Open Designs Forum » Site Specific
[sticky]
Site Rules & Design Submission Guidelines (Last Updated: 25 May 2008)
(390 posts)-
Hi All.. The vote. I asked the question as a philosophical one. That is, do we or do we not want sponsored links full stop IN ANY FORM whatsoever. There was nothing tricky about the question. That's what the questioned asked. It wasn't asking do you want sponsored links under certain conditions. I don't and by the vote at least another 14 also don't. That's fine. Another 13 do want sponsored links in some way, shape or form. That's fine too. Given the small sample size the extra vote for NO is not significant. I'm an open source/110% free die hard - in the way that means do something for nothing more than helping someone as best i can - with absolutely nothing expected in return. And that's what I'd like this site to be. Maybe I want it to be 100% where the reality of the commercial world says we have to compromise and settle for 90% - I don't know. Maybe I'm way off the mark with my philosophy? I've always said my first design I submit will be PD and I'll be happy for anyone to do what ever they like with it - If they wanted to claim it as there own design and make squillions from it I wouldn't care less. So when I look at the other 14 votes and see they don't want sponsored links as well as me, I see some of that spirit there too. I'm not anti-designer, I just like the idea of doing things for others without the need to be recognised for it. I think it is a good thing to do. I also wonder why some people won't do something for others unless they get something from it, no matter how small. That being said, do I refuse to participate in the current flow of the admins decisions to introduce SL or do I admit defeat? I won't admit defeat as my philosophy will always be there but I will join in to help develop the new rules because I love this site, the community and the member's and what they do. And I encourage others to do as well. But I also ask the admins, mods and everyone else to understand there is a very strong spirit here that wants this site kept as commercial free and as free/opensource as possible. It's something we should discount to try to strive for. let's not close the lid on the idea that one day we could decide it is in the site's best interests to ban all SL. And finally Jen. I can't wait to see you have kids. It's the best way to learn in experiencing the joy in working your bum off for absolutely nothing in return. :peace: you go girl.Posted 3 years ago #
-
good for you christopher for making a decision.
Posted By: JJenZz 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.
i don't get it either although maybe with the heavy restrictions on some CC licensed templates they are worried the sponsored links will be affected by it. i'm not as familiar with the CC license as i could be so i'm wondering could this be an issue if sponsored links are used with a CC license or is this a non-issue?Posted 3 years ago # -
Posted By: gnomeI don't like the second rule (limiting the number of sponsored links to two per template)
I'm not really sure it's needed either, especially as links in the design preview will have rel="nofollow" appended to them. Maybe we should remove the limit of 2 links then? Thoughts everyone?Posted By: yugnatsi'm wondering could this be an issue if sponsored links are used with a CC license or is this a non-issue?
Nope, because Open Designs enforces it's rules before the templates make it out publicly. So what this means it that if a template states in it that the user will need to keep the sponsored link in as part of a CC Attribution, it will be rejected and not become publicly viewable/downloadable (much like if it were to fail validation).Posted 3 years ago # -
After getting into bed last night I realised there was some redundant code in my script but at 4am, I wasn't in any rush to switch my machine back on and sort it haha... So now that I'm up again, i've removed the redundant stuff so you can redownload the 'cleaned up' version :tongue: The only real issue I can see so far with this script is that if a template already has rel=nofollow on a link it will just add it again meaning it will have it twice. You could probably add some long a$$ code to put the links from the doc into an array and check if each one has rel=nofollow already before appending it but I'm not sure if it's really worth the effort... I'll leave that bit up to the admins :)
Posted By: perthmetro And finally Jen. I can't wait to see you have kids. It's the best way to learn in experiencing the joy in working your bum off for absolutely nothing in return.
Haha oh I will get something in return, they'll be scrubbing the toilets and all sorts once they're old enough to understand :wink:Posted 3 years ago # -
Posted By: JJenZzThe only real issue I can see so far with this script is that if a template already has rel=nofollow on [snip]
Not only that, but also if for example it has rel="tag" or rel="external tag" so I'm having a play around with something, modified from some code by Jaimie Sirovich.Posted 3 years ago # -
Ah that is very true... Oh well, you forget these things at 4am! Haha, yeah, probably best you go for Jaimie's solution. Is TODC PHP4 or 5?Posted 3 years ago #
-
PHP5 Oh and I think I've got the function working nicely, but still going to use your idea of having a cleanup class as it could be useful for adding any future things like this in :)Posted 3 years ago #
-
Posted By: ChristopherPHP5 Oh and I think I've got the function working nicely, but still going to use your idea of having a cleanup class as it could be useful for adding any future things like this in :)
Indeed :smile: Oh and if TODC is PHP5, that class could do with being reworked to suit... __construct() etc.Posted 3 years ago # -
I've pretty much got it sorted now, just doing some final testing locally. Here's a before and after to give you an idea what it will match (and how it will handle extisting rel items. It will ignore every link except those with http(s):// in them, as they're the only outbound links we really need to append it to. E.g. it's not needed on ftp:// or mailto: etc.Posted 3 years ago #
-
Posted By: NickyDIf this is the case, then if my vote can be changed, please do so. My interpretation was wrong.
I understood the question the same as Christopher, and it seems that we understood it correctly. However, I think that if you want your vote changed, you should probably change it yourself...I think it would look bad for anyone else to do it.Posted By: perthmetroI'm an open source/110% free die hard - in the way that means do something for nothing more than helping someone as best i can - with absolutely nothing expected in return. And that's what I'd like this site to be. Maybe I want it to be 100% where the reality of the commercial world says we have to compromise and settle for 90% - I don't know. Maybe I'm way off the mark with my philosophy? I've always said my first design I submit will be PD and I'll be happy for anyone to do what ever they like with it - If they wanted to claim it as there own design and make squillions from it I wouldn't care less.
I don't think you're philosophy is "way off the mark" at all, I actually agree with it. I just think that you can have sponsored links AND your philosophy (let's call it "my philosophy," I don't want to assume to know exactly what your philosophy is). I've released two designs here, and both are PD. I agree with you, people can make TONS of money off them, I don't care (I'm not much of a designer though, so they'd have to be employing some black magic to make money off them). I also release WordPress Plugins completely free, and there are constantly more coming. I don't expect anything in return. However, I don't see a problem with someone getting something in return, assuming that's not the only reason they're doing it. Something that has sponsored links, or something that someone is paid to create, but that is still released as Public Domain is fine with me. Think about all the great stuff we have from this kind of setup. Some are Public Domain and others aren't, but RedHat and Canonical have given a TON of free code to the linux community. Six Apart and Automattic have given a ton to the Blogging community (Movable Type and WordPress). MySQL does this with it's database, Zend does this with PHP and the Zend FrameWork, Mozilla does it with FireFox and Thunderbird, etc. All those companies make money, their employees are paid salaries, and they GREATLY benefit their community with quality, open-source, products offered for free. I honestly think that people can have their cake and eat it too. Perhaps it's because I'm an optimist (just ask my wife, it's annoying).Posted 3 years ago # -
Chris, Please keep the number of sponsored links to two. If it is unlimited it will affect the designs. You'll find designs will be designed purely to hold all the links - two is plenty - if they can't feed their family from 2 links then 22 links isn't going to either. Come on, the vote still shows most don't want ANY links give us a little compromise here.Posted 3 years ago #
-
not really... against outnumbers for by a few and that many have already stated they didn't entirely understand what their vote meant... besides, it's an unoffical poll and no decisions should be based of it.Posted 3 years ago #
-
After Robs post it actually currently stands at 17 YES versus 16 NO if you move NickyD's vote as he requested. It's definitely too fine a split to be basing decisions on it.Posted 3 years ago #
-
Posted By: ChristopherMaybe we should remove the limit of 2 links then? Thoughts everyone?
Personally, I'd say take out the second rule. The rel=nofollow will take care of our original concern (people sapping PR points). Though it's not a huge deal for me if the rule stays.Posted 3 years ago # -
Posted By: aaroncampbellI understood the question the same as Christopher, and it seems that we understood it correctly.
Understood, but do you see how it may be confusing? I do! I just wanted to make sure that some links would be unacceptable, but now I understand what was meant. Sorry if that screwed anyone up.Posted By: aaroncampbellHowever, I think that if you want your vote changed, you should probably change it yourself.
Done!Posted 3 years ago # -
As a web design and SEO I would not submit templates unless I knew that the end-user would have my link in the footer as the designer without a rel="nofollow". A web designer does not really count on getting business from someone clicking on the link, but they should benefit from the link popularity in regards to seo. If it is only edited in the preview then it is not a big deal, but if it is in the downloadable file then I think that is going too far. You should just reject templates that have excessive links for "sponsors". When I say excessive I mean a large portion of the design that has a bunch of links. Or any links to affiliate pages and stuff like that. Not cool.Posted 3 years ago #
-
@rankrover: Obviously you didn't read the entire thread on this. The rel no follow would only be added to the OD design preview, not the download.Posted 3 years ago #
-
I realize that by adding this comment I am beating a dead horse, but I feel that because I voted I need to put my two cents into the already checked out bill. I voted yes on allowing sponsored links, regardless of how many and the obligations related to them. I develop small programs, PHP scripts, and contribute to many open-source things for free and would never ask for money and would never put any kind of advertisement/sponsor link on anything I do because I do everything for fun and feel that if others can enjoy it that's payment enough. However, I do agree that, if it got out of hand (which could only happen if rules to prevent it were not put in place, mind you) it could be extremely bad for the overall scope of this site if every design here was littered with fifteen sponsored links and absolutly no way to remove them short of sending the SPONSOR (not the designer) money to do so (which means the designer would not only be getting shafted on the money end, but would also be getting a terrible name for themselves). I 100% agree with the new rule, but I was willing to sacrifice the ability to remove a link from a design if the author of that design said I could not. I come here to get great designs, and I do, and if I am going to use a design that I feel deserves my attention enough to use on a public site I think the author's wishes should be met regardless of the circumstances. Many people here were commenting as if the addition of a sponsored link was going to ruin this site and everything it stood for. I assure you anyone going to any kind of site that offers free services is prepared to see some kind of advertisement (it is completely awesome that this site DOES NOT do that, but anyone who has never been here and sees a link to this site is going to come here and expect it) because they know hosting does not pay for itself. I admit I was pretty disgusted when this issue cropped up, not by the fact that ramblingsoul added a sponsored link to his design and requested that it not be removed, but how some of the members of this community were selfish enough to speak out the goals and meaning of this site as single members by forcing their outlook on this site onto the rest of the population. I have not added any designs to this site, and have rarely helped on the forums, but I have given countless people the link to this site stating that this was the BEST website to get free web templates. I would hate to have to stop doing that and stop coming here because the community, like so many others, gets a few elitist people that know everything. For the sake of the community think not only about the rules related to the submission of designs, but also on the talk that goes on regarding a new/old rule that needs to be added/revised/removed.Posted 3 years ago #
-
@Sean.. I read through allot of it, but too many pages to sift through at the moment. Preview has no effect on anything really. It should be a non-issue. But I saw someone talking about rejecting Creative Commons templates because they have link requirements. Hence my objections.Posted 3 years ago #
-
p.s. I still believe that excessive links are rediculous. It should be that the designer can have a "designed by" or "sponsored by" link and that should be the only requirement in such a license. But requiring links in a sidebar or something is crazy. I did post YES in support of sponsor links, but the post did not allow an explaination and I am able to explain it here.Posted 3 years ago #
-
rankrover: Many ideas we had early on were shot down, because there was something wrong in each of them. I know that this forum gets to be a bit of a brawl at times, but the end result is a new rule which nobody has real issues with. It makes everybody pretty happy. It really is like they say:
creation is messy
.Posted 3 years ago # -
Some designers may have issues because, yes we would all love to do things for people without asking anything in return. But there are allot of contributing designers who may be freelancers, and not necessarily financially able to do things like that. That is why you would see resistance. Such rules end up limiting the possibilities for a professional. While open source is, in it's own right it's own thing web designers should not discount themselves. They should always get credit for their art and to apply a rule that would take that away would understandably get some designers upset.Posted 3 years ago #
-
@rankover: agreed, way too many posts/comments on this topic... I think it set a new record for the most comments on OD... so I wasn't trying to be a jerk to you but just point out something that was a main point of the conversation. As one of the founding admins of OD, I try to be fair and open minded with a lot of things... Anyway, designers also have the ability to host their own designs on a personal/professional site they own and run, so if someone doesn't like the various rules or guidelines on OD, they have other options available. OD is a growing and evolving site... as issues and things come up, we are trying to deal with them as they come... we can't always cover everything at once but it's good we are all talking and trying to come to mutually agreeable terms as best as possible.Posted 3 years ago #
-
Sean, you have to really think about the designers that make this a community in the first place as well. I am sure you have designers that have been with OD from the start and disagree with the concept of this rule. I am not saying that you won't have an active community because some designers choose to leave, but I am saying that you should definately come up with a better way of counting votes, or just like Florida people will demand a recount. If it is indeed a community you should prepare an election of sorts, and prepare ahead of time so most, if not all the designers in this database know a specific date to vote on it. That would only be fair.Posted 3 years ago #
-
@rankover: agreed we need a better voting method... and with the work I'm doing now on multiple user/member accounts is now becoming part of that process... we need to make things clean and fair for everyone. It won't happen in one day but it is in the works. I wasn't saying if people don't like the rules to just up and leave, I'm saying when people host designs they create on a site they have 100% control over (like a personal site or portfolio site) they can do anything they want with links, sponsors, etc. Many designers and users on OD have sites they also post designs on which don't show up on OD. OD would not be anything without the members, designers and users. This has never been an issue.Posted 3 years ago #
-
I agree. I have designs I would never give up as open source. But there was a design that I did thatI really loved which I released on here called Kylix and I would not have released it if it ended up being creative commons rejected. But that is a non-issue because I am sure you will not be killing license types, just spam templates. And I agree with filtering out the crap. Quality websites have to avoid becoming the next Craigslist, which is a haven for spammers. So I am for ridding the sponsored links or using nofollow as long as it is limited to the previews.Posted 3 years ago #
-
@rankover: indeed, limited to OD preview only is my understanding.Posted 3 years ago #
-
The outcome was already decided before any vote was cast.Posted 3 years ago #
-
And looking at the 'unofficial vote' so far, the outcome appears to have been the right decision :bigsmile:Posted 3 years ago #
-
limited to OD preview only is my understanding. - yep only the design previews on Open Designs will be affected, the file users download will be unaltered. @rankrover - The CC license is staying for time being as far as I'm aware. But it's the templates that try to abuse it with wanting to force users to keep sponsored links in the templates as part of the "attribution" license, that will be rejected. Hope that makes sense!Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.