Pomsky???

[Tabitha]

Barb, Kelly only said it was "proper forum etiquette", I tend to agree. This thread has turned in a quite unexpected direction, I was very surprised that some of the things said would ever even be mentiond in this forum. So you did miss quite a bit. One time I posted a reply about a dog that needed to be rescued with out reading the whole thread, well I found out that the pages that I'd skipped had told that the dog HAD been rescued and had since passed from natural causes. If I'd known, my post would have been very different. I don't know if posting before reading is against the rules, but I do know that it's something that really shouldn't be done. It's just like cutting into a conversation when you haven't heard the whole thing.

 

[EJHUNTL]

Sometimes I reply to something part way through a thread and then realize if I had just waited and read all the way to the end I might have responded differently, or not at all - so if it's not a rule- it wouldn't be a bad one.

there are times though that when you're typing a response , someone else is as well so you clearly don't get to see that response before yours goes up.

 

[JLSOhio51]

...That being said, Kelly, suppose that I actually SUPPORTED this website? Would you have deleted my link too? Or can we only send links that Sheltie Forum agrees with?

I understand the suggestion of reading through an entire thread before posting. But, I too am interested in the answer to BarbV's question about the removal of posted links. I have reread the "Rules" and the "TOS" and I didn't see a direct reference to this subject. Could someone clarify the SN policy or at least point me to where in the "Rules" or "TOS" I can find the answer?

 

[Lightplum]

I understand the suggestion of reading through an entire thread before posting. But, I too am interested in the answer to BarbV's question about the removal of posted links. I have reread the "Rules" and the "TOS" and I didn't see a direct reference to this subject. Could someone clarify the SN policy or at least point me to where in the "Rules" or "TOS" I can find the answer?

Its some where on here and ive read it, but than again after almost 5 years of being on here I forget where I see alot of things exactly. Its pretty much common sense, dont post links to breeders, puppies or any other questionable sites that SN does not wish to endorse or give web traffic to (again common sense). Although im hoping Kelly will pop in and clarify.
Obviously sites like the AKC, ASSA, CKC (candian Kennel Club) and links to dog equipment/amazon (since SN gets a little extra when we shop amazon via SN) are ok.

 

[JLSOhio51]

... Its pretty much common sense, dont post links to breeders, puppies or any other questionable sites that SN does not wish to endorse or give web traffic to (again common sense).

I understand the "breeders and puppies part, and I saw that in the "Rules" or "TOS" sections and have no real quarrel with that. What caught my eye in this particular conversation was Kelly's comment,

"As I said in the other thread you commented on, please do NOT post direct links to sites you do NOT want to support.".

I think I may have read this comment the same way that BarbV seems to have read it (if I am off base BarbV, please set me straight). Anyway, I read this to say that I should not link any article that I do not wish to support. I'm interpreting the conversation to say that the admin. deleted links because of this "violation". To me, there is a difference between prohibiting the inclusion of breeder endorsements, puppy sales and advertising content, and prohibiting links that advocate content that some or all of us do not support (content wise). That's why I would like to see a SN admin. sort this out. Perhaps I am misreading the comments or the admin. misspoke.

I don't see this as a "common sense" issue. I wouldn't see a major difference between linking to an AKC website (which is clearly done often)or the registry that BarbV had in her posts. I AM NOT saying that I support that "designer group" registry site, just that I find prohibiting links to sites that may represent an unpopular point of view somewhat troubling.

 

[Kelly]

And yes, I did jump ahead because the posts were all going around in circles and touching on the same point over and over. I was not aware that its against the rules to have to read every post on every thread, before I respond to a specific post to a thread. Is it truly the rules that you have to read every thread to end before your respond to a specific post?

I didn't use the word 'rules' at all. I said 'forum etiquette'. Very different meaning.

 

[Kelly]

Its some where on here and ive read it, but than again after almost 5 years of being on here I forget where I see alot of things exactly. Its pretty much common sense, dont post links to breeders, puppies or any other questionable sites that SN does not wish to endorse or give web traffic to (again common sense). Although im hoping Kelly will pop in and clarify.
Obviously sites like the AKC, ASSA, CKC (candian Kennel Club) and links to dog equipment/amazon (since SN gets a little extra when we shop amazon via SN) are ok.

Exactly!

Removing links is not an attempt to sensor any member here. Removing the link is to prevent the website you are discussing from gaining authority on search engine ranking based on our link directly to it.

Sheltie Forums has high authority on the internet. If we allowed this link to stay and someone googled the term, I bet you 5 bucks our link would be on the first page of search engine results. I do not want this site associated at all with any designer dog websites.

Talk about the website all you want. Use it's name. Just don't post a http link to it.

I hope this helps clarify for everyone?

 

[Kelly]

Ok....I misunderstood....I was posting this link as an example. But I understand that this could have be construed as a positive endorsement if resposted elsewhere. Clearly, that was not my intention. I'm so against this.

That being said, Kelly, suppose that I actually SUPPORTED this website? Would you have deleted my link too? Or can we only send links that Sheltie Forum agrees with?

First off, if you did support a site like that you would probably be run out of town by now by the membership.

But yes, you are correct, the link would have been deleted anyway because it goes against the ethics of the site.

I hope this helps clarify?

 

[JLSOhio51]

...Talk about the website all you want. Use it's name. Just don't post a http link to it.

I hope this helps clarify for everyone?

Kelly:

Thank you for you explanation. I have no issue with this point of view. It is logical and would seem to be a reasonable stance to take.

I will admit, however, that the admonition to not "post a link that you do not support" is quite frankly misleading if the aim is as you describe it now. It suggests that if I "supported" a link that you deem inappropriate, that I could make such a post. I would also think that this issue is important enough that it should be specifically spelled out in the "TOS" (unless I am missing it there). In either case, thank you for the clarification.

 

[Kelly]

I will admit, however, that the admonition to not "post a link that you do not support" is quite frankly misleading if the aim is as you describe it now. It suggests that if I "supported" a link that you deem inappropriate, that I could make such a post.

You could make the post, but the offending link would be removed. The judgement we use in deciding to remove a link is based on ethics. It is not often that we remove one.