Request to have my site added to pricelesswarehome

  • Thread starter Thread starter vbMark
  • Start date Start date
burnr skrev:
Click to expand...
That would be a problem for me. I have links to my own adult content
sites from my homepage (not hardcore, but anyway)...
Click to expand...

I've been meaning to tell you for a while, nice work Vegard. ;)
I have always thought of the members sites as a way for us to get to know
each other better. SOS with his horses, REM with his goats , and Vegard
with his fish. :p
 
John said:
Susan Bugher wrote:

I would say no. Susan, you might want to start a poll in a new thread,
since people may not see your question buried in this thread.
Click to expand...

I did ask for feedback on "commercial content" in a recent thread about the "rules" for the members
sites page - there was little response (1 or 2 posts) regarding that.

ISTM the content of the members sites web page should be acceptable to the great majority of
newsgroup participants so I specifically requested objections. To date only six people have said
they object. IMO six objections aren't enough to warrant a new "rule" prohibiting commercial content.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)
 
burnr skrev:

That would be a problem for me. I have links to my own adult content
sites from my homepage (not hardcore, but anyway)...

regards from vegard
Click to expand...

Links are not the same as having it on your listed site. You do not
exercise control over the content at the linked site and you can place
a warning message next to the link.
 
I did ask for feedback on "commercial content" in a recent thread about the "rules" for the members
sites page - there was little response (1 or 2 posts) regarding that.

ISTM the content of the members sites web page should be acceptable to the great majority of
newsgroup participants so I specifically requested objections. To date only six people have said
they object. IMO six objections aren't enough to warrant a new "rule" prohibiting commercial content.

Susan
Click to expand...
*** Warning ***

Opening up the ACF Member Sites page to Commercial Content also opens up
the ACF newsgroup for discussion of Commercial Programs and Shareware
Programs.

*** Warning ***

Some Freeware Sites started allowing Shareware, and now they are mostly
Shareware: You know which ones they are: Yup! The ones you avoid now.
 
Commercial content on a participants personal site is ok with me. A
simple statement stating such should be included in the description
though. I don't see that as a conflict with the intent of this ng.
Participation here is from a vastly diverse group of people with many
interests other than just freeware. Personal sites are often expressions
of that diversity and varied interests.

I am ok with allowing the "members web sites listing" to be just that
and not mandate that the content must be one thing or another with
exceptions noted below. It is a seperate thing from this ng.
Click to expand...

Six people posted objections to commercial content. From that I infer that *most* people in the
newsgroup agree with you.
I would promote though that sites that contain explicit adult content,
warez, hate, and political agendas be excluded though. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Religion and sex are there now, we *need* politics to complete the "big three" hot topics
for debate. . . ;)
Whatever is decided, a new and improved description of what is and isn't
allowed to be listed will need to be added and probably some sort of
disclaimer.
Click to expand...

I don't think we need rules to cover all eventualities (so far we haven't had a request to list a
Warez site). ISTM if someone finds a site request objectionable they can post their objection for
discussion and decision making.

Proposed revision for the note at the top of the members sites web page:

The web sites listed below belong to alt.comp.freeware newsgroup participants. Site content varies.
Many sites are dedicated to freeware. Some are about other personal interests. Some sites have
commercial content.

Suggestions for improvement?
Hold on...I predict...Now Playing! at a fav. ng near you...more work for
Susan. :)
Click to expand...

nope, no, not if I can help it. . . KISS. . . ;)

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)
 
Mel said:
Opening up the ACF Member Sites page to Commercial Content also opens up
the ACF newsgroup for discussion of Commercial Programs and Shareware
Programs.
Click to expand...

That statement is just plain silly. Below are some of the descriptions listed now. Those topics are
not discussed here nor are any other off topic subjects mentioned on the members sites page.

"poems, humorous and encouraging stories"
"Scotland's Tantallon Castle"
"Healing, Reincarnation, Mediumship, Spirit Guides"
"Farm life and photos from eastern Texas"

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)
 
Mel said:
*** Warning ***

Opening up the ACF Member Sites page to Commercial Content also opens
up the ACF newsgroup for discussion of Commercial Programs and
Shareware Programs.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Some of the current Member Sites discuss matters which are way
off-topic for this newsgroup: a castle in Scotland, for example.
About half are primarily devoted to stuff off-topic for acf. They have
not resulted in such things being discussed in the newsgroup.


--
Dan Goodman
Journal http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsgood/
Clutterers Anonymous unofficial community
http://www.livejournal.com/community/clutterers_anon/
Decluttering http://decluttering.blogspot.com
Predictions and Politics http://dsgood.blogspot.com
All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies.
John Arbuthnot (1667-1735), Scottish writer, physician.
 
Susan Bugher wrote in said:
Freeware related is not a requirement
Click to expand...

I think it should be. And if it is, you would have a much easier time
ruling out those sites that does not conform to some of the unwritten
(more or less) norms here , say like no warez, no make money fast etc.

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen
 
Susan said:
Freeware related is not a requirement. It does have to be a personal site. I should have posted the
link to the members sites page - doing that now:

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/Members.php

at the top of the page:

"Please note that not all sites are dedicated to Freeware."

at the bottom of the page:

"Sites are added "by request". If you participate in alt.comp.freeware and would like to have your
personal web site listed post your request in the newsgroup."

There are no stated rules about site content. OTOH I think a request to list a *Warez* site should
be denied as inappropriate. Is listing sites with some commercial content also inappropriate? Should
an individual's site be listed on the ACF Members Sites page if it has commercial content or would
such listings conflict with the "freeware mission" of this newsgroup?

Susan
--
Click to expand...

If a site has commercial content it is, ipso facto, not exclusively a
freeware site. There for it is not allowed.
My opinion of course.
Omar
 
Susan said:
Freeware related is not a requirement. It does have to be a personal site. I should have posted the
link to the members sites page - doing that now:

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/Members.php

at the top of the page:

"Please note that not all sites are dedicated to Freeware."

at the bottom of the page:

"Sites are added "by request". If you participate in alt.comp.freeware and would like to have your
personal web site listed post your request in the newsgroup."

There are no stated rules about site content. OTOH I think a request to list a *Warez* site should
be denied as inappropriate. Is listing sites with some commercial content also inappropriate? Should
an individual's site be listed on the ACF Members Sites page if it has commercial content or would
such listings conflict with the "freeware mission" of this newsgroup?

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)
Click to expand...
Susan I have to disagree, if it is not "freeware" related it has no place
here.
JMO
Omar
 
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 22:09:22 -0400, Susan Bugher

The above two sites are a departure from the norm. I'd like some feedback from the group please.
Should an individual's site should be listed on the ACF Members Sites page if it has commercial
content? If there are a substantial number of objections to commercial content I will not list such
sites on the members sites page. A simple yes or no response is fine.
Click to expand...

A simple "yes" or "no" is not IMO a satisfactory answer to a complex
issue. If one says "yes" then everyone with "get rich quick" schemes
will want to be listed. As will many "commercial" sites.

If one says "no" then a home page with eg. 95% "home page" (free) info
and 5% commercial content will be banned. What happens to home pages
that are funded by advertising ? Do they all go because there may be a
one line advert down the bottom of the page ?

Commercial content IMO isn't the issue. 5% might be fine. The AMOUNT
OF COMMERCIAL CONTENT is the issue. Most sites are clearly (mainly)
about making money from people while others are clearly (mainly) about
providing free information/software. So deciding what is "commercial",
or not, isn't hard to do.

I think that all member sites should be open to "objection" if there
is too much "commercial" content and/or "get rich quick" or non web
host "affiliate" schemes listed on them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You could add to the PL pages ;

Most "member's pages" do not have any ads or commercial content.
Though some might. Any/all of the latter sites may be removed, at any
time, on a site by site basis if a majority of other members deem the
ads, and/or commercial content, excessive.

Sites that are clearly "commercial", and/or have many adverts, will
almost certainly not be approved for listing in the first place so
this should be considered when people provide nominations.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, we leave things as they are with the option to remove any site
that the majority of us find have "excessive" advertising/commercial
content.

"Excessive" does not have to be exactly defined. A vote on contentious
sites should sort that out if required.

Anyone here prefer my approach ?

A simple yes or no response is fine. < he he > :-) :-) :-)


Regards, John.
 
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 22:09:22 -0400, Susan Bugher



A simple "yes" or "no" is not IMO a satisfactory answer to a complex
issue. If one says "yes" then everyone with "get rich quick" schemes
will want to be listed. As will many "commercial" sites.

If one says "no" then a home page with eg. 95% "home page" (free) info
and 5% commercial content will be banned. What happens to home pages
that are funded by advertising ? Do they all go because there may be a
one line advert down the bottom of the page ?

Commercial content IMO isn't the issue. 5% might be fine. The AMOUNT
OF COMMERCIAL CONTENT is the issue. Most sites are clearly (mainly)
about making money from people while others are clearly (mainly) about
providing free information/software. So deciding what is "commercial",
or not, isn't hard to do.

I think that all member sites should be open to "objection" if there
is too much "commercial" content and/or "get rich quick" or non web
host "affiliate" schemes listed on them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You could add to the PL pages ;

Most "member's pages" do not have any ads or commercial content.
Though some might. Any/all of the latter sites may be removed, at any
time, on a site by site basis if a majority of other members deem the
ads, and/or commercial content, excessive.

Sites that are clearly "commercial", and/or have many adverts, will
almost certainly not be approved for listing in the first place so
this should be considered when people provide nominations.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, we leave things as they are with the option to remove any site
that the majority of us find have "excessive" advertising/commercial
content.

"Excessive" does not have to be exactly defined. A vote on contentious
sites should sort that out if required.

Anyone here prefer my approach ?

A simple yes or no response is fine. < he he > :-) :-) :-)

Regards, John.
Click to expand...
When you go to a 50s/60s car show: What do you expect to see? Cars from
the 1950s/1960s! (not Boats) The owners are there showing off their
cars!

When you go to the ACF Members Page on Pricelesswarehome.org: What do
you expect to find? Links to ACF Member Freeware Sites! (not sites
totally devoid of freeware) The ACF Members should be showing off their
Freeware Sites! (And their seems to be quite a few nice ones)

Is the focus of the ACF Member Site Freeware? If not then it shouldn't
be listed on the ACF Member Page.
 
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 22:09:22 -0400, Susan Bugher


I say no - even as a long-time contributor to the group, and the owner
of a site that, despite being 'commercial', doesn't fit in with the
traditional image of a business site.

I'd have liked to have said yes, but I feel that this could lead to
the administrators of the ACF site having to make some complicated
decsions rather like the one that prompted this thread.

I'm happy enough to be able to promote my site here via my sig.
Click to expand...

Ohh, I just noticed - I don't! Doh!

Ah well...one for old time's sake?

Regards,
 
Hi vbMark (and old jon),

IMO it is inappropriate to have a description that says "make money"
on alt.comp.freeware's web site. I'd like to have that wording revised
please.

Most sites have no ads or commercial content. A few sites have some
advertising - by the site's host, ads by Google etc. At the present
time we do list one site that is commercial. It's been on the member's
page for a long time - IIRC it hasn't always been commercial. See:

http://abintrapress.netfirms.com/

Your site has some commercial content - especially the vbMark-Mart web
page:

http://www.vbmark.com/shop/index.php

The above two sites are a departure from the norm. I'd like some
feedback from the group please. Should an individual's site should be
listed on the ACF Members Sites page if it has commercial content? If
there are a substantial number of objections to commercial content I
will not list such sites on the members sites page. A simple yes or no
response is fine.

TIA

Susan
Click to expand...

In my defense to the other posters, I do not have any Shareware on my site.

The point of my freeware section is to make it easy for those who do not
want to, or know how to, pick from different freeware programs that do the
same thing, find a good solution. I have tried the programs and selected
the best; or in the case of equivalence, the one I like better.

What does everyone think of this site:
http://www.freewarehome.com/
It is one of my favorites, they are partly commercial but it does not take
away from the fact that they are a good source of freeware.

How and why has money become an evil word here? When it comes to software,
I agree, I want it free! When it comes to helping my friends make money to
pay for their DSL, web hosting, gasoline, then that is not related to
paying money for software. That is related to bringing money in. If that
is not a concern for you then ignore it.

The question comes down to this, should a site be allowed to be listed if
it has any other subject besides free software? I think the answer should
be this:

Is the site useful in helping people find the freeware that they need?

I believe that in regards to my site the answer is yes.

Thank you for you time and consideration.
 
The question comes down to this, should a site be allowed to be listed if
it has any other subject besides free software? I think the answer should
be this:

Is the site useful in helping people find the freeware that they need?
Click to expand...

Hi vbMark,

The issue is the inclusion of commercial content. Please reread the question.

Your site has been added. I used the title of your index page "Best Freeware" as the site description.

I have revised the notes at the top of the members sites web page. They now read:

<q>
Personal web sites of some of alt.comp.freeware's regular participants. Many sites are dedicated to
freeware. Some are about other interests. Some sites have commercial content.
</q>

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/Members.php

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)
 
Bjorn said:
Susan Bugher wrote in <[email protected]>:

I think it should be. And if it is, you would have a much easier time
ruling out those sites that does not conform to some of the unwritten
(more or less) norms here , say like no warez, no make money fast etc.
Click to expand...

I believe *originally* the members sites list was only Freeware sites. (Google was not my friend - I
don't know when the change occurred.) We could certainly return to a requirement that sites must be
Freeware related if the group is in favor of that.

I don't share your optimism that decision making would be easier - I think we would simply have a
different set of issues to contend with. Is the site's definition of Freeware acceptable? Is this
site's content off topic etc. etc. etc.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)
 
<q>
Personal web sites of some of alt.comp.freeware's regular
participants. Many sites are dedicated to freeware. Some are about
other interests. Some sites have commercial content. </q>
Click to expand...


Ah, disclaimer. That's a good idea.
 
John said:
You could add to the PL pages ;

Most "member's pages" do not have any ads or commercial content.
Though some might. Any/all of the latter sites may be removed, at any
time, on a site by site basis if a majority of other members deem the
ads, and/or commercial content, excessive.
Click to expand...

That's too much or too little. Other kinds of site content may be objectionable.
Sites that are clearly "commercial", and/or have many adverts, will
almost certainly not be approved for listing in the first place so
this should be considered when people provide nominations.
Click to expand...

Listings of personal sites are "requested". They are not "nominated" and not "approved". We're not
discussing Pricelessware. . .
So, we leave things as they are with the option to remove any site
that the majority of us find have "excessive" advertising/commercial
content.

"Excessive" does not have to be exactly defined. A vote on contentious
sites should sort that out if required.
Click to expand...

If only a few people vote are the vote results a true expression of majority opinion? IMO a valid
sampling requires a fairly high level of participation by the group. That's often difficult to
achieve.
Anyone here prefer my approach ?
Click to expand...

IMO that's pretty much the approach we have now. Requests are posted. If someone finds the site
content objectionable they can state their objections. If there's *substantial* support for the
objection the request will be denied. If there's *substantial* discussion and the majority opinion
is not clear the group will be polled.

The main difference I see is your assumption that we can make valid decisions that express the will
of the majority by simply holding a vote on each and every objection/issue. I don't theenk so. . .

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)
 
Back
Top