Attn: Embedded links, Skimwords

[Anonymous]

Giro game is ready now!

Scoring heavily favours the overall so I'm going to pick one of the cheapest sprinters. Belletti maybe? At least Italians will probably try to finish the race.

Here is a classic example.

Someone posted in the velogames thread that the giro game was now up and running, complete with what looks like a link to the site.

Friggin Ebay.

This is where skimwords should not be used in forums. Its misleading. You have now duped me out of a few pennies in advertising.

What you get for those pennies. A user being annoyed because rather than being taken to the site that had the fantasy game they fell prey to advertising. Enough to put people off.

 

[ansimi]

I definitely take objection to having commercial links added to my posts. I'll work around it with punctuation and be grumpy about it.

 

[Granville57]

I have already stated my view of this in previous posts on this thread, but I will reiterate a few, now that we have confirmation of Skimwords.

Here's what bothers me most about it:
Advertisements are part of the forum. The reason is obvious. But that also verifies that there are people reading the forum (and as is readily apparent, many, many more people read than post). So it must be agreed that there are "eyes on the site."

That being said, Why are people visiting the forum? Because of the content that is provided for free by every member who contributes. CN provides the platform, the members provide the content.

I really feel like CN is double-dipping here. The content of the forum comes from members who freely provide an enormous amount of information. To say that the forum is "free"...well, so is the content. So we're even, in my book.

I don't find this offensive, the site needs to generate income. If I write "Garmin" and you make it a link to the Garmin site, well it is the same company that I was writing about after all.

I would argue that it's "only the same company" IF you are posting about their gps units or something specific. If you post something about the TEAM, that is quite a bit different. It's not like the link takes you to the team site--which to me, would be the ONLY excusable link to have, given the context.


But here's something else that CN needs to consider very, very carefully:
What is to prevent "members" from deliberately shaping their posts around certain product links?

Or consider this scenario:
A new member joins the forum, much of the content of their posts seems filled with Skimwords. Do they get called-out as a product troll? Do they deserve that? Are they?

Or:
A long time resident also happens to have (or after a job change, newly acquires) some sort of affliation with a bike-related company. Is it OK for them to litter their posts with potential links?

As I understand it, there is currently in place a very strict rule about NOT allowing signatures that link to commerce. I can only assume that this would apply to full posts as well. Won't the inclusion of Skimwords (or any other similar tech) beg for a hazy, undefined grey area that will only bring down the quality of the forum itself?

Especially considering this:

Signatures contain information that you want to include at the bottom of all your posts. This might include pictures, links to your site(s), quotes,etc. Personal blogs or websites are acceptable. For-profit, or any type of
company or organization where money is being exchanged is NOT acceptable. If you wish to advertise on this web site, please contact advertising@cyclingnews.com

 

[hrotha]

I'm pretty sure if you set up a poll where most forumers will actually see it you'll find the people who don't like this feature are not a minority. I agree with everything Granville, TeamSkyFans & the others said.

 

[Granville57]

Daniel,

I greatly appreciate the interaction here between yourself and forum members. It only serves to strengthen the quality of what takes place. But this particular post of yours raises a few issues I need to point out

"Our apologies for not notifying the Cyclingnews community in advance that we're testing Skimwords on the Cyclingnews forum.

Speaking for myself only, part of the problem is that it wasn't announced ahead of time. It then comes off as insulting to my intelligence and there really isn't a way to undo that now. But to be perfectly clear: that is far from what I really find most objectionable about the whole thing.

We understand that a minority of users have an issue with this kind of advertising but advertising...

In the spirit of The Clinc...

Link please? Can you back that assertion up with anything?
How could CN have possibly determined weather or not only a minority of users have an issue with it? Looking at the obvious numbers, only a very small minority of "users" post anything at all! Since this appears to be the first discussion of the topic, and the topic was started by forum members...
How could you have come to that conclusion?

A small minority have expressed themselves in this particular thread.
It's a huge leap to suggest anything other than just that.

(That's the type of response I might have offered if we were in The Clinic )

EDIT:
Just saw hrotha's post above. Yup!

 

[Anonymous]

If you took the forum away from CN it would just be another cycling news site. The forum is probably the biggest source of real information about cycling on the internet. You only have to look at views for some threads.

There is already advertising on the forum, and Im sure that the net gain from the forum in advertising revenue is far higher than the minimal service costs.

Adding skimlinks is just taking advantage, and as granville says, double dipping

 

[Archibald]

I'm dead against it - I feel almost violated to have my posts hijacked in such an underhanded manner...

for advertising polls as well as councils and the like, most feed back is multiplied by several hundred in an attempt to gauge a truer idea of people's opinions. Only a few will actually give you feedback, while many others will just grumble/etc... "silent majority" seems to ring a bell.

There are already plenty of ads on the sides of the forums, and they won't move or reduce should you decrease the window size. This skimwords stunt is a bridge too far

 

[MacRoadie]

If you took the forum away from CN it would just be another cycling news site. The forum is probably the biggest source of real information about cycling on the internet. You only have to look at views for some threads.

I agree 100%. I would venture to suggest that the content of the forums actually attracts the majority of viewers to the site. There are innumerous sources to find out who won the latest stage of the Tour of Turkey, but there really is no other forum on the internet that consistently produces the quality and quantity of information and debate that this one does.

A couple of years ago, when CN changed the site format, there was a huge outcry about the site content, and a general dissatisfaction with the site in general. Ironically (and with thanks to certain breaking news events in cycling), the forums began a real naissance at the same time. Many posters, myself included, migrated here to join the forums. Not because the web site offered the same infomation I could get many other places, but because of the quality and nature of the posting in the forum.

As to cost to operate the forum, my local club, with zero cost other than a pittance for bandwidth, uses the EXACT same forum architecture. Granted CN requires a significantly larger amount of bandwidth due to volume, but I would proffer that the added clicks just due to visitors drawn to the forums covers those costs quite nicely.

 

[Anonymous]

As to cost to operate the forum, my local club, with zero cost other than a pittance for bandwidth, uses the EXACT same forum architecture. Granted CN requires a significantly larger amount of bandwidth due to volume, but I would proffer that the added clicks just due to visitors drawn to the forums covers those costs quite nicely.

Yup. I find the "advertising helps fund the forum" line an insult to my intelligence.

The knowledge that people put on the forum free of charge, brings in advertising revenue. You have a whole bunch of unpaid journalists earning money for you, dont take the mick.

 

[Frank71]

Is the Skimword test over? I can't see the embedded links at all.

I'm, in any event, supporting the opposition against the use of Skimwords in the forum.

 

[M Sport]

We understand that a minority of users have an issue with this kind of advertising but advertising is how we fund the site.

Add me to the list of those that don't like it. I think I missed the poll determining whether the majority or minority of users have an issuse with skimwords.

 

[gregod]

perhaps an acceptable compromise if CN insists on using skimwords is to have the skimword links in a different color and font to distinguish between them and posters' links.

on a related note; we all understand the need to generate income, but skimwordsare a morally dubious way to do this. it should be obvious that links posted in the forum are generally used to show something interesting or back up one's opinion. deceiving people into clicking on something is annoying and probably predisposes more people against the advertised product than generates sales.

again, if the skimword links are somehow distinguishable forum users', we may be less inclined to object.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Add me to the list of those that don't like it. I think I missed the poll determining whether the majority or minority of users have an issuse with skimwords.

Add my no vote as well.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

skimwords = good

I am all for skimwords. They are very useful. Add me to the list that is in favor of skimwords everywhere inside members posts.

I especially like the way it was put into the forums unannounced. It was a great way to beta test it.

I am also pretty sure if you set up a poll you will find that the minority of users are against the use of skimwords while the majority of users just do not gava or like in my situation I really do like the use of skimwords. I agree 100% with what Daniel Benson has said on the subject.

 

[Granville57]

perhaps an acceptable compromise if CN insists on using skimwords is to have the skimword links in a different color and font to distinguish between them and posters' links.

on a related note; we all understand the need to generate income, but skimwordsare a morally dubious way to do this. it should be obvious that links posted in the forum are generally used to show something interesting or back up one's opinion. deceiving people into clicking on something is annoying and probably predisposes more people against the advertised product than generates sales.

again, if the skimword links are somehow distinguishable forum users', we may be less inclined to object.

Aw, you beat me to it! You took the skimwords right out of my mouth.
Excellent work.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I am all for skimwords. They are very useful. Add me to the list that is in favor of skimwords everywhere inside members posts.

I especially like the way it was put into the forums unannounced. It was a great way to beta test it.

I am also pretty sure if you set up a poll you will find that the minority of users are against the use of skimwords while the majority of users just do not gava or like in my situation I really do like the use of skimwords. I agree 100% with what Daniel Benson has said on the subject.

You walk a thin line between sarcasm and trolling sir.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I have not read all the posts in this thread, so let me ask to see if I understand the problem, since I have not experienced these anomalies yet myself:

When adding a link to a post, the correct link appears to be inserted, but when the link is selected you get directed to some other website (e.g. for adverts or whatever)??

If that is the case, does the "preview post" button alert the poster to the problem... before the final step to "submit reply" is made?
.... that might help weed out otherwise unknowingly bad links.

 

[MacRoadie]

I have not read all the posts in this thread, so let me ask to see if I understand the problem, since I have not experienced these anomalies yet myself:

When adding a link to a post, the correct link appears to be inserted, but when the link is selected you get directed to some other website (e.g. for adverts or whatever)??

If that is the case, does the "preview post" button alert the poster to the problem... before the final step to "submit reply" is made?
.... that might help weed out otherwise unknowingly bad links.

No, what happens is when you type certain flagged words, such as "Giro" or "Garmin", or "Cervelo" in any context, the forum automatically converts that word to a hyperlink to a pre-determined (and paid for) web page. This occurs AFTER you submit your post.

 

[Granville57]

...and the most insidious aspect is that when you do hit the "preview" button, the html link for that "skimword" is completely hidden from view. Even if you quote your own, or another, post that has a skimword already embedded, it will just appear as normal text in the preview window.

Not good.

 

[MacRoadie]

...and the most insidious aspect is that when you do hit the "preview" button, the html link for that "skimword" is completely hidden from view. Even if you quote your own, or another, post that has a skimword already embedded, it will just appear as normal text in the preview window.

Not good.

Check my post above. There's a skimword in it...

Prophetic

 

[MacRoadie]

...and the most insidious aspect is that when you do hit the "preview" button, the html link for that "skimword" is completely hidden from view. Even if you quote your own, or another, post that has a skimword already embedded, it will just appear as normal text in the preview window.

Not good.

Ironically, my above post has two skimwords in it. They appear to be transient as one time you open this thread and "Giro" is hyperlinked, then the next time "Garmin" is, then the next time you don't see any.

 

[gregod]

i really hope they arent going with skim words. at least with adwords it clearly marks the links with a double underscore.

Skimwords is naughty at best, and downright sneaky at worst.

Personally, my feeling is, when we are writing something ourselves, hijacking what we right and putting in advertising is a bit naughty.

At least give us commission and I will happily write posts about giro, garmin, chris boardman, halfords, wiggle and about anything else you want me to drop into the conversation.

at least have them set up so they are clearly advertising and not hidden like they are now. naughty naughty.

I just went back to reread some of the first posts and noticed in TSF's post two links, one for garminand one for halfords. when i ran the cursor over halfords, a yellow box clearly indicating that the link was added by skimwords appeared.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[usedtobefast]

...and the most insidious aspect is that when you do hit the "preview" button, the html link for that "skimword" is completely hidden from view. Even if you quote your own, or another, post that has a skimword already embedded, it will just appear as normal text in the preview window.

Not good.

gets my vote as very uncool
i am all for them making money, if you are using my posts, then where is my
fing cut?

 

[M Sport]

I thought it would be interesting to read the T&C's attached to this website just to make sure that skimwords isn't breaking the rules we signed up to.

Section 4 is the relevant one.

4. CONTENT SUBMITTED TO THE WEBSITE: You are responsible for any information, data, text, music, software, sound, photographs, graphics, video, messages or other content (“Content“) which you post or upload and/or display (in public or privately) to the Website. Future may (but shall not be obliged to) delete, edit, lock, move or remove any Content without notice and for any reason and/or to record the IP address from which any Content is posted, uploaded and/or displayed without notice and for any reason, including, without limitation, Content which, in our sole discretion, violates these Terms or is or may be irrelevant, out of date, inappropriate or objectionable in any way whatsoever, or in respect of which Future receives any complaint (whether justified or not). By posting, uploading and/or displaying any Content to the Website you warrant that: (a) you own all intellectual property and proprietary rights in such Content or that you have a licence from the owner of such rights to post, upload and/or display such Content on the Website; and (b) the posting, uploading and/or displaying of such Content on the Website and the grant of the licence to Future and its group companies (on the terms set out below) will not infringe the intellectual property or proprietary rights of any third party.

If you upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content to the Website, you automatically: (a) grant other users of the Website and the Website Service the right to access the same and use it in accordance with these Terms, although you can mark Content as private and so restrict access and use to those users to whom you specifically grant access; and (b) grant Future and its group companies a non-exclusive, royalty free, sub-licensable, perpetual, world-wide licence to use, modify, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such Content on and through the Website and the Website Service and in any other form or medium. You continue to own the Content after it is posted to the Website.

You acknowledge that Future will not screen or otherwise check any Content which is submitted by you or any other user of the Website Service before it is posted, not monitor yours or any person’s use of the Website Service. As such, you as the user of the Website Service are responsible for any Content you submit to the Website and the manner in which the Website Service is used under your username. You may take down any Content you have submitted to the Website at any time. If you become aware of any misuse of the Website Service by any person including (without limitation) any posting of Content which violates these Terms, please contact us by following the instructions set out in paragraph 16 of these Terms or click on the “Report this” link at the bottom of the Website page or next to the Content which has been posted.

In my opinion SkimWords contravenes the bolded parts. Opinion?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I just went back to reread some of the first posts and noticed in TSF's post two links, one for garminand one for halfords. when i ran the cursor over halfords, a yellow box clearly indicating that the link was added

DUDE I really like your yellowhat link. I used to go to this place when I lived in Japan. It is awesome.

I love these skimwords. You have my vote to keep it up. LMAO