explosion of coaching site spam and the fact? that mods are involved

[Mat Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
But I just feel we should have a zero tolerance policy towards free advertising for businesses.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this btw.

[ahnuld]

good experience = long term profits so yes I do consider that, its part of the total profits equation and is in fact, one of the most essential parts. Just wanted to make that clear.

[El Diablo]

Mat,

FWIW, the "coaches/business/whatever can't start threads about themselves, but discussion of them is fine if other people post questions" is one of the silliest 2+2 policies around.

[Mat Sklansky]

How would you have it?

[El Diablo]

Mat,

I'd either let those topics be discussed or not.

[Mat Sklansky]

I must be confused. If we allow self-promotion, it seems we get flooded with spam, even if we limit the number of posts allowed. On the other hand, I don't see why a person should be prohibited from talking about a product he uses or wants to use. And if somebody starts that discussion, it seems only fair that the representative of the product being discussed should be allowed to answer questions or address concerns.

That's my perspective. If there's a better way to go (i am thinking about money in this case) i'd like to hear.

[EMc]

I used to think that the whole no coaching policy was a bit, well, silly. After this leggo thing it became clear to me why it is in place, cause it took one liittle relaxing of the rules for a lot of posters to have the avatars and make the site really spammy imo, which can kill any good forum.

I also think the current policy of "It can be discussed, just not by the service themself" works great. I wouldnt want Taylor starting a CR thread but dont mind talking about it. I also think he understands this forum a little better and isnt as aggresive as other services. When CR is mentioned he only talks when it is really warrented (i.e. direct q or criticism) whereas I see 3 bet coaches and LP people pop up every thread even remotely about them.

[El Diablo]

Mat, E:

All that does is penalize guys who have more integrity, because anyone wanting to spam their services just has a friend (or other account) post about them.

[citanul]

Mat,

I think he's trying to point out that everyone has a zillion friends that they can just say "hey make me a thread that I can spam in, I'm not allowed."

If the goal is legitimately to cut down on unpaid pimping, disallowing discussion of coaching/services that are not paid advertisers here would be one (I think silly/bad) way to go.) I think that something possibly better is to not allow coaches/service providers to post in those threads or give descriptions of their services at all (unless they are paying to do so?). This obviously has flaws as well. Probably more thought required.