IMPORTANT: Rules for posting affiliate links in this forum

[sufue]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

We moderators are the main ones who wanted the change because, quite frankly, we're fed up with the daily requests for thread and post deletions in the ever-escalating War of the Affiliate Links. We're being worked to death for free on behalf of people who are earning money from our efforts. The only alternate we can see is to let duplicate threads and posts clutter the forum. Is that what you really want?

Thank you for the explanation. I very much appreciate it.

However, I do just want to say that if the question at the end is a real question, and not just rhetorical, then "Yes, I would prefer to have duplicate threads, with titles that tell me what's in them, rather than having to dig to the end of multiple affiliate threads." My brain can handle sorting out the duplicates pretty quickly and well, while digging through the threads is a pain.

Still, I can understand the reason now, and I do appreciate the moderators' work. So I'll figure out some way to live with it - probably by finding/getting less deals/freebies - sigh!

[anamardoll]

I actually find this very confusing the more I think on it.

How is having Koland and Arcadata and the "career affiliate posters" create their own threads going to cut down on duplication of posts? The "one-time" post and run authors and affiliate linkers will continue to post, only now in addition to merging the threads, the moderators will have to post a no-no warning, lock the thread, and ban the user. (Assuming this is a ban offense. Otherwise, they'll have to send a warning PM and then ban the user if they do it again.)

So how is this LESS work? I'm hearing that the moderators don't want people to make money off of their hard work. And I understand that. But... a lot of people come to Mobile Reads for the deals. So the "career affiliates" people like Arcadata weren't just helping themselves to 4% cash back, they were helping to popularize Mobile Reads. So isn't it something of a fair trade? And even if it's not.... I still don't understand how this method is less work.

And... echoing the others who said that... well, why not just SAY this earlier? If it is easier, somehow, for the moderators this way, most people are going to appreciate that you guys are awesome and you need a break. Saying that some users complained sounds like... you're just following the will of the people. Which then looked odd when the Will of the People wasn't responded to. I just... am kind of baffled by this whole thing.

Clearly I'm an idiot. I'm sorry to be so obtuse.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

So how is this LESS work?

Duplicate threads clutter the forum. To avoid clutter duplicates are closed and deleted or moved (depending on how the forum is set up). By letting the aff-link people have their own threads the duplicates remain, but they no longer take up the entire first page on the forum and push all the other threads to page two unless they are removed.

Educated guess.

EDIT:
Also, the first-come first-serve method benefits posters in some time zones more than other. This new method allows everyone to post their links without competition.

[petercreasey]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

. The only alternate we can see is to let duplicate threads and posts clutter the forum. Is that what you really want?

W, Yes, definitely!

Please revert back and let the moderators take full relief from the onerous thread policing.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

Duplicate threads clutter the forum. To avoid clutter duplicates are closed and deleted or moved (depending on how the forum is set up). By letting the aff-link people have their own threads the duplicates remain, but they no longer take up the entire first page on the forum and push all the other threads to page two unless they are removed.

Educated guess.

But now you're going to have a forum cluttered with:

Affiliate links for Bob
Affiliate links for Susan
Affiliate links for MUCHIESatNINE
Affiliate links for Ana
Affiliate links for TheOtherAna
Affiliate links for JimBobtheGreat
[Sony] Some book you've never heard of.

So the forum will still be cluttered. And the post-and-run authors and linkers who don't follow the rules will now instead of being merged, will now have to be banned, locked down, etc. And since the author spam is usually posted as the first-and-last post for that member... I just can't fathom how this new rule is going to save time.

Sorry. I know I'm dumb.

I would just honestly prefer "old way" + "clarify the link is an affiliate one" + "no moderation, proceed at your own risk".

[koland]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

We moderators are the main ones who wanted the change because, quite frankly, we're fed up with the daily requests for thread and post deletions in the ever-escalating War of the Affiliate Links. We're being worked to death for free on behalf of people who are earning money from our efforts. The only alternate we can see is to let duplicate threads and posts clutter the forum. Is that what you really want?

I apologize for using the 'report post' link this way - a moderator asked me to do so, as it was easier for the moderators to find (rather than the occasional email, where I bunched the requests into one message, with links to the post and exact title changes requested - which probably sent in once a week).

I will say, I think most of the ones I had reported recently were (a) not affiliate links in the duplicated posts (by new members, usually, with very few posts) and (b) the original posts were most often not even my posts (so no links for me with any affiliate links. I did report one post in the kindle bargains/freebies thread, as it was a duplicate (and that ONE thread is one that I managed, with off topic contents being discouraged and duplicate posts deleted). I really though arcdata and I kept that thread up pretty well and only now and then did the two of us post a duplication.

The only reason any of us requested thread title updates is that we can't make them ourselves and I had the impression that the consensus/rules were that the title must reflect the platform. Personally, I liked the (very) old way, where the format was omitted from the title, so it never had to be updated. But, there were numerous people who did post that they didn't like to be "duped" into opening a thread, only to find that the free book or bargain price was not for their specific platform (or, at least, not yet). I doubt they like the new format much better, though, and the resulting constant changing of thread titles was, no doubt, a burden on the moderators (I know, I moderate in another forum, also with all volunteers, with less traffic than here and still it can be a job to keep up on heavy posting days). Lest anyone think I profit from the links there and thus am "paid", that forum actually forbids links to any ebooksite directly (no amazon links, period, none to B&N, Sony or any other place where an item is "for sale").

[bwaldron]

Just popped on MR after a few days away and saw this.

Let me add my voice to those who believe this is a rather ridiculous overreaction by the respected moderators of this forum, and it should definitely be reconsidered.

I was aware that affiliate links were being used, and was OK with that. Enforce a disclosure policy --fine. But this new mess? This forum is dead to me unless things revert.

[Skibble]

A decrease in the workload for the moderators is good. But the old way of listing books was also good. Can't we have both, and just ban all affiliate links?

Or am I misunderstanding the problem?

[tubemonkey]

I rarely visited the Deals forum because, to me, it was a cluttered mess. One book, one thread was a bit much and too time consuming to wade through.

[simplyparticular]

Originally Posted by Skibble

A decrease in the workload for the moderators is good. But the old way of listing books was also good. Can't we have both, and just ban all affiliate links?

Or am I misunderstanding the problem?

I suspect that wouldn't work either. Without the payoff of an affiliate link, the ones who are doing all the work are not going to bother.

If there is a solution that helps all parties, I'm failing to see it.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Actually there is/was another alternative. Just ban affiliate links. Certainly some of the current set of posters will stop posting, but others will take their place and we can get back to a single post per deal as in the past. You've made life easier for the mods and a pain in the a$$ for the members.

there is nothing stopping people from posting a deal / freebee for a book in the thread. The limit is only on links with affiliate codes in them.

So, single post per deal (without an aff code) is 100% allowed and fine.

BOb

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I really don't want to post something unilaterally here. I can say the moderators discuss pretty much every action we take and we agree on a course of action.

I will say this, and perhaps it is too much.

In general we don't allow commercial advertising on Mobile Read. We don't allow it in the flee market and we don't allow authors to hock their books in the deals/freebees section either.

If you want to post about a great deal or find you made and claim it is "for the community" then why are you attaching affiliate codes to them? Affiliate links are "hidden" commercial advertising.

BOb

So you lot'll make things more difficult for the users of the board out of "principle?" And frankly, I don't care about the motivation of the poster if it: a. benefits me without harming me and b. makes it easier to find what I'm looking for. This "solution" in search of a problem makes it more difficult to find what I'm looking for (or, more exactly, what I may be interested in once I see it) and could also de-motivate posters to diligently search out every freebie or bargain. I am very annoyed by it and also by the sudden, unilateral action by the mods to enforce it. While I realize that Mobileread is Mr. Turcic's property and that there is no "free speech" here because, under our capitalist system, that category of right does not apply to private property, it does spoil the atmosphere to be reminded of that too often or too forcefully. I think the reaction on this thread is adequate enough evidence of that.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

So you lot'll make things more difficult for the users of the board out of "principle?"

Keep reading. Another and much better explanation is provided later in the thread.

[koland]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

there is nothing stopping people from posting a deal / freebee for a book in the thread. The limit is only on links with affiliate codes in them.

So, single post per deal (without an aff code) is 100% allowed and fine.

BOb

Perhaps I am misunderstanding - but how does this lower the workload on moderators, as the thread title updates will have to continue at the same pace ... unless the moderators anticipate fewer posts and therefore fewer changes?

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by koland

Perhaps I am misunderstanding - but how does this lower the workload on moderators, as the thread title updates will have to continue at the same pace ... unless the moderators anticipate fewer posts and therefore fewer changes?

Not fewer posts, but fewer threads. Before the change, every update to an affiliate thread would have been a thread on its own, with a title that needs to be changed to reflect updates. Now, that workload is off the moderators and on the person maintaining the thread. So there has been a certain shift, from that point of view.