmart Transformers 2 thread in the Bargains Forum:

Originally Posted by Hi-Def Steve

Blu-ray.com has pictures of the IMAX version cover art, IMAX scenes and menus in their "MEGA Transformers" thread.

Originally Posted by mpbolly

A link could really help you know

Originally Posted by Hi-Def Steve

I wasn't sure if linking to other sites was allowed or not? I know some sites are strict about that. Anyway if it is here the link. Starts at post 1059

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread....110832&page=53

Originally Posted by Cochise

Yeah, links to other sites are OK in this context. When someone just posts a link to another site in answer to a question without bothering to explain what info the link has, then that's considered "site pimping" and those usually get deleted.

Example of what is NOT OK: A new thread started:

Originally Posted by SitePimper

Exclusive photos of Walmart's IMAX version cover art, IMAX scenes and menus at blu-bot.com!!!!!
http://www.blu-bot.com/sitepimper.html

Get it now?

[Gunyaga]

I believe that already effectively happened to Krammer this am. Not to try to argue a particular case point (I will not), but only for example of a case where I don't think anyone would feel comfortable trying to state that Krammer was trying to site pimp in any way, shape or form, but nonetheless, thread is gone.

[Arkadin]

well I certainly appreciate the attempts at clarification.
It all still seems somewhat muddled to me.
I posted news regarding a release that hdd had NOT posted news about as far as I know.
Not sure why it is being said that it was an already covered release.
It was the release "Book of Love", and as far as I know HDD had not put up this info.
As far as trying to "pimp" blu-ray.com by providing the link to the news, I can assure you I wasn't trying to do that.
I simply posted that link because they happened to have that particular news up.
I guess I'll just wait to see what threads seem to be allowed in the near future before trying to create any more threads to help HDD members.
I certainly don't need to waste my time creating threads if HDD is so horrified that they might "drive" traffic away from HDD.
I mean good grief.
Honestly imo HDD should really be focused on other things right now.
my 2 cents.

[KYThrill]

Originally Posted by Cochise

Then read my post you quoted again. I don't know how to make it more clear or simply stated.



Then read my post you quoted - I said no such thing, in fact, pretty much exactly the opposite.



You seem to have mistaken the Feedback Forum for the Smackdown forum. If you have Feedback to leave, fine, but I'm done debating with you. And the Staff and Moderating team can do just fine with making the rules, thanks anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Here is an example of what we're saying: This is fine, posts in the Walmart Transformers 2 thread in the Bargains Forum:










Example of what is NOT OK: A new thread started:



Get it now?

So someone who starts a thread, stating basically, "Check out this great article about the decline of HD DVD. It's very interesting." and then the link it (or link it and quote it), then that thread should be deleted as soon as a mod sees it. Correct?

Why do you keep avoiding the other topic of allowing people to quote heavily material that is not owned by them, ie quoting entire articles? You keep avoiding that issue. This seems a clear violation of the posted rules, but it is allowed by the mods. In the future, can we just report those thread starting posts and be guaranteed that the mods will at least delete the quoted material, leaving just the link?

[Cochise]

Originally Posted by KYThrill

So someone who starts a thread, stating basically, "Check out this great article about the decline of HD DVD. It's very interesting." and then the link it (or link it and quote it), then that thread should be deleted as soon as a mod sees it. Correct?

No.

Originally Posted by KYThrill

Why do you keep avoiding the other topic of allowing people to quote heavily material that is not owned by them, ie quoting entire articles? You keep avoiding that issue.

Because you keep trying to hijack the discussion into something that suits your agenda, and I don't play that game. We're discussing starting threads to site pimp and promote another site. What you keep trying to inject into the discussion has nothing to do with that.

[project-blu]

and this entire situation will be handled, and we'll have absolution shortly, and clarity. until i know the entire details, i can't pass them on, so i won't, but if ya'll just be patient, there will be clarity, in the upmost, and then we can all just move along.

[KYThrill]

Originally Posted by Cochise

No.



Because you keep trying to hijack the discussion into something that suits your agenda, and I don't play that game. We're discussing starting threads to site pimp and promote another site. What you keep trying to inject into the discussion has nothing to do with that.

YOU are the one who made it part of the discussion. I cited several examples of posts that were not deleted, even though the thread was started with a link. You responded replied that one of the reasons it was okay in those cases was because:

2- The news articles are quoted, so the reader does not have to click a link to another site to get the jest of the information.

I didn't inject that, you did! And now you won't answer any questions about it. But my takeaway was that it didn't violate this new rule because the original poster performed an action that violated copyright laws and violated the published rules of the forum (posting material they do not own). It didn't break this new rule, because it broke another rule of the forum.

This is contradictory and needs to be explained.

[Arkadin]

well it will be nice to get some clarification.
this thread was posted by Atteberry just the other day--
Sony May Be Looking To Hit Entry Level Pricing

looks like just a link as far as I can tell.
does anybody dispute this?
so what is the difference?
uhhh there isn't any.
It is a post which immediately takes the person away from HDD.
so from what I was told yesterday this would not be allowed, and, in fact,
according to what some have been claiming, would be "pimping" another site.
Now do I believe this was Atteberry's intent?
of course not.
Also: I noticed that ccfix didn't post the review he came across of "Howard's End" in the Criterion thread.
I can only assume he has been told not to.
I mean why else would he suddenly not post the review link?
So we can't post any links to reviews anymore?
Does anybody honestly think that HDD is going to suddenly start reviewing every bd release that comes out?
Does HDD honestly think this is the direction it now needs to go in to generate MORE traffic?
imo these changes will only serve to increase the perception that HDD is becoming worse not better.
I don't have any easy answers for HDD's apparent financial woes.
But I certainly don't think these changes are a move in the right direction.
The great thing about HDD is how all this information is all in one place.
That's what I love about HDD.
And I am convinced that this is a key factor in bringing people back to HDD each and every day.
HDD really needs to think long and hard about these changes imo before they just arbitrarily decide that banning all of these types of links is the right thing to do.

[Gunyaga]

no shit Ark, I have no idea how this got so damn muddled, but it did. I'm going to sit on my hands and wait for Nate's clarification as promised. Until then, I think any further discussion/argument is pretty much pointless.

[KYThrill]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

well it will be nice to get some clarification.
this thread was posted by Atteberry just the other day--
Sony May Be Looking To Hit Entry Level Pricing

looks like just a link as far as I can tell.
does anybody dispute this?
so what is the difference?
uhhh there isn't any.

Sure there is a difference. He's staff and the rest of us aren't.

But seriously, Atteberry starts every post that way. Any news item from the main page gets the link copied into the forum. Basically, HDD reads someone elses news, writes a summary of the article, and then links the source. The HDD forum thread for that news bit is always started with a link out to the source, and nothing else (not even a link to HDD's own summary).

I agree, I don't see how that is any different than "thread pimping" as defined here, except it is being done by a HDD staff member as standard operating procedure.

And here is an example where Atteberry only posted a link out to start a thread, and it doesn't appear to be any news item from the mainpage (or at least not yet). Just seems it was him posting and violating the rule, but it wasn't deleted.

Blu-ray Players Getting Cheaper - $49 Black Friday Deal Not Out of the Question