Open Designs

Open Designs Forum » Site Specific

271. JJenZz
     Member

     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.

     Posted 3 years ago #

272. JJenZz
     Member

     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:

     Posted 3 years ago #

273. Sean
     Founding Member

     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:

     Posted 3 years ago #

274. JJenZz
     Member

     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.

     Posted 3 years ago #

275. Aaron D. Campbell
     Member

     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.

     Posted 3 years ago #

276. JJenZz
     Member

     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.

     Posted 3 years ago #

277. Sean
     Founding Member

     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.

     Posted 3 years ago #

278. JJenZz
     Member

     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.

     Posted 3 years ago #

279. Christopher
     Moderator

     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!

     Posted 3 years ago #

280. Trin
     Member

     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:

     Posted 3 years ago #

281. Ainslie
     Moderator

     Bloody hell! :cry:

     Posted 3 years ago #

282. Christopher
     Moderator

     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.

     Posted 3 years ago #

283. Trin
     Member

     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

     Posted 3 years ago #

284. NickyD
     Moderator

     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.

     Posted 3 years ago #

285. Christopher
     Moderator

     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.

     Posted 3 years ago #

286. NickyD
     Moderator

     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.

     Posted 3 years ago #

287. Christopher
     Moderator

     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.

     Posted 3 years ago #

288. Trin
     Member

     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.

     Posted 3 years ago #

289. Christopher
     Moderator

     Then why did you not suggest those earlier? Was aimed towards Trin's reply, didn't see yours before I'd posted that Len ;)

     Posted 3 years ago #

290. SeanPollock
     Member

     I personally think chris did the right thing. Props to you.

     Posted 3 years ago #

291. NickyD
     Moderator

     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.

     Posted 3 years ago #

292. bradm81
     Member

     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!

     Posted 3 years ago #

293. Gnome
     Moderator

     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.

     Posted 3 years ago #

294. Sean
     Founding Member

     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:

     Posted 3 years ago #

295. greg
     Member

     Jenna and Christopher are my two new heros.

     Posted 3 years ago #

296. JJenZz
     Member

     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.

     Posted 3 years ago #

297. acousticsam
     Member

     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.

     Posted 3 years ago #

298. JJenZz
     Member

     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

     Posted 3 years ago #

299. Sean
     Founding Member

     @JJenZz: Thanks for the code. At first look, it seems perfect. Now we just need to test it... dun dun DUN :bakie:

     Posted 3 years ago #

300. Aaron D. Campbell
     Member

     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.

     Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.