Topic: Shouldn't this act be discourage? (Read 597 times)

That was my understanding.




The general trolls and suchlike, but as the admin'ing in /hardware/ seems to be either non-existent or extremely biased (as it always has been), these trolls would litter my threads continually without repercussions.

Man you're all over the place this morning, made for some good reading. Thanks for the context on this; I had no idea you were holding auctions for ad spots much like the forum advertising is done. When reading that I just assumed it was referral links you had worked out with manufacturers or parts sellers. Either way it made sense for your topics to serve as an example, I'm surprised there was so much backlash over something like that. Was it mostly from members who weren't able to get permission?

I don't see anything from your reference that says the ad should be related to the thread. I think "Substantial and Useful" refers to the content of the post and not the ad.

To add some context, there was a discussion around the time I considered publishing on CoinDesk instead. They would have paid me, while the forum obviously does not. Similarly, I could have self-hosted (which I do, just as a backup on dogiecoin.com) and directed forum traffic to there, but that too seemed like a sub-optimal option.

I was merely looking to cover basic costs, and so discussed with Theymos about a revenue share on the forum ads shown on my threads - which wasn't insignificant given the traffic and CPMs back then. He decided it was easier to allow me to inject some of my own ads into the threads.

I'd have to check on a $ figure, but they didn't really make all that much IIRC and eventually, it wasn't worth the continued hassle of running the auctions, updating 30+ threads every 10 days, or the hassle some members would give.

I think adding a referral link is not illegal as long as you don't force users to just click on your link. For me this forum created separated functions for that and to keep it clean it should serve its function

Instead of discouraged, I would say just not encourage it. It should be made clear that no matter how much you value your topic, it could still be unworthy. I would hope but won't hold my breath that people maybe add to older topics that have seen longevity or shown purpose rather than create new ones for this purpose.

More than just reviewing the rule you can follow theymos's quote back to the topic, where there was a bit of discussion surrounding it.

The rule was seemingly put in place after discussing it with dogie, who if your not familiar with created a ton of the original "How to for Miners". Which was without a doubt very useful information. There were also some examples of threads that were deemed not worthy put forth by ..... ummmm ..... well you can read it.

Honestly I'm not against this. If there is a substantial post that I get something out of that somebody creates and possibly maintains, then by all means earn a little something of advertising. Ideally we could some up with some guidelines/limitations on the formatting that'd be great.

The anti spam campaign managers thread you referenced is very content heavy and IMO, meets the criteria for having an ad based on the current rules. The thread in the OP has only basic information fairly easily obtainable.

Theymos was apparently asked if it is acceptable to host an ad in the thread referenced in the OP, and I would presume theymos either gave permission or didn’t respond— even if the OP were to ignore a denial to host an ad, theymos would have been aware of it and could have removed it.

The rule says to ask if you are not sure if your thread is content heavy enough. The rule doesn’t say that you need to get permission ahead of time.

---

I would say if a lot of these types of threads start to pop up, then the rule should be reconsidered.

I still see the ad there so who is going to take action on it? (I do not think Theymos has given permission for it.)
or OP of that thread need to clarify the situation. Anyways displaying ads in thread does not look good practice.

I think we should just get rid of this rule that people can advertise within threads because it just leads to confusion. I'm not explicitly against users doing it but isn't it unfair that some threads are allowed to be monetised whilst others aren't? We already have a rule that says no adverts outside of the signature but with this exception users see others doing it and then assume that it's ok for them to do so and they can advertise in any of their threads they want without prior permission.

It's obvious some users are just creating threads so they can try monetise them and this will only become more prevalent as others catch on. Look at the thread given as an example in the op. Not only does it have a blazing advert at the top of it he's also trying to monetise it in two other ways. He's left his bitcoin address at the bottom asking for tips and another alerting users to tell who sent them (probably because some of them offer kickbacks when someone sends them business their way):

See:
(although I don't think theymos' answer is posted there)

The same thing from this topic, this topic is mainly supported by the administration and I do not think he asked for permission to do so. ---->Overview of Bitcointalk Signature Anti-Spam Campaign Managers

I think we should differentiate between ads in this way and copying the signature code in each post as an alternative to signature campaign ads.

Here is the actual rule:

No, it shouldn't be discouraged. I don't see any reason why/how it will be against any of the forum rules. The service advertiser sees potential in a thread and chooses to advertise it. However, that thread is redundant since there are almost 10 threads in the same section listing out the bounty managers.

I think it's fantastic, I'm against banning. And I hope more people will be able to produce posts so good that companies are willing to pay for their brands to be exposed there. But of course, that everything should be done in a transparent way and with the proper permission of the admin.

Some time ago, I had even suggested that we had an exclusive section for long reads. A place where people could create texts in the style of those that are posted in Medium and that they could receive "sponsorship" for their texts in that section.

Bitcoin should flow...

I use to think those side advert would be a negotiation and agreement with the ICO companies, for it to be attached with the graphic and that might be a joint work/ collaboration which aids easy reach of the targeted cap.
As long as you have agreed to their offer for your service as user,how they marge should not be our stress.

You have put forward a unique question which I believe hasn't been discussed here since from the start. Mitchell's signature campaign thread is quite popular for its unique presentation template and the content it has provided. Probably it is one of the most well maintained threads in the forum, and also most of the other overview topic starters have used a similar template. Hence, that should be the primary reason in one of the pugman's thread on campaign managers having a advertising slot. Either they should have used the similar template and doesn't want to change the template or should be aware of the advertising slot the topic provides.

Scam coin projects never pay in bitcoin and such really good topic starters will never indulge themselves in promoting a ERC-20 token in their slot. I do agree to the fact that the slot might be misused at some point of time in the future, but having the advert slot in a well written and informative post itself is not a bad idea. I am into creating an overview topic which might take a few more days to post and I have thought of contacting Mitchell for using his template for my topic. If such thing happens, I wouldn't be using the advert slot.

If you wear a ERC-20 signature and you're very much active in the bitcoin boards it doesn't make sense either. The problem lies in what we advertise instead and doesn't relate to what gets advertised where? Last year I did such thing by advertising a ERC-20 token and was very much active in the Bitcoin Technical board. It makes sense, until we are aware of what we promote both in our signature and in our advert slot.

I thought this needed custom permission from Admin:

I do think hilariousandco's interpretation is better than the one in the official unofficial rules.

Exactly that's my point, if this practice of allowing ads get welcome more often, users will turn to thread to start advertising and the main purpose of producing quality and content heavy thread will mostly be to get privileges of renting an advert space at the top of their threads. And if the practice is to continue then a restriction to only allow advertising something related to the thread should be implemented. e.g it makes no sense lets say I open a thread to read about mining bitcoin and I get welcomed by some shitproject or coin advert.

For reference:

I think there should be no ads unless you are advertising something directly related to the thread's subject.
I think it is a sleazy thing (my personal opinion), besides the fact that ads make the thread looks awful.

From the rules:

I don't know if they got approval from theymos but advertising is allowed in some cases. I PMed theymos and he said I could put in ad in this thread of mine.