Putting Together Specific Terms Of Service

gchaney, I think you oughta learn not to hold back so much......

 

Again, that is your opinion about how the network should be run. Why do you have this opinion? Because of the way you predict it will effect your site.

I have a different view, that by putting the proposed boundarys on my sites that I may close some doors.

In that case I would appreciate it if the creator renamed the ad network, removing the COOP part.

Ironically you are saying only the creator should make the decisions, yet in the same post DEMANDING action. Whats the dealio?

Erm, I doubt it, there were probably similar networks before this one.

Again, I say public vote.

 

Not a public vote, just votes from members of the co-op in good standing.

XML, I am a member of the electric company co-op and they say each customer is also an owner of the co-op, but that does not mean we run the internal operations of the electric co-op.

Yes, we can go to meetings and bitch about stuff and vote if they put up something for a vote, but we can not dictate to the managers on how to run the electric company.

 

Again XML, your, nor my, participation is a requirement. You seem to have left out in all your quotes the quotes that matter most.

Either you are for benefits for everyone or just yourself.
You, as one member, have no right to take my site down with yours just because you may be a member willing to use risky sources and methods.
You freely choose to participate just as every other member, if you don't like rules, then take you and your site somewhere else. However, no one ever said you, or I, get to make the rules.
Let me hold the door for you if you believe you can do better else where, however, if I had my way, you would NOT be coming back.

The integrity of any network is not found in the sites alone, but in how the network is administered. Trash begets trash and I for one am all for taking the trash out.

Cheers!

 

You need to chill out pal. Shawn isn't going to let the co-op turn into a piece of garbage, since it could only hurt his own sites.

"Existing members who choose to leave due to the new TOS may not return to participate in the coop network for any existing or future sites, ever."

Are you really that obtuse?

"Members found to be using unethical SEO techniques are subject to suspension and up to a life time ban for all sites owned and/or managed by the offending party."

Who is going to judge what is unethical? You? Some people would consider the co-op unethical, so how would this possibly be monitored.

"Members found to be placing code on unacceptable sites (example - PORNO) will be immediately banned to include all sites which the offender owns and/or manages both now and in the future."

Those sites shouldn't even make it into the co-op to begin with, so aside from the few misses Shawn had earlier, this should not be an issue.

-- Time to relax buddy.. Merry Christmas!

 

You know what the funniest thing is? I probably wouldn't even want to join another network.

Are you refering to my sites as trash, you're probably not, but personally I believe the sites I run the network on are some of the highest quality.

Patronising. If you had your way the network would collapse, other networks would overtake in months.

 

XML, there you go again always thinking posts are directed personally at you.

The guy was speaking in generalities, not directly to you who loves to play the devil's advocate.

Gota love you man, you keep a passionate thread going forever

 

LOL I tried my best attempt at not making it sound personal:

But alas... I failed once again , I'll let it drop now.

Merry Christmas

 

Hey man, do me a favor and start a thread on XML and how it can help webmasters, PM me the link when you do, OK

 

Hmmm... gChaney is here too... This guy is everywhere... and he is as sharp as always... Love you, man!

 

Is this guy related to Dick Cheney, because he is secretive like him, I see no URL's for his site and think he operates from an undisclosed location under some rock or something.

 

The two main arguments are:

a. Spammy sites/Link Farms - count OBL's.
b. Backend performance issues of other networks/ad servers. It doesn't effect the DP network in the slightest.

The only argument I've heard so far that I'd agree with is that of bad content (ie, adult linkage on family friendly sites etc) - but this network is already falling short there, and only because the controls weren't in place to allow wm's to filter accordingly - something that was on the board elsewhere before Shaun started implementing here !

The irony of all this - I'm working on my own network (nichedynamics.com TLN), and far from being a copy of shauns network, it actually responds to what ppl were asking for right here - features that shaun couldn't/wouldn't implement - at least not until recently. The features in question are actually designed to address the very issues in this thread !

Quite frankly, I think the community as a whole will lose out by restricting wm's to this network (something not even the major players do) - and I think they know it too. It should be put to a vote. After all, the community IS the network, the funding for the new servers, and now, the management.

I think the members deserve a say. It's their sites we're talking about after all - so lets put it to a vote

Cheers & Merry Christmas folks,

JL

 

John, you always make good points, but one that you did not address was the intermingling of these networks and the possibility that combined they could be considered a giant link farm by Google.

Please address this issue.

 

What you mean like the *existing* intermingling of networks ?
The web-rings, the banner-exchanges, the affiliate feeds, and the rest ?

I agree that there is a problem with too many links on a given page, but thats local to the site. I won't go into the logic of link mapping, that discussion has been worn thin elsewhere as well.

I just don't see the distinction between this network and the myriad others already out there in this context, nor do i see what makes this one so unique that it should inhibit the greater marketing/revenue plans of wm's.

The only way this can be dealt with fairly IMHO is to put it to a vote

Is it christmas day there yet (wherever you are) BTW ?

 

You still are not addressing the issue John, do you think that if a site is running 4 or 5 co-op networks and is a member of the co-op here, could that possibility make the DP co-op part of a link farm?

Is this a possibility YES or NO answer only, then your explanation after the answer please.

Good holiday to you also.

 

NO.
1 ad from each makes 6. Do six OBL's on a page make it a link farm. Do 10. Do 20 ?

If you read my previous post(s) you'll see that COUNTING OBLS will simply sort this out.

Where's the issue ?

Cheers

JL

 

The issue is when the SE's look at the source code and see DP co-op mixed in with known link farms.

Could this be something that could happen John?

 

Follow your instinct, guys

 

These link farms could add any code, so that isn't the issue. The issue would actually be on the other end, where a quality site was linking *to* the link farm..

 

I'm a bit unclear on what you mean by mixed-in with known link farms..

DP network isn't a link farm, so I'm not sure why other networks would be classed as link farms.. SE's don't see DP, they see links - that's the whole point. Unless you're suggesting that SE's track urls from DP ? If so, I'd like to know why (and simply having a class element in a HREF is definitely NOT specific to DP BTW

If you mean ads appearing on a page that is part of a known link farm then OBL counts will sort that one.

I may be misreading you, but for association of any type to take place, you have to assert that SE's are tracking DP links.

Is that what you meant ?

Cheers,

JL