EPTEDIT: If so, how are these any different from glorified testimonials?
TL Knowhow is Live! - Page 7
| Forum Index > TL Knowhow |
Empyrean
17035 Posts
EDIT: If so, how are these any different from glorified testimonials? | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On July 17 2012 12:31 MightyAtom wrote: yes, you're absolutely right, it's not to provide TL readers with good information, its to provide them for knowhow and what that entails. Please explain how forcing the author to use commercial pay-to-read sources instead of reliable publicly available scientific sources achieves this goal. edit: and why would you even write that?? It doesn't at all address the point. You just nitpick on my choice of words, completely ignoring my point.... Do you see why you give an impression of all the things I called you earlier? | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On July 17 2012 12:18 Cascade wrote: Well, this would be enough for me to shut this down at first glance. All the other things you say doesn't at all change this fact, and it doesn't make it any less black and white. Most of it isn't even related to my concern. Again, why should we not do this in other subforums? You say that this is just a test. Does that mean that if this is successful, then you will start adding it to other subforums as well? As apparently a subforum not being at all connected to advertising seems to be a reason to start forcing people to advertise when posting in it. It would seem like TL know how is a new answer for "how do I contribute to the community?" It would seem fitting that you're also throwing in a link that benefits TL. I don't think this will spread to other sub-forums on the basis that this is 'the contributor's corner' or something like that. The level of knowledge the writer must have most likely puts him above the average TLers age, so this constraint probably won't bother him as much as it would the writers in, say, the SC2 strategy section. That being said, I agree that it's kind of a weird way of doing it, but there you are. On July 17 2012 12:34 Cascade wrote: Please explain how forcing the author to use commercial pay-to-read sources instead of reliable publicly available scientific sources achieves this goal. Oh I didn't think about that. Never mind then. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On July 17 2012 12:36 Euronyme wrote: It would seem like TL know how is a new answer for "how do I contribute to the community?" It would seem fitting that you're also throwing in a link that benefits TL. I don't think this will spread to other sub-forums on the basis that this is 'the contributor's corner' or something like that. The level of knowledge the writer must have most likely puts him above the average TLers age, so this constraint probably won't bother him as much as it would the writers in, say, the SC2 strategy section. That being said, I agree that it's kind of a weird way of doing it, but there you are. Yeah, I see what you mean, and as I said earlier (nested in one of long posts possibly..  ), I would discuss + Show Spoiler +not said I would support it, but it would deserve discussion from an "economical gain vs keeping coomunity happy"-perspective, while this subforum as it is now is an clear "no-way" at first glance. | ||
MightyAtom
Korea (South)1897 Posts
On July 17 2012 12:34 Cascade wrote: Please explain how forcing the author to use commercial pay-to-read sources instead of reliable publicly available scientific sources achieves this goal. edit: and why would you even write that?? It doesn't at all address the point. You just nitpick on my choice of words, completely ignoring my point.... Do you see why you give an impression of all the things I called you earlier? Like earlier from your very first post? ^^ seriously, at this point, you understand the point of this section, nothing would preclude someone to linking to those publicly available scientific sources as well (although some very recent ones you do need to be subscribed to) and yes, you'd still need to include the link for the affiliate which you could just disregard and just go to the library or borrow from someone anyway. Um. I think at this point, its clear that we should agree to disagree unless you want still keep doing this, but unless you have something else, then I'd rather we agree to disagree at this time. Cause again, you said, 'do you see why you give an impression...blah blah' while your first post clearly was already based on whatever your position was, and you second post and with your personal attacks, etc. It is hard to respond to you when you're obviously pissed off, so don't get all hurt and bothered here either, you can't play both sides mate. So can we call the truce here cause I ain't really trying to fight you here. Cheers. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On July 17 2012 12:46 MightyAtom wrote: Like earlier from your very first post? ^^ seriously, at this point, you understand the point of this section, nothing would preclude someone to linking to those publicly available scientific sources as well (although some very recent ones you do need to be subscribed to) and yes, you'd still need to include the link for the affiliate which you could just disregard and just go to the library or borrow from someone anyway. Um. I think at this point, its clear that we should agree to disagree unless you want still keep doing this, but unless you have something else, then I'd rather we agree to disagree at this time. Cause again, you said, 'do you see why you give an impression...blah blah' while your first post clearly was already based on whatever your position was, and you second post and with your personal attacks, etc. It is hard to respond to you when you're obviously pissed off, so don't get all hurt and bothered here either, you can't play both sides mate. So can we call the truce here cause I ain't really trying to fight you here. Cheers. You really don't want to address the point I'm making, do you? | ||
|
MightyAtom
Korea (South)1897 Posts
| ||
|
MightyAtom
Korea (South)1897 Posts
| ||
|
Jarree
Finland1004 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On July 17 2012 12:52 MightyAtom wrote: I just did, stop being a troll at this point. No you didn't. You reformulated the goal of the sub forum with different words (not at all changing the validity of my point), and then you told me that I was angry and that you didn't want talk about it any more. Let me rephrase my point: By requiring a link to something you can buy in the OP, you will make the content of the subforum worse. Fore example: 1) OPs that not naturally have a product to sell will have to bend the content to fit it in. 2) a potential OP may not post at all as they do not feel that there is a product to sell in a natural way. 3) Content relying on pay-to-read sources are less reliable than content relying on publicly available scientific sources, as I argued before. 4) Potential OPs may chose not post in the subforum as they do not like the mentality of the rule. I'm sure I'm not the only one. TL has over time increased ads and started their shop etc, but never compromising content quality. Forcing sponsored links in the OP is compromising quality. Address that please. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On July 17 2012 13:10 Cascade wrote: No you didn't. You reformulated the goal of the sub forum with different words (not at all changing the validity of my point), and then you told me that I was angry and that you didn't want talk about it any more. Let me rephrase my point: By requiring a link to something you can buy in the OP, you will make the content of the subforum worse. Fore example: 1) OPs that not naturally have a product to sell will have to bend the content to fit it in. 2) a potential OP may not post at all as they do not feel that there is a product to sell in a natural way. 3) Content relying on pay-to-read sources are less reliable than content relying on publicly available scientific sources, as I argued before. 4) Potential OPs may chose not post in the subforum as they do not like the mentality of the rule. I'm sure I'm not the only one. TL has over time increased ads and started their shop etc, but never compromising content quality. Forcing sponsored links in the OP is compromising quality. Address that please. There is practically a book on absolutely everything no matter how specific, there is no 'bending' required. The main difference is that here we start with an OP with a subject expert and then recommend a book for those who want to learn more. It is different to going, TL you need to advertise a specific book, write something about that topic. Therefore the vested interest does not affect the content of the post. The vested interest is to make money, not to sell a particular book. I don't know about you but I have delved quite deep on some particular aspects of computer science, and nothing on the internet comes close to the books I have bought. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On July 17 2012 12:53 MightyAtom wrote: If you want to discuss this more, then let it rest for a few days and then pm me, you want to post up my response, it's up to you. I don't see the point of PMing you. My problem is this subforum, not you as person. I don't care about you as a person, in the same way as you don't care about me. We are just handles on a forum... What we CAN do, is to post our arguments publicly here on the forum, to try to promote our viewpoints. But I guess you would prefer to write a book and sell it instead? | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On July 17 2012 13:15 sluggaslamoo wrote: There is practically a book on absolutely everything no matter how specific, there is no 'bending' required. The main difference is that here we start with an OP with a subject expert and then recommend a book for those who want to learn more. It is different to going, TL you need to advertise a specific book, write something about that topic. Therefore the vested interest does not affect the content of the post. The vested interest is to make money, not to sell a particular book. I don't know about you but I have delved quite deep on some particular aspects of computer science, and nothing on the internet comes close to the books I have bought. Yes, if you feel that linking to a book makes sense, and would contribute to the OP, that is fine. Some OPs will not have a problem with this as you just gave an example of. Thus the "OPs that not naturally have a product to sell" in point 1.  And this kind of "links that make sense" can pop up in any subforum, so no reason to not support these links all over TL at that point.But other potential authors don't have a natural product to sell in that way. Like the previous poster in this thread, and me. | ||
|
Aerisky
United States12129 Posts
I can't believe I missed seeing this, good thing it appeared in the sidebar. So excited, it's unbelievable haha. Though wow, significant controversy in the comments. Like Empyrean, I'd also like to have that made clear--is it required that a product be mentioned in the writing? | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On July 17 2012 13:10 Cascade wrote: No you didn't. You reformulated the goal of the sub forum with different words (not at all changing the validity of my point), and then you told me that I was angry and that you didn't want talk about it any more. Let me rephrase my point: By requiring a link to something you can buy in the OP, you will make the content of the subforum worse. Fore example: 1) OPs that not naturally have a product to sell will have to bend the content to fit it in. 2) a potential OP may not post at all as they do not feel that there is a product to sell in a natural way. 3) Content relying on pay-to-read sources are less reliable than content relying on publicly available scientific sources, as I argued before. 4) Potential OPs may chose not post in the subforum as they do not like the mentality of the rule. I'm sure I'm not the only one. TL has over time increased ads and started their shop etc, but never compromising content quality. Forcing sponsored links in the OP is compromising quality. Address that please. Hey Cascade. I'm not directly involved with TL Know How, so don't take my word as anything official. I definitely see where you're coming from though. It might be that the initial premise of TL Know How is too restrictive in scope and that the issues you bring to the table are going to hold the section back. Points 2 and 4 certainly seem like plausible issues that might arise down the line. At this moment in time, we think this is the best way to lay the ground work for the section - indeed its a more natural transition to go from something more restrictive to something less restrictive than the other way around. As MA leads the section into the future, we'll be keeping an eye on how successful this feature becomes and internally evaluate whether the section is on track or not. For instance, if we see a lot of content posted outside of the forum that we think could/should have been 'know how' (with or without pay-to-read sources) then we know the section is off track. Right at this moment we're not seeing that, and we have quite a few people interested in contributing to the section. Of course this is still really early days so we're taking this observation with a grain of salt. The beauty of hosting this feature in a forum environment is that we can adapt the section to suit the needs of the community over time (if the current section doesn't fulfill its goal). And we won't let the core concept behind this feature (the incredible power and knowledge of our user base) fall to the wayside if the current model fails. I know this isn't any kind of concrete answer like you want, but hopefully it's sufficient for the time being. | ||
|
Empyrean
17035 Posts
But back to my first question, are referral links required to open a thread in the TL KnowHow section? There seems to be some confusion here. I'm getting the feeling that they are, but I just want to be explicit here. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36389 Posts
On July 17 2012 13:45 Empyrean wrote: Another question I have, and it may stem from ignorance, is whether there's a generic referral link to all amazon products from TL. I buy stuff from amazon every once in a while, and if it doesn't cost significantly more, I wouldn't mind taking a few months to support TL. But back to my first question, are referral links required to open a thread in the TL KnowHow section? There seems to be some confusion here. I'm getting the feeling that they are, but I just want to be explicit here. This is actually completely true, if you are to buy anything from Amazon, and use TL's referral link, we will get a % of the sale. While the % is miniscule, it does add up, which is why anytime we buy things at the TLHQ from Amazon we do this. | ||
|
MightyAtom
Korea (South)1897 Posts
On July 17 2012 13:10 Cascade wrote: No you didn't. You reformulated the goal of the sub forum with different words (not at all changing the validity of my point), and then you told me that I was angry and that you didn't want talk about it any more. Let me rephrase my point: By requiring a link to something you can buy in the OP, you will make the content of the subforum worse. Fore example: 1) OPs that not naturally have a product to sell will have to bend the content to fit it in. 2) a potential OP may not post at all as they do not feel that there is a product to sell in a natural way. 3) Content relying on pay-to-read sources are less reliable than content relying on publicly available scientific sources, as I argued before. 4) Potential OPs may chose not post in the subforum as they do not like the mentality of the rule. I'm sure I'm not the only one. TL has over time increased ads and started their shop etc, but never compromising content quality. Forcing sponsored links in the OP is compromising quality. Address that please. As an obligation to this project I'm reply as directly as I can to your points, I would ask that you respect this effort, whether you agree or disagree, and let the matter lie for a couple of days. 1. If the OP is to first think of their knowhow and from their knowhow think to where there is a book or reference or product which adds to explaining the knowhow. If they are unable to source such a reference and feel the need to dumb down or bend their content to make it work, and are not please with the outcome, then do not post in the knowhow section, post in general or blogs or the respective sub forum. We are not forcing anyone to write for this section or down grade their content. In my view, it helps me to add accountability and focus it from a AMA FAQ view, but if the addition of such reference material were to get in the way of that for whatever reason, then I would say, not to post in this particular section of TL. 2. Yes, I agree, but again, they have the option to post anywhere else, if an OP cannot post an optimal post in these conditions/requirements, then they should not post in this section; your terminology of 'selling in a natural way' is besides the point, if the book is sold or not, it is irrelevant as the use can seek to go to the library and get it or not. What is critical is, if there is book or product to be referenced in the first place, as in point 1. " If they are unable to source such a reference and feel the need to dumb down or bend their content to make it work, and are not please with the outcome, then do not post in the knowhow section, post in general or blogs or the respective sub forum." 3. It depends on what industry, for business you are 100% wrong. For medical journals you could be 100% right. But it depends on what industry/field. 4. Yes, I agree, but I refer to point 2, 'but again, they have the option to post anywhere else, if an OP cannot post an optimal post in these conditions/requirements, then they should not post in this section' and the real crux of the issue is really the mentality. If they do not agree with it, then it is best that they simply post on their own accord wherever they would like to, other than the knowhow section. As it is their own mentality and therefore their own preference and choice, it is choice to participate and contribute or not, if not, then do not visit or post in this sub section. Your right to contribute what you'd like is not being restricted or restrained, but this section has requirements and if the commercial aspect of the requirement you find distasteful, then do not post here. 5. As to your final point. "TL has over time increased ads and started their shop etc, but never compromising content quality. Forcing sponsored links in the OP is compromising quality." No one is forcing you Please understand this. And if someone was forcing you, I'd agree with you. Go post in blogs, much like every sub-forum, there are types of regulations like posting in dota2 should about dota2, but in general about general, and if its personal view, in blogs etc. In my case, the content quality was increased because I agree with the format, but for others like yourself it will not. So in your case, you should never post in this section and no one is forcing you to. The ones that chose to write in this section will have their own responsibility to maintain a standard of quality as well as though me heading this sub section, if they think their writing will be comprised, then just go write in blogs or general, no one is required to share what they know. The ones that write do so with the full knowledge of the conditions in this particular situation and as volunteers obviously do not feel for themselves it is something negative. Thank you for your feedback. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On July 17 2012 13:44 Plexa wrote: Hey Cascade. I'm not directly involved with TL Know How, so don't take my word as anything official. I definitely see where you're coming from though. It might be that the initial premise of TL Know How is too restrictive in scope and that the issues you bring to the table are going to hold the section back. Points 2 and 4 certainly seem like plausible issues that might arise down the line. At this moment in time, we think this is the best way to lay the ground work for the section - indeed its a more natural transition to go from something more restrictive to something less restrictive than the other way around. As MA leads the section into the future, we'll be keeping an eye on how successful this feature becomes and internally evaluate whether the section is on track or not. For instance, if we see a lot of content posted outside of the forum that we think could/should have been 'know how' (with or without pay-to-read sources) then we know the section is off track. Right at this moment we're not seeing that, and we have quite a few people interested in contributing to the section. Of course this is still really early days so we're taking this observation with a grain of salt. The beauty of hosting this feature in a forum environment is that we can adapt the section to suit the needs of the community over time (if the current section doesn't fulfill its goal). And we won't let the core concept behind this feature (the incredible power and knowledge of our user base) fall to the wayside if the current model fails. I know this isn't any kind of concrete answer like you want, but hopefully it's sufficient for the time being. Hi plexa, Thanks for reply. I wasn't really asking any question though, or requiring any answer from the staff. I think it is clear to all what the motivation is behind the requirement of an advertisement in the OP. The argument that it is more natural to go from something more restrictive sounds kindof weird to me. If the restriction doesn't make any sense, why would you apply it? You could by the same reason apply limits on including the word "teamliquid" at least 10 times in the post, or mention Koalas in two paragraphs or more. After all, it would be more natural to remove them afterwards that the other way around. I mean, the argument that it is easier to take it away that to add it later isn't really in it's own an argument to have it there. The needs of the community? are you saying that the requirement of forcing advertisement in every OP is in the interest of the community rather than to earn money? Or is this the argument that money to TL is in the interest of the community? I realise that this is testing the community for how much advertisements they will put up with, and it is not the first time. I am fine with the ads at the top and side, and I am fine with the shop. If that helps you get your HQ, do TSL etc, then great. But when you start putting restrictions, not possibilities, in how we can post, then it's too much imo. Anyway, I think I have made my point some pages ago. We will see how this goes I guess. Maybe others are more ok with this restricting posting rule than I am. | ||
| ||
