|
|
#31
03-15-2007, 03:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
[ QUOTE ]
As I said, I have no opinion on this objectively, but leader, that's a poor argument saying that it's unfair to the smaller coaches. Your coaching rates do not matter here. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think it's unfair. It was said that coaches could obviously afford the listing. So I pointed out that wasn't necessarily the case. 
|
|
#32
03-15-2007, 03:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you raise the price in relation to demand, it will be far to expensive for coaches like me to buy the higher slots as I don't charge anything close to 100/hour. [/ QUOTE ] so basically, for 2+2 to make money (which is the point of this exercise), we should raise the price in relation to demand sorry Leader, mat & mason's goals here are not the same as yours. [/ QUOTE ] If the question is whether this hurts theoretical ad revenue over the short term some amount, the answer is yes. If that is what Mat and Mason believe should be the standard, then they should make a decision accordingly. I think it's deeper then that. Others disagree. The decision is not ultimately mine. I can only give what advice I think is best.
|
|
#33
03-15-2007, 04:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
[ QUOTE ]
Ryan, can we remove the location option? If we can, do it. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not seeing anything in the panel that lets us do this. Chuck might be able to remove them by editing some code, though.
|
|
#34
03-15-2007, 04:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
I think removing location will be costly. People like putting stuff in the location field and there would be a pretty serious outcry from users if it was taken away. Nobody really dislikes locations, some don't care but nobody as far as I know hates them. So basically for a lot of users you would make their 2+2 experience less enjoyable. If that's true, then removing locations should also lead to some users leaving the site. I don't think it's such a big headache to warrant this.
While I hadn't really thought of it that way in the past I am inclined to agree with el diablo. If I make a lot of bad posts, I won't gain much by putting some small coaching advertisement in my location. If I am a good poster and make a lot of good posts to show that I know what I'm talking about then I will gain. So basically if the forums gain from your presence you get a large benefit, if they don't your benefit is negligible. So basically, allowing that would probably benefit the forums because people that want to get more into coaching will be inclined to post more and better stuff. I think rakeback is a completely separate issue. People should not be able to spam affiliate stuff. The main difference here is that there really isn't the same benefit from incentivising good posting. Blogs could go either way. If 2+2 had some sort of blog setup, then that would be good. I am 100% in agreement with Cit that "Coaching" is the same as "Coaching see profile" and I really don't understand how people could disagree with that. Jared
|
|
#35
03-15-2007, 04:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
I hope we don't have to delete the location field. Puting "coaching" in the location field took off because we gave off signals that we were ok with it. We could easily put a stop to it by saying its not ok, especially because most of the people doing it are established posters.
|
|
#36
03-15-2007, 05:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
I will chime in to say I am against removing the loc: field. It's just a little thing that 98% of the users have fun with. Carry on.
|
|
#38
03-15-2007, 06:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I am against removing the loc: field. It's just a little thing that 98% of the users have fun with. [/ QUOTE ] agreed [/ QUOTE ] Yeah. Plz don't delete this. There's a reason there's a whole ton of mods, we can police the few people who don't use it appropriately.
|
|
#39
03-15-2007, 09:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
[ QUOTE ]
I am 100% in agreement with Cit that "Coaching" is the same as "Coaching see profile" and I really don't understand how people could disagree with that. [/ QUOTE ] If someone is looking for a coach, then you're absolutely right, and therefore there is no need to extend the currently accepted practice by agreeing to allow "see profile" to be included in the text. It's the spammers and less reputable members that will use "rb see profile", or "girls see profile", etc, who will benefit by the use of "see profile", and have a time-wasting argument for using it and other manipulative phrases, once we spot it after who knows how long. In fact, I have noticed very few "see profile" Locs, but, whenever I have, I have always asked the person to drop it. Not once has anyone objected, so I can't see any positive reason for suddenly changing what has been an accepted general policy, whereas I think there could be some new unwanted inconveniences in monitoring fair use with such a change.
|
|
#40
03-15-2007, 10:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
So it sounds like we're back to where we started, allowing coaching references and not "see profile"?
I really don't have a strong feeling about this. If advertisers start complaining, that will be a different story. For now it looks like "coaching" is fine with everyone and there's some question about "see profile?" I'll make a decision after I see some more opinions.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
