[kerelybonto]

See, but Jude, therein lies the problem. There's no line between an advertisement and the general dissemination of information pertaining to our hobby in a lot of cases. Just a general fade.

Let's look at some examples. How 'bout Jan Meier's post of pictures of the updated Porta Corda and the new PREHEAD? It's the exact same thing as Fixup's post. I understand that Meier Audio is a forum sponsor, but does that allow for advertisements in the General Forums? Not according to the board rules.

And then what about all the META42 threads a while back? Two of the amp's primary designers, and another eventual builder, provided much of the initial information about the amp, as of course they had to for us to know about it. At some point they decided that they would be selling the amp, so it evolved from a DIY project into a commercial product. Of course, they continued to post about the amp -- and continue to today, though they don't explicitly offer their services in their posts.

There are plenty more examples of shades-of-gray advertising that don't get shut down. And I'm not just talking about the recent example you alluded to. (I agree that that was a bit much, even though I plan to buy from the guy.) I'm not complaining: I think these posts offer more than they detract from the forum.

The problem with Mall-Fi is that it's not interactive. We don't want static ads. We want discussion of products between manufacturer, potential consumers, and unbiased reviewers. Perhaps the solution would be to modify Mall-Fi or create a new forum in which manufacturers could introduce a product, answer questions about it, and other users can offer input. The natural place to discuss a product is in a thread announcing it; we shouldn't have to have some pioneering individual ask the right questions in order to elicit an allowed reply from the manufacturer.

I can see that Fixup's thread was an ad. It's also what makes Head-Fi worth my time. Not only did Fixup alert a lot of people to a product that otherwise probably would have gone unnoticed, others chimed in with their opinion of the product, good and bad. In all the advertising boards you don't allow discussion because it can negatively affect a seller's sales; but an optimal thread includes both a manufacturer's input -- even if it's biased -- and third-party reviews.

I understand your reasoning for closing Fixup's thread. And I disagree that it's the best way to run Head-Fi.

kerely

 

[jude]

[size=xx-small] Quote:

Originally posted by kerelybonto See, but Jude, therein lies the problem. There's no line between an advertisement and the general dissemination of information pertaining to our hobby in a lot of cases. Just a general fade. Let's look at some examples. How 'bout Jan Meier's post of pictures of the updated Porta Corda and the new PREHEAD? It's the exact same thing as Fixup's post. I understand that Meier Audio is a forum sponsor, but does that allow for advertisements in the General Forums? Not according to the board rules. And then what about all the META42 threads a while back? Two of the amp's primary designers, and another eventual builder, provided much of the initial information about the amp, as of course they had to for us to know about it. At some point they decided that they would be selling the amp, so it evolved from a DIY project into a commercial product. Of course, they continued to post about the amp -- and continue to today, though they don't explicitly offer their services in their posts. The problem with Mall-Fi is that it's not interactive. We don't want static ads. We want discussion of products between manufacturer, potential consumers, and unbiased reviewers. Perhaps the solution would be to modify Mall-Fi or create a new forum in which manufacturers could introduce a product, answer questions about it, and other users can offer input. The natural place to discuss a product is in a thread announcing it; we shouldn't have to have some pioneering individual ask the right questions in order to elicit an allowed reply from the manufacturer. I can see that Fixup's thread was an ad. It's also what makes Head-Fi worth my time. Not only did Fixup alert a lot of people to a product that otherwise probably would have gone unnoticed, others chimed in with their opinion of the product, good and bad. In all the advertising boards you don't allow discussion because it can negatively affect a seller's sales; but an optimal thread includes both a manufacturer's input -- even if it's biased -- and third-party reviews. I understand your reasoning for closing Fixup's thread. And I disagree that it's the best way to run Head-Fi. kerely

[/size]

That's an idea -- maybe allowing Mall-Fi to be more interactive. I have to think about how to best do that, short of opening it up, because that would make Sponsor Forums irrelevant, and, I'll tell you this: without Sponsor Forums, this place'll be in major financial trouble, because I plan on hopefully having at least one or two more in time, and this place ain't getting any cheaper for me. But I like the (seemingly) simple concept you're suggesting here, and may make some changes to how Mall-Fi is run to allow that. Again, i have to think about this one very carefully.

Sorry, though, but threads like Fixup's or Jan's will never be allowed in the main forums anymore. Again, Jan's was locked. I caught that one only after it had grown into a big thread -- I'm not here as much as I used to be. But anyway, those are ad posts, and if we open the General Forums up to them, we open the General Forums up to everyone else who wants to pitch gear to the forums; and, again, I don't want to see that here. If you disagree, we disagree. I don't think ads in the forum of posts in the main forums is a good idea at all, and, in addition to making this place more like a Usenet newsgroup (which I don't want), it would also make this place very difficult to support.

Also, as I stated in my previous post, there is a lot of interaction here between manufacturers and the community that doesn't fall under the definition of advertising. People like Joseph Lau, Jan Meier, Alex Nikitin, Tyll Hertsens, several DIY'ers-turned-pros, etc. have been able to have -- and will continue to be able to have - compelling discussions with the rest of the community. Are you saying that without allowing advertisements in the form of posts in the General Forums that this won't be able to continue? If so, I very much disagree.

So I understand you disagree with me. That's just the way it is then. Of course, I want to keep as many people here as happy as possible. But always keep in mind that, considering the very practical issues of keeping this place here, I'll always be trying to keep as many people here as happy as I can, while also having to be mindful of the fact that this place isn't of any use to anyone if it's closed.

As I stated earlier, the gray areas will become more black and white as we figure things out (which will always be an ongoing thing). This much I can guarantee you: there isn't a thing that's done anywhere, with this many people involved, that'll satisfy everyone.

 

[eric343]

I don't think by making Mall-Fi ads "un-closed" (they're currently closed by default) you'd make the sponsor forums irrelevant; the point of the sponsor forums is that people can ask questions about a sponsor, voice difficulties/thank you stories, and generally discuss stuff about that sponsor. On the other hand, Mall-Fi ads are necessarily (usually) about a single product - usually something not worth taking out a sponsor forum for.

What you might consider doing is allowing people to post questions or comments to Mall-Fi ads that cover a specific product or products, but keep the general "hey I build/sell/buy amps/headphones/widgets" ads closed.

 

[Fixup]

Jude, if you now define that post as an Ad, then no problem. But, it was not an ad at the time I posted it, right? Otherwise, why you guys have let it went for more than a month? The day I posted the pics here, my website already had " Add to Cart" for the amps. You mentioned your PM to me. But in that email you only told me that you did not like Jan's post, but you did not define it as an Ad.

I got the feeling that you were afraid of sponsors' drawing away based on your earlier posts in this thread. For example:

Quote:

If you want the site to stay up, it's very important, because if sponsors go away, my monthly costs escalate way beyond what I'd be willing to cover for any significant amount of time.

And, If you look back carefully, I did not mean that my thread was blocked because of sponsors. In the last paragraph, I used "if a thread", not " if my thread".

Quote:

If you want to profit from the members of Head-Fi, support Head-Fi. It's that simple.

Quote:

So, again, if you want to profit from the members of Head-Fi, support Head-Fi.

Again, as said clearly at the beginning of my last post, I don't want to argue about the blocking of my thread and any decision you guys made. I just want to explain about my post. I don't want my honest support to this forum to be taken as sneak advertising. If the post was not an Ad at the time I posted it, even though it becomes an Ad a month later due to definition shift, then I do not derserve any criticism for getting profit from members without supporting the forum. Actually, if starting a thread that gets thousands times of viewing and answering numerous technical questions to the members is not a support to a forum but profiting from its members, then whatelse is?

Quote:

If you're not sure if what you want to post is an ad, PM or e-mail a moderator to ask.

The problem is even your guys yourselves are not so sure, otherwise why it took so long to block that thread? I hope an Ad will be deleted as soon as possible.

I hope discussions in this thread can make things clear from now on. But this is my last post to this thread to avoid more personal stuff being mixed into the discussuion, even if I'll see somthing that I disagree.

 

[jude]

Quote:

Originally posted by Fixup Jude, if you now define that post as an Ad, then no problem. But, it was not an ad at the time I posted it, right?....

No, it was an ad even then; but, admittedly, we let some of that stuff go without as much concern in the past. Jan's Pre-Head post was an ad, too, but I didn't see it until it was already a big ol' thread. It was actually closed a while ago -- if you look at the last date of the last post, you can get some idea of when.

As more and more people enter the business of headphone hi-fi, we do have to start being more strict about the advertising guidelines than we have been.

Also, I don't recall saying that I didn't consider Jan's post an ad. After you asked me about Jan's post via e-mail, here's what I wrote you (via e-mail response):
Quote:

Xin, I know (regarding Jan's post). I wasn't pleased with that post, but by the time I noticed it, it had become a long thread....

And if I came off as suggesting you were trying to be dishoneest, I apologize. I've read over all my posts from this thread again, and I don't feel I have. However, if you or anyone else thinks I did, then I apologize. Someone asked why it was closed. I answered why (my first post).

But, long story short, it was an ad to me back then. We're going to have to be more firm in the guidelines now, though, as more and more people seem interested in posting ad-type posts in the General Forums.

 

[danny]

Actually, I have designed myself a Blockhead.

But I would never put it in the DIY area, as I am an adherent of the blob method of soldering.

Or is it, "the designer is a blockhead" ?

I will go away now....

 

[eric343]

LOL! Then how the heck do you prototype... or do you have a college student do that for you...?

IN any case, to get back on topic, I think Jude's hit the proverbial UPS in the power switch, here - the reason this whole business doesn't seem fair when compared with past policies is that it's not. Crackdowns are never fun

 

[TripsRight]

I haven't been here long, but I'm always opinionated. Heres my 2 cents, that'll probably be ignored, but that's okay.

It's obvious that Head-Fi is experiencing growing pains, and that there's a lot of virgin territory that hasn't been covered, so IMHO arguing that Jude & the moderators don't have a clear policy when it's quite obvious that they're working on it right now is kind of pointless.

It seems that too much focus is being placed on the word "ad" and its definition. It seems to me that a more "simple" interpretation of the rule that is more easily interpreted by users is that posts should not be allowed that are promotional in nature. Of course, I'm probably making a distinction between the two when there is no distinction to be made between the two, but while a post may not be a blatant ad like "NEW SUPERWIZ MEGA-AMP FOR SALE," if it promotes your product (i.e., gives it publicity) then it should not be allowed. To use two examples used earlier, the Super Mini Fixup post, while not an ad in the traditional sense, generated tons of publicity and so did Jan Meier's post on the PC2 & pre-amp.

No promotion, and no publicity. Of course, now someone will probably point out that I have no idea what I'm talking about.

 

[jude]

[size=xx-small] Quote:

Originally posted by eric343 I don't think by making Mall-Fi ads "un-closed" (they're currently closed by default) you'd make the sponsor forums irrelevant; the point of the sponsor forums is that people can ask questions about a sponsor, voice difficulties/thank you stories, and generally discuss stuff about that sponsor. On the other hand, Mall-Fi ads are necessarily (usually) about a single product - usually something not worth taking out a sponsor forum for. What you might consider doing is allowing people to post questions or comments to Mall-Fi ads that cover a specific product or products, but keep the general "hey I build/sell/buy amps/headphones/widgets" ads closed.

[/size]

Well, it's not that simple. Let's add up the revenue so far from the Mall-Fi ads (this does not include any fees subtracted for PayPal costs)....

Advertiser 1: $20.00 x 2
Advertiser 2: $36.50 x 1
Advertiser 3: $20.00 x 1
Advertiser 4: $25.00 x 2
Advertiser 5: $22.12 x 1
Advertiser 5: $25.35 x 1
Advertiser 6: $29.20 x 1

I think that's all of them so far (we opened Mall-Fi up in July 2002).

And that comes to....$223.17 for the last three months of billed Mall-Fi ads, or $74.39 per month.

Well, just today (technically yesterday now), we committed to new hardware for the site totaling nearly 10 times the total take of Mall-Fi so far. Remember the outage earlier today? Does the site feel faster than it ever was (and I mean since day one on June 21, 2001) since the outage was fixed earlier tonight (to those of you with broadband connections in particular)? Well, we're still working on the site, and we're still on a test run on a new (used) server, but if all goes well, this is the sort of perfomance we'll hopefully have from now on. This improvement was a three-phase process over the last several months, and it cost us a bundle. NOTE: I would also like to thank Neil (my brother and Head-Fi's engineer) for his ongoing help with all of this stuff, as I couldn't do it without him.

Considering that one Sponsor Forum brings in about 68% of the total sponsor revenue, and that the site's TOTAL revenue (including the not-too-busy Cafe Press store and Mall-Fi) still does not cover fully my costs month to month (not including the most recent costs amortized however you want to amortize them), let me ask you this....how seriously do you think I have to ponder the question about opening up Mall-Fi? Very seriously.

Oh, and now ask the sponsors if I've billed them on a regular basis. The last gap was for almost eight months (sorry, sponsors). Ask tangent if I've billed him fully for Mall-Fi, or if I let some extra days slide because I billed him late for the next cycle. If you haven't figured it out, I ain't in this for the big bucks. And I can't afford to spend much more than I already do for what was supposed to be a hobby.

My only point here is to illustrate that the thought of even the possibility of making Sponsor Forums less viable is a bit scary for the one paying the bills, and so these suggestions about Mall-Fi have to be carefully evaluated.

Anyway, eric, I do appreciate your suggestions, and will consider them (and kerelybonto's) very carefully.

 

[eric343]

You're right, Head-Fi does feel really snappy now...


Hmm... maybe tack on $15-$25/ad for not having it "closed"? And strictly police discussion to the product in question, of course.

Also, maybe a banner at the top of the Forums Home page (http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/index.php?s=) saying "New ad in Mall-Fi" with a link to the Mall-Fi forum for 5 days after placing an ad would attract more Mall-Fi sponsors.

Lastly, it would be nice of course to have more sponsorship options... in addition to putting up banners and/or allowing people to 'adopt a forum', you might consider the route taken by a web-cartoon I frequent: http://www.userfriendly.org/static/ (read the bit headed "UF.org Sponsorship Drive")

I know you don't want simple donations, but that way is a compromise that would still let the hardcore addicts with cash get warm and fuzzy feelings

 

[jude]

The other thing that sort of confuses me is how some of you seem to believe that this no-post-as-ad-in-the-General-Forums policy is going to undermine our ability to maintain compelling discussions with those who design or manufacturer gear. Don't any of you frequent Audio Asylum? They are very strict about the very same things, and yet manufacturers there (like Steve Eddy of Q-Audio, Victor Khomenko of BAT, John Curl of Parasound, Ray Kimber of Kimber Kable, Jonathan Scull of Monster Cable and formerly of Stereophile, Mike B. of Acme Audio Labs, rcrump of TG Audio, and many more), not to mention countless dealers, all still manage to participate without violating the rules, most of these guys posting almost daily.

Well, I'm not going to be gloom-and-doomie about this. I know it can work, and it will. Remember when we first started Head-Fi, and many folks felt that allowing companies to sponsor the site would result in the place sucking? I spent much of my time on the site, in the first month or two, debating why it would work, and why it was necessary. Well, it's almost a year-and-a-half later, and the place is kickin'.

Discussions with manufacturers/designers can still be had, and will still be had. I just don't see why allowing post-type advertisements in the General Forums is necessary to this.

 

[millerdog]

Sheesh! I just wanted to know why the post was locked. Didn't expect to create a debate.
I thought it was perhaps something a member had posted in a review of the amp. The fact that the thread had run for so long to me, detracted from the commercial aspect of it. Not for one minute since I opened this thread did I think that was the reason.
Oh well.
md

 

[kelly]

Jude
Not to speak for anyone else, but the reason enforcement of ad policy makes me worry about killing discussion with manufacturers in the crossfire is that AA does not do a good enough job at enforcement. I feel that if on AA, I ask "Hey, what do you guys think the best x is for y situation and a budget of z?" that if the thread gets more than a couple responses one will be from someone secretly wanting to sell me something.

FixUp
I did not view the thread closure as an attack on your integrity. The policy is somewhat in flux and enforcement of that policy is definitely something that's ramping up recently. Your intentions do not have to be dishonest in order for your post to contain prohibited content. Jude istrying to figure out exactly what the rules should be--no one thought you were intentionally trying to break them. I do hope we'll continue to see your posts on Head-Fi. Much of the content of your own web site is non-commercial since you tell users how to build things that you can alternatively sell them. I think this wins you points with the community and helps your business indirectly and I feel the same about your participation here.

 

[john_jcb]

Quote:

Originally posted by jude Well, just today (technically yesterday now), we committed to new hardware for the site totaling nearly 10 times the total take of Mall-Fi so far. Remember the outage earlier today? Does the site feel faster than it ever was (and I mean since day one on June 21, 2001) since the outage was fixed earlier tonight (to those of you with broadband connections in particular)? Well, we're still working on the site, and we're still on a test run on a new (used) server, but if all goes well, this is the sort of perfomance we'll hopefully have from now on. This improvement was a three-phase process over the last several months, and it cost us a bundle. NOTE: I would also like to thank Neil (my brother and Head-Fi's engineer) for his ongoing help with all of this stuff, as I couldn't do it without him.

In the time that I have been here this is the fastest that I have seen the site operate. I have a broadband connection and the pages are loading faster than ever. Thanks Jude!

 

[jude]

[size=xx-small] Quote:

Originally posted by millerdog Sheesh! I just wanted to know why the post was locked. Didn't expect to create a debate. I thought it was perhaps something a member had posted in a review of the amp. The fact that the thread had run for so long to me, detracted from the commercial aspect of it. Not for one minute since I opened this thread did I think that was the reason. Oh well. md

[/size]

millerdog,

The reviews and the rest of the subsequent discussion seemed fine from what I read -- I haven't yet taken the time to read the entire thread in question. But when one bans someone for violating the no-ad policy repeatedly, and when one closes a similar thread by Jan Meier for similar reasons, well, then it has to be enforced fairly. Even as it stood, we deleted more commercial posts from time to time than you might have realized.