Back Home

Open Designs

Community. Driven.

Site Specific: [Sticky] Site Rules & Design Submission Guidelines (Last Updated: 25 May 2008)

Bottom of Page

251 to 300 of 389

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. >
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJenZz
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008 edited by JJenZz on the 25th May 2008 at 12:14:02 EDT
     
    Posted By: perthmetro I see professional designers spit out lots of very ordinary blog designs purely to use OD as a means to show sponsored links and be seen.

    Those are not the ones doing this for a living. Those are the ones doing this for hits to their site. There's a difference.

    Posted By: perthmetro
    Nice designs Jen. To be honest until you showed me them I didn't realise you were that capable... can you see my point now why it's good for you and your $$ to show us what your 'capable' of?

    Thanks bigsmile but I don't have to show what I am capable of here in order to get paid work. What I submit at the moment brings in work already.

    What I am saying sounds so selfish, but it's not. Time means money for freelancers and the more time they spend making templates for this site for free, the more it damages their income.

    We like to help the community and we do, but to expect us to spend hours on end doing this stuff for nothing is just ridiculous. I want to help, but if I do I can only afford to do so if I get something in return. I am happy with just the hits back to my site and downloaders keeping my link but obviously some freelancers feel they need more than that, which i think is fair enough.

    Posted By: perthmetroHmmm, not so appealing when the shoe's on the other foot hey!

    How is the shoe on the other foot there? lol that is ridiculous. We do not charge you to use templates that contain sponsored links, in fact we do not charge you at all!

    Posted By: gnomeYou are ODT? now that clears up a lot of confusion for me (I still read bits and pieces of the forum at OWD)

    Haha yup :P

    Posted By: perthmetroLet those who don't want to submit designs without SL find another place. If there is no other place and they go hungry then that's not our problem. We are not here to pay for their food.

    Hmm, maybe I'll create that 'other place' but without these crappy rules wink

    Posted By: gnome Christopher: I am hoping that no one will take issue with that proposal, so that we can move forward.

    I'll accept whatever decision is made on this, because as I have said before... I don't use sponsored links but that doesn't mean I think that decision would be right. *shrug*

    I have added my vote (to this unfair poll) anyways...bakie
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJenZz
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008 edited by JJenZz on the 25th May 2008 at 12:23:48 EDT
     
    perthmetro: you mustn't forget that submitting something amazing to a free site only makes people assume they can buy something unique and just as good from you, for next to nothing. That is not the case and not the impression I ever want to give. If clients want something better they have to be prepared to pay the cash and when I create stuff that I put more effort into, it shows it is worth the money because it is better than the stuff I offer free.

    I mean, if someone offered something free and then charged me for something that was the same quality, I would be livid.

    But I digress.... again tongue
    •  
      CommentAuthoryugnats
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    i voted yes because personally i think sponsored links should be allowed as long as they were limited (maybe one or 2) and they could be completely removed by the downloader. maybe forcing a public domain license on a template that uses sponsored links or something to that affect might even work?? i know i love the higher quality templates but hate the CC license attached to most of them.

    i'm a developer who usually only downloads templates to hack apart for apps and for learning but i can certainly see the designers points of view as well. JJenZz is right about the higher quality templates and i for one would hate to see them go but i dont want OD to turn into a link farm either. its a tough call and someone is going to be upset but its better we get this out of the way now...
    • CommentAuthorTrin
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    Posted By: JJenZzI mean, if someone offered something free and then charged me for something that was the same quality, I would be livid.


    There is a difference between a wonderful free template that a couple of thousand websites are using, and a one-of-a-kind template of the same quality, custom designed for a client.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSean
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    @yugnats: The main issue wasn't the paid sponsored link per se, it was having it mandatory that the paid sponsor link remains when you use the design.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJeremyD
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    which is why I don't get why we're voting on sponsored links at all. The main issue, as sean said, was requiring sponsored links remain.
    • CommentAuthorfernbap
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    Posted By: JJenZzWhat I submit at the moment brings in work already.


    So, you are not doing it for free, right? You are getting something from this website, as you say. And getting money out of it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJenZz
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008 edited by JJenZz on the 25th May 2008 at 13:30:54 EDT
     
    Posted By: TrinThere is a difference between a wonderful free template that a couple of thousand websites are using, and a one-of-a-kind template of the same quality, custom designed for a client.

    Of course there is a difference, but if I charged nothing for something amazing on here and then £500 for something that's unique, clients are going to get a shock of a lifetime. They assume you will create something the same quality for them, that's unique for not much of an increase in cost.

    If you make a site for someone for £50 and someone else finds out, they will assume they can get the same from you for a similar price. They assume you are happy to work for tuppence and they're clients I wouldn't want to waste my time on.

    If I were freelancing fulltime, I'd have my up to date portfolio online which would show that what I do for money far exceeds that which I do for free and potential clients that visit my site would know not to expect a freebie.

    You get what you pay for at the end of the day and the downloaders pay nothing so designers (freelancers) aren't going to bust a gut here.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJenZz
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008 edited by JJenZz on the 25th May 2008 at 13:31:36 EDT
     
    Posted By: JeremyDwhich is why I don't get why we're voting on sponsored links at all. The main issue, as sean said, was requiring sponsored links remain.

    Exactly!!! This is why I have no idea why this has got to this extent... because removable sponsored links do not effect the community/downloaders in any way! Especially if the rel="nofollow" is put in place.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJenZz
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    Posted By: fernbapSo, you are not doing it for free, right? You are getting something from this website, as you say. And getting money out of it.

    I am yes. Which is why I don't use sponsored links. I do not need to. But others clearly do.

    Not sure what point you were trying to make there.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSean
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008 edited by Sean on the 25th May 2008 at 13:37:26 EDT
     
    People get exposure from OD.

    It costs nothing to be on, use or add designs to OD.

    OpenDesigns provides a site (free of charge) for designers to upload and show off their work.

    They get a profile page with a link to their own website which gets a lot of Google SEO and other search engine traffic.

    There is the forum to post information on new designs, information, etc.

    The original OD admins (Joe, Christopher and myself) spent weeks and weeks building, coding, testing, etc to get OD up and running. We did not get paid for any of this. All our time and energy was provided free of charge. We continue to work on things, free of charge.

    Moderators help with things too. Also free of charge.

    Various users/members have also donated time to help bug test and fix things with the OD code. Again, free of charge.

    Paid sponsored links I understand but making them a requirement in use of a design is wrong to me. Author links I think are perfectly fine.

    I think if it's decided sponsored/paid links can stay, they need a rel="nofollow" at least to the OD preview if the design. After that, it's up in the air...
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJenZz
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008 edited by JJenZz on the 25th May 2008 at 13:51:22 EDT
     
    Yes Sean, the designers do get all of that from OpenDesigns but all of that does not always equal cash. Freelancers need cash... they do this for a living.

    The admins did create this site for free and spend weeks doing it so if you want money from an opensource site, all you can do is add paid links. Oh wait, you have! Google adsense and various other link ads added to forum posts. So you see, you are monetising your opensource site... why can't us designers monetise our opensource templates? Everyone likes to make a lil something back for their hard work even if it's just to help pay for their hard work to continue (e.g. hosting etc.).

    If you are going to remove sponsored links from templates, I think all paid links should be removed from OpenDesigns, personally.

    Posted By: SeanPaid sponsored links I understand but making them a requirement in use of a design is wrong to me. Author links I think are perfectly fine.

    So why did you vote no for sponsored links in the poll? I too understand paid sponsored links and also agree that they shouldn't be a requirement.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJenZz
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008 edited by JJenZz on the 25th May 2008 at 13:49:40 EDT
     
    Oh and OpenDesigns gets most of that in return for the designers efforts also. Designers submitting our designs to OpenDesigns improves OpenDesigns SEO and brings the community regular traffic.

    This site couldn't run without your hard efforts and our portfolios wouldn't have the attention they receive without this site but at the same time, this site couldn't run without our hard efforts and this site wouldn't have the attention it recieves without our designs.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSean
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008 edited by Sean on the 25th May 2008 at 13:54:34 EDT
     
    @JJenZz: The Google Adsense is in place to earn money to cover for upcoming contests and future hosting as well since we won't always have donated hosting.

    The admins have not used any of the Adsense money for personal use. Only site related things.

    Google Adsense being on the site was also voted on way back when. Having people add paid links to designs and making it required to keep that link was just done without asking anyone's thoughts, idea's or even a vote on it.

    I voted no on sponsored links because it was a yes or no answer. There wasn't room in the question for reasons why I would say yes or no.

    I would vote yes IF the paid sponsored links could be removed if you used a design and/ or if the link had the rel="nofollow" in place.

    When I've used designs from OD, I've either donated money to the author, paid for link removal or even just asked the author about possible other ways to use the design with or without credit links.

    The main thing is communication with designers and authors... not just doing something without talking about it.

    The design and author RamblingSoul who this all started around just did it and didn't disclose at first he was paid for the link placement. Then we find not only was he paid (which is fine), it was a license requirement to keep that link if you used the design, which is what I don't agree with.
    • CommentAuthorfernbap
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008 edited by fernbap on the 25th May 2008 at 13:55:40 EDT
     
    Posted By: JJenZz
    Not sure what point you were trying to make there.

    My point is simple. Designers are not "giving away designs for free". They get something is return, something that would cost them a lot of money using other methods for getting exposure and links.
    But, apparently, some think they are not getting "payed enough" and want more.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJenZz
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    Posted By: Sean@JJenZz: The Google Adsense is in place to earn money to cover for upcoming contests and future hosting as well since we won't always have donated hosting.

    The admins have not used any of the Adsense money for personal use. Only site related things.

    And maybe that is what the designers need the cash for? They need to host their portfolios too and keep their domains renewed.

    Posted By: SeanHaving people add paid links to designs and making it required to keep that link was just done without asking anyone's thoughts

    But now it has, so just stop them from being a requirement and the problem is solved. No one is effected.

    Posted By: Sean
    I would vote yes IF the paid sponsored links could be removed if you used a design and/ or if the link had the rel="nofollow" in place.

    And I voted yes for the same reasons. Your answer is really a yes not a no. By saying no, you are saying sponsored links should not be allowed under any circumstance, however it is clear you feel there is a circumstance for them to be allowed.
    •  
      CommentAuthorNickyD
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    Posted By: SeanI would vote yes IF the paid sponsored links could be removed if you used a design
    The same for me.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSean
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008 edited by Sean on the 25th May 2008 at 14:00:21 EDT
     
    @JJenZz: You also mentioned way up in the comments about you possibly putting up a site similar to OD... go for it. The more the merrier I say but you or anyone else who puts up a design site with free downloads, etc will run into the same issues here on OD.

    I was an admin on OSWD back in 2002 until OWD went up, in which I was also an admin there as well, until OD went up... and guess what? All along the way each site has had it's good and bad... there will never be a site that makes everyone happy. Never.

    Too many people trying to make decisions... too many people with ideas... and a lot of people who can't agree to disagree... it's very tiring...
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJenZz
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    Posted By: fernbapBut, apparently, some thing they are not getting "payed enough" and want more.

    Maybe they don't just think it... maybe they really aren't getting paid enough. In which case i'd say "you're obviously in the wrong industry" lol but each to their own.

    Posted By: fernbapThey get something is return, something that would cost them a lot of money using other methods for getting exposure and links.

    And OpenDesigns get's that in return for us submitting here. So it's not like we're getting something OpenDesigns isn't.
    • CommentAuthorfernbap
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    Posted By: JJenZzIn which case i'd say "you're obviously in the wrong industry"

    You're probably right wink
    But you are forgetting which industry is this one. This industry is OPEN SOURCE. And the concept is just being ignored.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJenZz
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    Posted By: SeanThe more the merrier I say but you or anyone else who puts up a design site with free downloads, etc will run into the same issues here on OD.

    I wasn't being serious when I said that haha that's why I added a smiley! But if I did I certainly wouldn't run into problems that were drawn out this far. I am far too dominant for that and I would have set the simplest most reasonable rule in place ages ago... which is to allow sponsored links with rel="nofollow" and stop them from being a requirement. But hey.

    Posted By: SeanAll along the way each site has had it's good and bad... there will never be a site that makes everyone happy. Never.

    That's common sense, but it's not about making everyone happy. I mean, imagine what a state the government would be in if that's what they had to do. It's about setting the most effective/reasonable rules that you see fit at the time, putting your foot down as soon as possible and not worrying about the cry babies. Rules can be changed later.


    Posted By: NickyDThe same for me.

    Then your vote also should have been a yes, since you can see a circumstance where sponsored links would be fine. You are all currently voting that there is absolutely no way at all that sponsored links should be allowed.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJenZz
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008 edited by JJenZz on the 25th May 2008 at 14:11:35 EDT
     
    Posted By: fernbapThis industry is OPEN SOURCE. And the concept is just being ignored.

    Well then, the day this OPENSOURCE website removes all of its paid links, will be the day I see it fair for designers to remove their paid links wink
    •  
      CommentAuthorSean
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    Posted By: JJenZz I wasn't being serious when I said that haha that's why I added a smiley! But if I did I certainly wouldn't run into problems that were drawn out this far. I am far too dominant for that and I would have set the simplest most reasonable rule in place ages ago... which is to allow sponsored links with rel="nofollow" and stop them from being a requirement. But hey.

    @JJenZz: It's easy to say you or anyone else wouldn't run into these problems now that they've shown up on OD. There isn't any way to know in advance what will happen or not happen with a site.

    OD is a beast of a site... so many ideas and thoughts from people all around the World.

    Each design site since OSWD has improved on the one before... and new issues have popped up as well... it's a learning process... but a very tiring one... and on that note... I'm signing off so I can enjoy my weekend without anymore talking... bakies for all bakie
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJenZz
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008 edited by JJenZz on the 25th May 2008 at 14:24:39 EDT
     
    Posted By: Sean@JJenZz: It's easy to say you or anyone else wouldn't run into these problems now that they've shown up on OD. There isn't any way to know in advance what will happen or not happen with a site.

    Oh believe me... I think it's quite clear I speak my mind and don't care if people disagree with me. As soon as the most reasonable/fair solution was suggested by the community (which it was, by Chris... like AGES AGO) I would have it set in place and wouldn't care for those that didn't agree with it. There wouldn't be any of this faffing around tongue

    If in practise it showed that the solution was the wrong one, I'd change it.
  25.  
    Posted By: Sean
    Paid sponsored links I understand but making them a requirement in use of a design is wrong to me. Author links I think are perfectly fine.

    I think if it's decided sponsored/paid links can stay, they need a rel="nofollow" at least to the OD preview if the design. After that, it's up in the air...

    Sean: I'm honestly not trying to be rude, or sway you in any way at all, so please don't take it that way. However, based on that statement, it would appear that your vote is incorrectly placed. It seems that you would "support sponsored links" in a specific form (removable). If this is the case, your vote would fall in the "yes" category according to the wording of the vote.

    As I said, I'm not trying to change your mind, just pointing out the inconsistency in case the vote question was misunderstood.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJenZz
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    Posted By: aaroncampbellHowever, based on that statement, it would appear that your vote is incorrectly placed.

    That's exactly what I was trying to point out... Same goes for NickyD's vote.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSean
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    Until we have a more clear and agreed understanding of how paid/sponsored links will be used and the license behind them (removable or not), my vote is staying with 'No'. I have nothing else to say about it at this time, so please respect that decision. I respect everyone else's decision.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJenZz
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008 edited by JJenZz on the 25th May 2008 at 14:56:15 EDT
     
    Well then this "Yes"/"No" vote is not a clear enough/understandable poll and isn't representing opinions correctly. Thank goodness it's not official.
  29.  
    Posted By: NickyD
    Posted By: Sean I would vote yes IF the paid sponsored links could be removed if you used a design
    The same for me.

    *sigh*

    With all due respect, the both of you should not have voted without first reading the question! It was simple...

    "Do you support sponsored links (of any type and in any form - removable or not etc.) in submitted designs?"

    Both of you voted no?! Yet then go on to say you'd have voted yes if they could be removed... oh my, the question says would you allow them in any form - removable or not which means with your opinions you both should have voted yes! It's no wonder discusions and "votes" like these take ages.

    And in sync with Jenna, I sure am glad that wasn't an official vote!

    Speaking of Jenna, I mentioned to her directly yesterday that if the community could not decide on this matter by the end of play this Monday (25 May 2008) then I would make the decision for you all and if you're not happy, argue all you like to have them (the rules) changed when you can make your up minds on a real solution.

    But guess what? I'm changing the rules right now, I'm fed up with visiting the forum only to find 50+ posts going round in circles. So I'm throwing my weight around and putting the below into effect immediately.


    Sponsored Links

    You are welcome to include sponsored links in your template(s) under the following conditions:

        1. Users must be free to remove the sponsored link(s) if they wish - you cannot force a user
        to keep the sponsored link(s) in as one of the terms of use for the template.

        2. A maximum of 2 (two) sponsored links per individual template is allowed.

    The Open Designs site administrators and moderators have the final decision on what is classed as a sponsored link.


    I am also amending the rules to state that all outbound links in design previews will have rel="nofollow" added to them. Might need some help coding up the script to make this automated though, so help is more than welcome!
    • CommentAuthorTrin
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    That was surely the most arrogant thing you've said or done here, although it wasn't entirely unexpected.

    Mark my words, now this place will never become the place it had the potential to be. Gratz on your new dictatorship. middlefinger
    •  
      CommentAuthorainslie
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    Bloody hell! cry
  32.  
    Trin, then suggest something that everyone will be happy with. Please, I didn't want to have to do it this way, but none of you could reach a decision yourselves.

    Jason (gnome) kept suggesting many different options and ways to approach this, each one got shot down one way or another. Nothing will ever get done unless we force it to. It's stupid.
    • CommentAuthorTrin
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    Christopher, there is no solution that will please anyone. However, since this is supposed to be a community driven site, then I would assume that anything that the majority decided on would suffice.

    I don't agree with perthmetro's black and white, yes or no, approach, but his basic premise was sound. If it were up to me, I would choose the best of the distinct options and put them to a vote, and have it set up much as perthmetro did. Give members a fixed amount of time to vote and then those are the rules.

    1. No links besides to the designer's website and OD
    2. No sponsored links
    3. 1 (or whatever number chosen) sponsored link with the nofollow applied
    4. No sponsored links that are required to be kept in the template

    I'm sure that these choices can be worded better and/or improved upon, but you get my gist
    •  
      CommentAuthorNickyD
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008 edited by NickyD on the 25th May 2008 at 16:52:47 EDT
     
    Posted By: ChristopherWith all due respect, the both of you should not have voted without first reading the question! It was simple...
    I did read it! The reason I voted no was mainly because the question was too generic to me, with loop holes. For example, I have no problem with justified links to a respectable company. My problem, if I voted yes, that means I approve of sponsored links to porno and such, which I would not approve of. So, I did read the question.

    Posted By: Christopherof any type and in any form
    Of any type did not sit well with me. I don't mind respectable links.

    Posted By: TrinThat was surely the most arrogant thing you've said or done here, although it wasn't entirely unexpected.
    Not really. He is just frustrated with the topic going in circles and circles. Hopefully, the community can come to some type of agreement shortly.
  35.  
    Then why did you not suggest those earlier? People have been trying to suggest things and "better word" them to no avail because only a few people were speaking up so things were stuck. Nobody else with a fresh opinion voiced it so we couldn't move on.

    I mentioned having a vote, nothing came of it. Great isn't it.

    Right now though, we have some basic rules in place. Now that something is in place, maybe that will motivate you and everyone else who disagrees with them to voice your opinion and make a decision.
    •  
      CommentAuthorNickyD
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    Posted By: ChristopherThen why did you not suggest those earlier?
    It stated not too put anything but yes or no and my time has been limited on the computer due to the holiday weekend here in the states....and it was an unofficial vote I thought. Sorry if I could not voice that quick enough.
  37.  
    Sorry Len didn't see your post before I hit submit. I honestly don't mean to be so blunt or arrogant with you and hopefully you know I don't mean anything personally against you (or Sean/anyone else for that matter), and you're right I am rather frustrated with this topic as it's got so out of hand for something so minor that hasn't been brought up since this site was frst started!

    Maybe I took perthmetro's question different to yours, I saw it as:

    "Do you support sponsored links (of any type and in any form - removable or not etc.) in submitted designs?"

    So, voting NO would be a full stop black and white end of story NO. But voting YES, means that you think they should be allowed under conditions yet to be decided.

    I broke this part "of any type and in any form - removable or not etc." down as removable or not etc being the answer (or description) or the any type/any form bit. I assumed that's what the hypen was for.

    p.s. thought you should know that RamblingSoul has gone, he has removed all his templates etc.
    • CommentAuthorTrin
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    If the community is now ready for it, then put it to a fair vote and be done with it.

    Just because you have little patience for the discussions going on, or because they bother your delicate sensibilites, does not give you the right to arbitrarily make decisions like you just did.
  39.  
    Then why did you not suggest those earlier? Was aimed towards Trin's reply, didn't see yours before I'd posted that Len ;)
  40.  
    I personally think chris did the right thing. Props to you.
    •  
      CommentAuthorNickyD
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008 edited by NickyD on the 25th May 2008 at 18:59:34 EDT
     
    Posted By: ChristopherSorry Len didn't see your post before I hit submit
    No need to apologize. I can handle it, but truly understand your frustration.

    Posted By: Christopherhopefully you know I don't mean anything personally against you (or Sean/anyone else for that matter)
    Understood.

    Posted By: ChristopherSo, voting NO would be a full stop black and white end of story NO. But voting YES, means that you think they should be allowed under conditions yet to be decided.
    If this is the case, then if my vote can be changed, please do so. My interpretation was wrong.

    Posted By: Christopherp.s. thought you should know that RamblingSoul has gone, he has removed all his templates etc.
    I figured as much. I have communicated with Roshan via email, and understand his frustration. He is a class act, and I feel terrible he will no longer be here. I don't appreciate when some here take the 'oh well' attitude towards someone in our community, which is what happened to Roshan. I said all along, he did nothing wrong, but he felt like he was attacked, which was not deserved.

    Posted By: Christopher Then why did you not suggest those earlier? Was aimed towards Trin's reply, didn't see yours before I'd posted that Len ;)
    I realized that after I posted, not a problem.

    I just hope everyone here can work these issues out without insulting each other. This place is still the best on the net, and I really like all the people here. The one problem with a community site is that the community makes decisions, which are a lot of voices here. It is hard to moderate without a proper polling system, which I think needs to be put into place to avoid the frustrations some are feeling now. I don't want to see others like Roshan leave here.

    I hope Roshan is reading this, and understands he should come back here and continue to be part of this great community. I hope you reconsider Roshan.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbradm81
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008 edited by bradm81 on the 25th May 2008 at 19:40:15 EDT
     
    p.s. thought you should know that RamblingSoul has gone, he has removed all his templates etc.


    This to me is the worst part of it all. We've all gone off in circles of semantics and philosophy, meanwhile one of OD's most talented and consistent supporters has had the door slammed in his face.

    And I can see why he left. Roshan has been just dismissed as a traitor and instigator when in fact he did nothing wrong. He just found an unseen loophole in the clearly stated rules of this site. We should have said, "Roshan you're fine, but is this something that we as a communnity want to continue?" instead of "Roshan, look what you did!"

    So regardless what we decide, let me be the firstsecond (thanks Len) to beg:
    RamblingSoul, please come back!
    •  
      CommentAuthorgnome
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008 edited by gnome on the 25th May 2008 at 20:02:52 EDT
     
    RE: the main topic here...

    I don't like the second rule (limiting the number of sponsored links to two per template), only because it will be difficult to enforce, as I agree with the idea of limiting hte number of links in templates. On a side note, I think that Christopher did the right thing, by making a decision, and enforcing it, instantly.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSean
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008 edited by Sean on the 25th May 2008 at 20:13:45 EDT
     
    Posted By: bradm81 This to me is the worst part of it all. We've all gone off in circles of semantics and philosophy, meanwhile one of OD's most talented and consistent supporters has had the door slammed in his face.

    No one slammed the door in his face. He left by his own choice.

    This is one of the problems around OD for a long while now... we get on topics of conversation, people get all upset or things are taken in the wrong way and people over react.

    I know from personal experience written words are not always taken as they are meant, which is why sometimes it's good to talk voice if possible, and a lot of the members, moderators and other admins and I have talked voice before and it does help.

    I think RamblingSoul should come back...

    Yes as pointed out he found a loop hole... we were discussing how to deal with it... then as we've seen, things got way out of control, a lot of off topic conversation happened, we got back on topic, then off again...

    Anyway... hopefully we can all work through this... there is a lot of talent within the OD community... bakie
    •  
      CommentAuthorgreg
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    Jenna and Christopher are my two new heros.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJenZz
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008 edited by JJenZz on the 25th May 2008 at 21:51:09 EDT
     
    To all of those who support what Christopher has done, DAMN STRAIGHT... I totally agree.

    This is a community website, but at the end of the day, if the admins don't put their foot down and lead like they are here to do then nothing will get anywhere.

    He's the first person to show sign of true leadership here throughout this whole discussion and I applaud it. None of this pussy footing around us.

    Posted By: TrinIf the community is now ready for it, then put it to a fair vote and be done with it.

    Sure that can be done, but at least in the meantime we have something reasonable set in place that will keep both sides happy to some extent.

    Posted By: gregJenna and Christopher are my two new heros.

    Haha, we are not heroes, just simply two realists (and in my case 'stubborn' lol) who have thought about both sides of the story rather than just our own tongue

    I really still cannot understand why downloaders (and some designers) aren't happy with the idea of sponsored links being allowed as long as they're not a requirement and have rel="nofollow" in previews. This solution means the links don't effect them or the community yet they're still unhappy for some unknown reason. Maybe if someone could clearly explain why this solution is such a problem for them? I am genuinely interested.

    For now, I will look into helping out with the automation of the rel="nofollow" process.
  47.  
    The new rules work for me. At least we found some common ground that most (some?) of the members here can agree on.

    Congrats Christopher on taking some leadership here.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJenZz
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    I have created a CleanUp class that adds rel="nofollow" to links and it is created to run after the zip file has been extracted for each template.

    So, in the PHP that extracts the templates html files ... once the extraction is complete it will just need to pass the filename of each html file to the code that I have created and it will go through and replace them with files that have rel="nofollow" in. This is fine since the files in the ZIP that is downloaded will not have this replacement. Apon extraction, the PHP will need to make sure the html files are writable in order for this script to work.

    I created a class for this in case more 'CleanUp' functions need to be put in place later. They can just be added as a method to this class.

    If I haven't explained anything clear enough, just give me a shout and I'll help out.

    Anyways, now for the files...

    Clicky
    •  
      CommentAuthorSean
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    @JJenZz: Thanks for the code. At first look, it seems perfect. Now we just need to test it... dun dun DUN bakie
  50.  
    I'm appreciative of the rules set in place. I'm sure they will eventually get tweaked some, but it gives a good official place to start from. It was much needed.

251 to 300 of 389

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. >