affiliate links

[svidgen]

Hey,

I didn't see anything in the rules about this, so I'm asking. Are affiliate links allowed in posts? For example, is it acceptable for someone to recommend a book with the book title as affiliate link to it on amazon.com or something? Or is he or she required omit the link? If it's allowed, is it looked down on in the forums?

I'm just curious if affiliate link-posting is acceptable in situations where someone wants to make a real recommendation, provide a link to the right book, and take advantage of the fact that he or she happens to be an affiliate.

If it's not obvious, I'm asking because I have affiliate accounts with companies that carry geek books (as I am a geek).

But, I wouldn't even want to do it if it's looked down on or anything. And I really don't have any intention of spamming the forums with affiliate links and posting for the sake of affiliate link opportunities.

I just don't want to throw a link in a post that could get me into trouble or annoy people.

Thanks.

[JPnyc]

Sorry, no, that's covered in the no advertising portion of the AUP. Thank you.

[svidgen]

Ok, thank-you.

I just found out how I can get back to the AUP I saw on signup. And the clause in concern is here:

You will not post advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, or solicitations, all of which are inappropriate and prohibited in the Forums. You will not, furthermore, collect personal information about forum members for the purpose of sending them any such advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, or solicitations through other means (email, messaging programs, etc.).

However, I need to understand this more clearly now, because I feel this rule set is broken quite consistently, not to mention it's a broken rule.

Advertising is defined by *a website I cannot mention because it breaks AUP, though now I'm breaking copyright laws* as follows: The activity of attracting public attention to a product or business, as by paid announcements in the print, broadcast, or electronic media.

This would mean, by definition, I'm not allowed to make recommendations for any product, business, website, paid service, free service, or even a technology at all? A recommendation of any kind is technically advertising by definition. Even a recommendation as simple as google it or here, this website has all the information you need, is exactly the kind of advertising a any company wants--it's free and highly effective. Are these things also disallowed, since they are technically advertising as well?

Or does this clause need rewording?

While the advertising rule mentioned in the AUP is crossed all the time by definition, the two possible lines I see that webdeveloper.com meant to have the AUP seem crossable without any detection in one case, and crossed without any regard in the other.

At first I thought it was a matter of personal gain from a recommendation. This seems somewhat reasonable, but it's unmeterable. A google marketing employee could very well have a team of "forum junkies" that sit around and answer forum posts all day, casually writing things like "if you google the phrase ..." in posts here and there. All the readers of that post have just been advertised to in the most possible effective way--a personal recommendation. But things like this could be going by all the time, since there's no way to detect or prevent this.

Then I thought, perhaps it's a matter of recommending a free service versus a paid service (even though both services are generally profitable for the company). This also seems somewhat reasonable, but this line also seems commonly crossed. People occasionally ask quite blatantly for a recommendation on something. And to the best of my knowledge, recommendations are given--even if it is for a paid service or product--like a book, software package, server version, etc. Personal recommendation is the most effective advertising possible, it's free, and it's widespread in forums all over the place. Even simple recommendations like, "I would use PHP," are recommendation that profit an entity and its community in a vast majority of ways.

Anyway, the AUP mentions advertisements only once, leaving it up to the user to determine what qualifies. A marketing student will likely tell you a promotion only qualifies as advertising if it's paid for. Posts in a free forum cannot technically qualify as far a marketing student may be concerned.

I believe it is necessary to adapt the AUP at this point, to define the word advertisement in a manner that either allows product, service, website, and technology recommendation, regardless of personal profit, or completely disallows product, service, website, and technology recommendations of any sort. It seems strange to me that an AUP would mention such a malleable term as "advertising" and not explicitly define it.

Hehe, I'd recommend one of the admins look the term up on a particular website or in a particular book, but given the common definition of advertising, the AUP says I can't.

Perhaps the AUP should just say something like "affiliate links" and/or "advertisements for the following types of products" are not allowed. If it's a matter of not stepping on the forum's advertiser' toes, a list of services that cannot be advertised for should be fairly easy to generate and maintain. If it's a matter of not wanting the users to have any gain from a recommendation, while unmeterable, perhaps "affiliate links" and "recommendations from employees and benefiters" should be explicitly prohibited rather than advertising.

I realize this topic probably hasn't come up much before. But I'm a philosopher, I need to ask the questions and clarify the rules. For it seems as though they are broken as they stand. I believe that some users earn a living by posting in forums, to the forums' knowledge or not. I believe the lines are crossed consistently.

To the best of my knowledge, there's even an section of the forum for "site reviews" is there not? Sounds like free advertising to me ...

Sorry to be a pain. I just want clarity for the sake of the assurance that everyone is treated as fairly as possible. Honestly, I have no strong need to post affiliate links. But if I'm not allowed to, I have strong need for no products, services, businesses, websites, or technologies to be mentioned at all, per the AUP. Even personal site links in signatures should be disallowed then--like mine.

Granted, I don't earn a living off my site. But there are some who post far more consistently than I do who probably could, because of the link. Each link is a free public "advertisement" and a search ranking boost. I can't even stress the extent to which this clause either needs to be removed or very explicitly clarified.

Thank-you.

[svidgen]

Heh ... on a funny side note: After I that post, mentioning my search for the AUP, I noticed the link to it in your footer, JPnyc. You can tell you're dealing with a real genius here : )