X
XLR
______
I can only speak for myself but no, it's not OK. You should both delete your ads.
- Status
mshilarious
Banned
It's not OK, and certainly bumping a four-year old thread to plug a product is egregious. I have been very hesitant to moderate either of your posts, because you are both very knowledgeable and contribute a lot of useful content to this board. But this recent commercial competition on public boards needs to stop. I apologize if my edits were less than surgical, but my next alternative was to delete the posts, and I wanted to keep the useful information intact.
Next time this happens, I will just delete posts or lock threads.
Next time this happens, I will just delete posts or lock threads.
MichaelJoly
Banned
Mshilarious -
You know, this isn't USENET circa 1989. This is an advertising-supported web forum. (On which I advertise pretty heavily to the tune of $13.00 per click via Google Adwords).
The owner of this forum relies on page high page view in order to command such high advertising rates.
If you take a look at the some of the threads I've contributed information to you'll see that some of them are perenial, high page view threads. I would argue that my posts help drive page views which allows the site owner to make money. As a side note, I tend to revisit old threads as a way off concentrating information submissions thematiclly - rather than starting a new thread ala "what the best x under y dollars".
Now, to the specific issue of content deletion in this thread. Again, I will argue that I am providing specific information of a pictorial nature that illustrates one of the main differences between the KM 84 and KM 184 and how this relates to the MXL 603 which was intended to copy the KM 84 capsule design.
I perfectly willing to repect the wishes of forum members, but I have a pretty hard time accepting an arbitrary judgement call of one moderator as to what constitutes "commercial content" and what is "useful information". I say put it up to a poll whether or not the community wants to see Joly's images here or not.
You know, this isn't USENET circa 1989. This is an advertising-supported web forum. (On which I advertise pretty heavily to the tune of $13.00 per click via Google Adwords).
The owner of this forum relies on page high page view in order to command such high advertising rates.
If you take a look at the some of the threads I've contributed information to you'll see that some of them are perenial, high page view threads. I would argue that my posts help drive page views which allows the site owner to make money. As a side note, I tend to revisit old threads as a way off concentrating information submissions thematiclly - rather than starting a new thread ala "what the best x under y dollars".
Now, to the specific issue of content deletion in this thread. Again, I will argue that I am providing specific information of a pictorial nature that illustrates one of the main differences between the KM 84 and KM 184 and how this relates to the MXL 603 which was intended to copy the KM 84 capsule design.
I perfectly willing to repect the wishes of forum members, but I have a pretty hard time accepting an arbitrary judgement call of one moderator as to what constitutes "commercial content" and what is "useful information". I say put it up to a poll whether or not the community wants to see Joly's images here or not.
Last edited:
noisedude
New member
Michael, you are obviously surprised and put out so we need to have a think about how we can avoid this keeping happening. Obviously I did not see the removed parts of these posts so I can't comment on them, but I would point out that there have been several requests relating to acceptable use of the forums by those with commercial interests and it would be fantastic if people were able to post within those guidelines and the bounds of the Terms of Service.
You seem like a thoroughly reasonable chap and I'm sure you don't mean that your Adwords account justifies acting outside of the rules of the forum. You must also know that this isn't about deciding whether the forum wants to see some images or not, it's a moderator trying to make his best call as to whether posts are sticking to the rules or not. And I'm sure you realise that we have, in the past, seen the lunacy of temporary bannings for perceived commercial posts, and I think you'd agree that we're certainly acting more reasonably now than the moderation back then.
So, without being able to comment on this occurrence, I'm pleading with you to try to get to grips with the guidelines that have been put down. If you want to discuss the fine details, a bit of back and forth, if you will, over how the forum is going to work going forward, then I'm sure Msh and the rest of the mods would be very happy to discuss some scenarios (perhaps in BBS Feedback) so that there are no 'nasty surprises' like this again in future. In fact, it would be good for both parties to have a look at these grey areas and it would be great if doing so would help to keep guys like you onboard.
MichaelJoly
Banned
I found the Terms of Service Agreement and read it. In my opinion, the phrase "Please note that commercial messages, advertisements...are inappropriate material to post on this BBS..."is ambiguous and provides no guidelines as to what is, or is not a commercial message or advertisement.
I have been quite careful in my posting in this regard. I always strive to offer information relevant to the thread in which I am posting and aim to increase understanding of the question or topic being discussed.
It a bit of a conundrum - the only way that I'm able to post authoratively about microphones is because I'm actually engaged in the process of studying and improving them. I try to speak from experience and back up my opinions and finding with sound and images.
You'll have to admit it is rather hard for someone to stay within arbitrary guidelines that are not articulated.
I have been quite careful in my posting in this regard. I always strive to offer information relevant to the thread in which I am posting and aim to increase understanding of the question or topic being discussed.
It a bit of a conundrum - the only way that I'm able to post authoratively about microphones is because I'm actually engaged in the process of studying and improving them. I try to speak from experience and back up my opinions and finding with sound and images.
You'll have to admit it is rather hard for someone to stay within arbitrary guidelines that are not articulated.
Last edited:
noisedude
New member
You're right. It is ambiguous. I guess that's why the mods have been discussing it behind the scenes, and Mshilarious in particular has taken on the task of trying to communicate the implementation to the people who sit in the grey areas. I understand why you might not think that this has been articulated enough yet, though he would probably disagree.
Off the top of my head I would say that sentences like "in my experience, this mic is...." or "a simple mod you can do to improve that particular mic would be something like...." is fine, and if there are diagrams or soundclips to back that up, then great. Sentences like "my customers like it when I...." or "a really popular thing I do for a lot of people's mics is...", and if the images or soundclips involve visiting an advertising/commercial external site then not so great.
For example, if you are willing to tell someone what you do to a particular mic and what you think that does to how it performs, fantastic. If you are only able to tell someone that you do 'something' and then it sounds 'great', but you can't tell us what it is because it's a commercial secret, then perhaps you don't need to make that post. It's great for someone to trust your advice because of your profession, it's quite different to encourage people to pay for your service on the basis of your posting, even if you wholeheartedly (and probably justifiably!!) believe that is the best course of action for that member to take.
Again, these are just ideas, not relating to anything you have or haven't posted because I've not been following it in that sort of detail.
He's in a slightly different sector to you, but John Scrip (Massive Master(ing)) is a member I was always impressed by in the past because I knew he could master my mixes better than me and could see his website, so I knew he spoke with authority on mastering, but never got the impression he was angling for work or here to pick up clients rather than give solid advice. And I'm absolutely certain that he will still have benefited commercially by being here, whether it be in good PR, planting a name in someone's head that later comes up in conversation, or people actually contacting his firm with work because he clearly knows his stuff. That said, I haven't seen his posts in ages so he could be a spamming little sod for all I know nowadays!!!
Do you follow my thinking at all? Fair? Unfair?
MichaelJoly
Banned
Right. A revised Terms of Usage Agreement would be the way to clarify and communicate this issue.
I understand the distinction and will follow this guideline in absence of a clarified Terms of Usage Agreement.
I understand you're speaking in general, but to be specific for a moment - I have never solicited for business on homerecording. Not once. People know what I do and how to reach me if they so desire. People sometime ask me questions in public related to my work that are best discussed in private email and I encourage them to do by that means and I do not conduct business on homerecording.com.
Frankly the volume of traffic I receive to my site from Google or direct URL address is about 300 times greater on a daily basis than homerecording.com URL referrals. So I have little motivation to "advertise" or post commercial messages on homerecording.com.
However, I am motivated to help explain issues related to microphones. For example the love affair with the Neumann KM 84. We've all seen the posts fawning over the KM 84 and bashing the KM 184. But there has been precious little discussion on homerecording.com concerning the micro-acoustic or circuit similarities and differences in these two mics.
The publication of my (now removed) comparison image of a KM 84 and KM 184 plus the link to Neumann's own text describing the uses of capsule venting to shape the on-axis frequency response of the KM 184, was the first instance on the web that I'm aware that brought together side by side comparison, textual analysis and a link to authorative information at Neumann that explains the HF difference in these two mics. Yes, my image did include a modified MXL 603 in the shot as a means of conveying how this particular microphone could be modified for reduced HF brightness though an application of the Neumann vent sizing tactic. And a close up image was provided for clarity - talk about providing details and not making unsubtantiated and opaque claims! Btw - The content I posted that was removed did not require a homerecording.com visitor to leave this thread or site.
Just so I'm clear. I'm not bent out of shape over the loss of the opportunity to post commercial adverting messages (which I hope I've demonstrated I haven't done and furthermore don't need to do). But rather, I'm dismayed by a brute force editorial judgment that 1.) negates my contribution to the understanding of vent sizing in SDCs and 2.) deprives this community of that knowledge.
Last edited:
mshilarious
Banned
I will try to make this as clear as possible:
- Paying for advertising on this BBS in no way, shape, or form authorizes any business to engage in commercial discussions on the BBS. Think about how many different ads run here, and what this board would look like if that became a precedent. Buying an ad earns you the privilege to have your ad appear on the site, nothing more or less.
- You otherwise esteemed gentlemen have lately been engaged in a running battle of MXL mods across many threads and at least a couple of BBSs. That is not an appropriate use of this board, and I will not allow the type of unhelpful argument that transpired elsewhere to occur here.
- This thread in question is four years old, and was bumped for no valid reason I can see, especially since there is a much more recent thread that has similar content.
- Editing your post was the most gentle moderation option I had after issuing warnings, which apparently went unheeded. This moderation cannot be taken out of context of the activity described above.
Please take further discussion of commercial use and moderation to the BBS Feedback board. Since this thread never should have been bumped, it is now closed.
- Paying for advertising on this BBS in no way, shape, or form authorizes any business to engage in commercial discussions on the BBS. Think about how many different ads run here, and what this board would look like if that became a precedent. Buying an ad earns you the privilege to have your ad appear on the site, nothing more or less.
- You otherwise esteemed gentlemen have lately been engaged in a running battle of MXL mods across many threads and at least a couple of BBSs. That is not an appropriate use of this board, and I will not allow the type of unhelpful argument that transpired elsewhere to occur here.
- This thread in question is four years old, and was bumped for no valid reason I can see, especially since there is a much more recent thread that has similar content.
- Editing your post was the most gentle moderation option I had after issuing warnings, which apparently went unheeded. This moderation cannot be taken out of context of the activity described above.
Please take further discussion of commercial use and moderation to the BBS Feedback board. Since this thread never should have been bumped, it is now closed.
- Status
