Peter, I see some rather uncivil comments directed at you in a few other posts and this saddens me. That's a forum for you, I guess.
My original intent was to clarify a confusing point to me, not to cause trouble or change the status quo the forum as a whole is happy with. Your contributions to Sony and Nikon owners are obviously of great value. Hopefully I've not implied otherwise, but my problem is with the apparent exemption to the forum's rules you enjoy that no one else does. It's a problem I have with the rules not you.
So, let me get this straight. If I state here that Harbortronics
makes good gear for Nikons, and that Raynox has some optical gear
that 717 owners might find intriguing, it's okay because I simply
know something about that,
Well, I'm not sure, if you look at the pertinent rules here...
- For Sale - We don't allow for sale messages (at all).
- Commercial advertising - Commercial website linking or advertising is not allowed, if you wish to advertise on the site contact us.
I've made some assumptions about these in the past, like the first makes it clear I can't say I've got a Sony F707 I'd be willing to part with in exchange for an adequate amount of compensation. I’d say this also makes it clear that someone else couldn’t say that on my behalf.
But, this apparently only applies to private sales because the forum is full of examples where special deals and best prices can be found at this or that commercial vendor and I fail to see the distinction between this and private sales, although everyone seems to find it beneficial (myself included).
So I’ve always made the assumption this practice is acceptable and even encouraged by members of the forum because the people supplying the information DO NOT PERSONALLY GAIN from supplying it.
If commercial vendors supplied the information under their own names, this would be a clear violation of both rules and I have no doubt would also be totally unacceptable not only to Phil but to the forum in general for the very reason the rules were established.
But, if someone else supplies it, this is okay! For all we know though, the poster might work for the very vendor he is supplying the information about and this too is apparently okay as long as we don’t know this is the case because there’s still no appearance of personal gain.
So I’ve always assumed that ‘NO APPEARANCE OF PERSONAL GAIN’ is the determining factor in what makes a posting acceptable to the forum or not.
Which brings us directly to your situation.
From what I can tell, you’ve been involved with the dpreview site for 2.5 years (hmm, long time), but only visited the STF for the first time 8 months ago with two postings, had a flurry of postings here 7 months ago but then didn’t show up much until 4 months ago - about the same time as the release of your ebook.
So you haven’t been a regular contributor to the STF much longer than I have, which I think makes it forgivable on my part to assume this coincidental appearance (yours and your ebook) isn’t for the altruistic good of the forum even though many have benefited from it.
You have a product to sell and your history with the STF says that’s why you’re here. Your name is your book. When you use your name you are advertising your book.
If your motives were truly selfless, you’d post your helpful messages under a screen name not even close to the name you publish under and never mention the eBook. Otherwise it is to me a clear conflict of interests based on the rules as Phil has them currently listed.
It just puzzles me why no one else can get away with this.
but if I tell you in reference to a
question that there's something in my eBook that addresses it, it's
some sort of sin against the natural order of things?
It is breaking Phil’s rules as I’ve interpreted them above in that you personally gain by the use of the name you publish under and as soon as you mention your ebook in a posting it is immediately a conflict of interests based on the rules.
Is that some kind of weird, or what?
Phil makes the rules. You’d have to discuss that with him.
This is what an ad looks like:
Thanks. The family business I grew up with was an ad agency that covered advertising, commercial art, graphic design, and photography and my training in them started before I could read, so I know what an ad looks like and I know how marketing and merchandising works, just as you obviously do.
Find me a place that resembles an actual 'for sale' ad in my posts.
It’s there by implication because you post under your published name. Also, if I remember correctly, and forgive me if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember times where in answer to someone wanting to buy your book you’ve supplied them with the URL which is clearly against Phil’s rules.
Answers to people's questions are not fair game. News is not fair
game. References to pages of the eBook that the questioner is known
to me to own are not fair game.
I assume you meant these as questions and no, these aren’t fair game if they come from you because at that point you are promoting your book. Someone else could say the same things and there’d be no problem.
You advertise and you have amazing word-of-mouth support. I would think that’d be more than enough until the rules are amended.
Gordon
--
Sony F707 & Nikon CP990 owner, pbase supporter.
ONE OF THE GREAT MYSTERIES OF LIFE
Why do ketchup makers pride themselves on the thickness of
their product and then put it in a glass bottle with an opening
too small to pour it?
