Experts Round Table Network

http://www.expertsrt.com/scripts/batalf/batalf_frame1.html

This page is actually serving content (and some great content at that!) off of Batalf's site. However, because that is the case, the page appears to contain an ad, which is against ERT "policy" so to speak. Personally, I think it's great if Alf can generate some revenue for his site this way, but as a matter of precedent, I thought it might be wise to have a discussion about this sort of thing, especially as we get ready to release the custom profile pages for members. I don't have a 'proposal' -- I guess this is strictly a consult...

Interesting point.

To start the ball rolling, I will go with:
On a site that is technically independent, but feeding content, a few ads are OK. Of course this depends on the subjective perception of:

are the ads interfering with finding the content. Either by being in the way, or just so ####### many of them.

are they easily identified as ads. Or are they trying to "pump up the click count" by tricking you.


While ERT itself wants to remain ad-free, it can't really impose this on other sites (other than not linking to them), and ads are a fact of life. So a certain amount of advertising has to be allowed for, or bring the content to the ERT servers, if the ads are a PITA.

I think we should think about having ads on ert.

Not external ads, but ads to our own content.

And maybe not immediately.

When we have a larger number of articles/tutorials, we could have a "PHP Month". The "ad" shows something to do with a particular set of articles.

This is a discussion we definitely should have.

I think the issues are the kind of thing that will have to be dealt with by the Governing Council.  As the size of the membership is still small perhaps we should consider electing a small interim Council to guide us through the next 6 months or so.

I am reluctant to make arbitrary decision on things like this because they are community issues and my self interest might get in the way of what the community wants. So having an interim Council would help.

On the specific issue of Alf's site, my view is that if we are going to have external content feeding in, then we decide on a case by case basis whether the content is appropriate in the form it is being offered. That applies not just to fully mounted pages, but also to news feeds.  Some feed have ads imbeded in them, and the terms of use do not allow removal of them. So if we apply our no ads rule to external content then we reduce our sources.

RSS feeds have been a positive thing for us.  The external content pages have given us a boost.  So my feeling is that we should not bite the hand that feeds us(no pun intended).  I don't want to have a ton of ads being thrown at out users, but a lot of content especially from feeds is being financed by advertising, so IMO we need to be selective, but not exclusionary.

We have a resource page with links; are those ads?  In some cases the links are there because they are reciprocal, and get us good placement in directories.  If a page includes the logo for W3C because that page is compliant is that link an ad? Is the logo for the Creative Common Copyright an ad?

Richard mentioned internal ads... a good point.  If we put a small graphic and bit of text on the forum pages to promote a newly written tutorial, does that violate the no ads policy.  Does the "Why ERT is free" page violate the no ads policy by using a text link and ert logo to invite users to come to the forum and register.

Then we have the about to be introduced extended members' profile pages and subdomains.  I have always consider using them for promotion of self and ones business to be a benefit we could offer Mentors.  Does the no ad policy extend to member subdomains.  If I place an ad on coboldinosaur.expertsrt.com am I breaking the rules? If so, then I am already breaking the rules because I promote ERT and SE on my subdomain pages.

The primary source of revenue for this site down the road will be sponsored forums.  Will it violate the no ad policy if we put up something like: "This month we have a featured forum on Database Managment software sponsored by Oracle" with a small oracle logo?  Would it be an add to put: "Visit the PHP forum where Zend Certified Engineer and ERT Mentor Richard Quadling is the featured Mentor of the month"?  For that matter is Richard violating no ads with an avatar that promotes Zend?

Should the rule be strictly ban anything that looks like an ad; ban anything that promotes external products or content; or ban paid ads?  I think we need to know what the community wants.  I think the best way to work through and get a detailed set of guidelines is to elect a Governing council to work through the issues.  A second and workable alternative is to break it down into a series of questions and then conduct votes on the issues to get the rules defined.

This topic is the start of the kind of policy discussion and perhaps debate, that will either make the site a unique democratic model or demonstrate that you have to have a central authority to run things. We need to define some policy, so we need to determine how we are going to do that and get the job done.

Food for thought,

I have always supported that well targeted ads are an asset, not an annoyance.

A banner that says "Download Firefox and browse safely" in a browsers thread can only do good for everybody.

However, and ad that reads "Oracle uses new technology for advanced table linking" in the HTML area can only be an annoyance.

The balance must be managed carefully, but if done properly ads can be a very good thing to happen to ERT.

Frankly I think it's upto the author to decide. During the days I waqs freelancing through college, I had contextual ads on my websites. I needed the money, and I was not forcing anyone to click or see the ads. I believe the author is entitled to some compensation for his good work.

Set up a poll, simmer some more, or pass off to the Council?  :wink:

I suggest a poll to be set up, but this is my view

I personally would not want ads of any type on this site. Even if it is related to the content. Its just that ads just add clutter and confusion to the page. ERT needs a clean fresh look without any distractions and be focused on the help and information it has to offer.

In this case, the first post points to a ERT page which has the authors personal website page framed in. We're talking about ads on the authors personal homepage.  :wink:

Personally, I am opposed to ads on the site, but not promotion of internal item, partners or crediting the sources of free content.  Every time a link to another site is posted along with a favorable comment that can be considered an ad.

However, it is a community issues that has broad impact and defines to some extent what the site is and will be. I think limits, guidelines and definitions are far to complex for a simple "are you in favor of ads onthe site yes/no" type of question.  So how about we do a vote with three options:

• Defer the issues for action by the Governing council.
• Set up a committee to study it and make recommendations that the community can then debate and vote on.  
• Set up a topic devoted to debating the issue with spin off topics as need and votes set for each issue as it matures.

I favour the first but the other two are workable though somewhat more cumbersome.  Part of what we need to do is work out how our democracy is going to work when we have multi-faceted issues that cand be dealt with in a single simple vote.

So shall we ask coral to set up the vote, or do we need further discussion, or do you think the options suck and there is a better way to do it.

Cd&

I suggest setting up a poll and i agree with your first point in the list

How about a system that gives the people an important vote while leaving the results in the hands of the council. I think democracy by itself doesn't work because if everybody in the realm casts a vote on every issues the result is a bunch of votes made mainly by people who don't know what they want and how things work enough to know what they are saying. How could that be any useful?

However, decisions solely made by a council are often deprived from the point of view of the average member, and in some cases the matters being analyzed are as difficult for the council as they would be for the average member.

So, I would recommend something like:
35% of weight on the public vote for all members
65% of weight on the Council votes
And a solution needs to have a minimum of 60% of favor or it has to go back to the studying table (discussions about it, informing people about it, maybe some campaigning in the future, reformulating the question and then recast votes).

This one is going to be fun.

 :scratch:  :scratch:  :scratch:

I don't get it. The link in the first post is clearly an ERT page framing an External Site. What right should ERT's governing council have to decide if the External page can have ads or not? Is this not the discreeting of the external page's author?  :scratch:

The only thing ERT's council can vote on is to decide whether ERT should frame external sites with ads or not. :-#

As I understand it, this is about ads on ERT, not linked member sites used for content.

There may be a option not use a site IF it is loaded with ads, but that's not what is being voted on now.

IMO, and not to discredit your point, even when framed the page gets accessed through the ERT navigation system and becomes part of ERT. Because of that ERT has the right to set rules and quality standards or the link just won't be allowed. Yes, the content is owned by the author and perhaps only available through the author's site, but it is still being displayed at ERT and is either abiding by the site's rules or simply not allowed. It may sound a bit dramatic, but it is in everybody's best interest; besides, I don't think authors have problems complying since most of the authors are the same people helping define the rules.

I wouldn't want ERT dictating me rules I should follow on my website. ;) It's a matter for jurisdiction and principle.

Agreed. But that's not the point.

I agree with that, but then members have to abide by the rules or their content doesn't get posted. Members can have whatever they want on their websites, but the stuff they want posted on ERT has to follow ERT's guidelines.

In the city where I live, every three years, we elect a City Council and Mayor.  They holde public council meetings where individuals may asked to be put on the adgenda as a delegation to make a presentation on any issue that the Council has before it.  

After hearing delegates, doing research and debating issues the Council may vote on the issue, defer it for further study, or decide that it requires  a vote by the citizens. In some municipalites there are some types of bylaws that require a vote of the citizens, because of broad impact.  

If members of that Council screw up, they will get tossed out of office in the next election.  It gives you a small group of active members who represent the wider community; and who are accountable to it. That means you have a group doing the analysis to understand the issues being voted on; staying active on important issues; and making sure that there is support for the actions taken. If the whole community votes on everything, you get voter apathy, you have no accountablility, and it is very difficult to actually get good legislation.

Just look at ERT.  When we started we had a bunch of votes.  The first few had high participation, and then it started to fall off.  Important issues like the Members agreement got less participation then the vote on whether to keep smilies.  There was broad participation on simple things, but the complex issues had very low voter turnout.  

How many votes are going to be required to resolve this issue of ads on the site?

Let's walk through the simple way to do it, and see it it makes sense to schedule all the votes necessary.

Vote 1:  Shall we allow ads? yes/no/maybe/

If yes wins then the next day are popups, popunders, flash banners, text links, and referrals all allowed?  Will ads for porno site, gambling, Viagra, and penis enlargement be allowed?

If no wins does that mean only ads directly on the site are not allowed? Frames content? Linked content?  Can you post a link to a site that carries adds? Can ERT promote itself?  Does the ban extend to member sub-domains and profiles?

If maybe wins; what does that mean?

So before we can have a vote on ads we are going to need some definitions, and parameters.  Are there ads that we will never consider having on the site?  If so we need definitions for banned ads, befeore we can make any other decision about whether or not we are going to allow ads. Are there sites that we will never allow links to because of the ads they carry? More study and definition need. Is ERT promoting some feature of ERT considered and ad?  Are news feeds barred because they constitute an ad for the site providing the feed?  Is external content banned if it carries ads?  Does the links page have to be removed because the links are considered ads?  Does framed content have to conform to ERT rules? Does linked content have to comply to ERT rules?  Are Mentors not allowed to do self promotion in their profiles...  If so that that will require ammendments to previously passed items like the Members agreement and Mentors's Charter?  Are avatars like the one Richard uses ads?  If a Mentor recommends a book or another web site is that an ad?  If recommending another site is allowed, does that site have to comply with ERT no ad rules to be allowed?  Is it okay to post free ads for non-profit charitable groups? If yes, how is that group defined?

After all of that, if anyone is still interested in just one more vote; we can hold Vote 1.  Very few will understand what we are actually voting to do.  Most will be tired of votes on ads.  The day after the vote is passed, it will appear to be getting violated, because someone will have found a loophole (all complex sets of rules have loopholes). So now we will debate whether to allow the loophole or change the rules. So another round of votes to define what we are going to vote on.

Meanwhile another dozen complex issues are going through the same definition, refinment, debate, and vote process. A demoracy like that is guaranteed to die choking on apathy, confusion, and a backlog of votes, and debates about what the rules actually are.  Without a small legislative group to digest the complex inacting issues; the demoracy will fail and revert to the common model of arbitray administration acting to keep things functioning and making up the rules as they go along waiting for someone to figure out what the community actually wants and supports.  

We can do the direct vote right now for some simple issues because the community is still small, but even with the small group we have voter turnout averages less than 20%; only a small group have been participating; and there is real danger of this becoming an aristocracy instead of a democracy if that trend continues for too long.

If you want an aristocracy instead of a democracy, that is fine with me as long as I am the King and have absolute power. :wink:

Cd&

I agree with Esopo's last point. I haven't really formed an opinion on ads myself, but as to the general idea of dictating what members can and cannot put on their sites: you have a right to put whatever content on your site you want, be it ads, racist propaganda, pornography, religious texts, athiestic articles, links to government websites, none or all of the above. But ERT has a right to decide whether or not to associate itself with your site. It's just that simple. So, the issue is not whether people can put content on their site (they have the passwords, anyway, right?), it's whether or not ERT should include your content if it includes certain types of material that the community has agreed is not appropriate for ERT. Some of the things I listed above obviously fall into that category; whether ads do or not is what we have to decide.

So that leaves just one question: when do we vote on the Council :wink:

I am prepared to post a proposal for election of the Governing Council if we are ready to hold an election.  However the growth of membership has been slower than I originally anticipated, and I think that it might be best at this time to elect a smaller interim Governing Council for a short term of 6 or 8 months and let them sort out things like election rules; how the Council will work; how the democracy will work and complex issues that already need to be addressed.

I have not done it up to this point, because the serious polititcal issues for the site seem not to get the attention and participation that less important things like smilies and site features seem to get.

If we are ready we can move ahead, or we can wait until we are ready.

Cd&

The longer we wait to start making decisions, the longer it will be until they are made, and the less progress there will be. I agree that we should probably have a fairly short term for the first group, but it seems like now is as good a time as any to move forward. If nothing else, there are people here with skills that are not being utilized who could make good decisions, especially in consultation with experts more familiar with the technology we are using. Getting them more involved would be a good thing, and help take some of the load off of others. Give people responsibility, and they will act more responsibly (as you described above) provided you don't choose extremely useless people, and I havent seen many around here. The "Help Wanted" thread got at least a couple people who have not had much chance to contribute to help out, and those tasks required specialized skills.

I don't think the decisions that any council we elect now makes will be terrible. If they are, they can always get changed by the next one, which will be elected itself in the fairly near future.

Well said.

I will have the propsal for an Iterim Governing Council up later today or some time tomorrow. Our vote overseer, Coral1 has got this one, so let's move toward getting an election done, and start the journey.

 :cheers:

:thumbup:

=D>

I agree with what you say, but think you can not define acceptable without creating too much work.

In my case, with the exception of the link back to my site (about me), my submissions have been (and are) separate from my other site pages...e.g. no ads, BUT ... I suppose absent some restriction from ERT, I would be free to plop an ad into those articles since they exist on my site.

I also agree with Cd&, that we need to be careful how the rules are written lest we offend authors or provide complexity which leads to loop hole arguments.

If participation is an issue, then adding further administrative burden (policing the policy) will not be constructive.  Best keep this rule very simple...which tends to make me think we should err on the side of offending authors (sorry Srirangan) and say no ads in the pages submitted as content for the site.