Linking to personal websites instead of embedding photographs

[Bertie McBoatface]

I am under the impression that we aren't supposed to post links to our own websites but must embed our photos here. I'm sure I read that somewhere but I can't find it now, so perhaps I'm mistaken.

 

A very new member linked to his site and I wanted to let him know what the 'official' line was but I couldn't find it for him and now I'm beginning to wonder whether I dreamed it. 🤪

 

 

[Black Knight]

No you're not dreaming nor mistaken

Mike ruled no links to outside web pages or facebook. Members had to post their work on BM. Various reasons including 1. the person was trying to make money by the numbers of visitors to their site and b. no control over where that link actually goes to, on more than one occasion it went to a porn site

I think the command got lost in the numerous changes of computer thingies that BM has gone through over the last few years

'Report' the posting with the link to Mike

I did that with one a few months back

[Bertie McBoatface]

1 minute ago, Black Knight said:

No you're not dreaming nor mistaken

Mike ruled no links to outside web pages or facebook. Members had to post their work on BM. Various reasons including 1. the person was trying to make money by the numbers of visitors to their site and b. no control over where that link actually goes to, on more than one occasion it went to a porn site

I think the command got lost in the numerous changes of computer thingies that BM has gone through over the last few years

'Report' the posting with the link to Mike

I did that with one a few months back

 

OK thanks. I'll do that.

 

In this case I clicked through to the site but the photos were really slow to load. At least they were of models. Scale models I mean. 😁

[alt-92]

I think a more thorough explanation is given in this thread.

 

Personally, I have a dim view of people purposefully using this (or any other forum) as their personal recruitment tool, especially if there's a financial incentive at play. 
Call me old-fashioned, or overly principled. IDGARA.

 

[Motty]

But what about when there is no ulterior motive?

I posted a link to an article on our website back in this thread (I didn't know about the rule then) simply because there are dozens of images and relevant information in the article for those who might be interested. I've got other articles where I've put hundreds of images. I'm obviously not going to put them all in a post here and it's much easier to include a link to it for anyone who might like to have a look.

 

There's no incentive for us to have people going to our web site other than to showcase our photography. We don't get any income, advertisement revenue-per-view or whatever and I'm not asking people to subscribe or "join" anything. 

 

Ironically I guess I can't post a link here either to illustrate what I mean?

 

Is there any flexibility in this rule in that case?

 

Cheers,

Motty.

[JohnT]

33 minutes ago, Motty said:

But what about when there is no ulterior motive?

I posted a link to an article on our website back in this thread (I didn't know about the rule then) simply because there are dozens of images and relevant information in the article for those who might be interested. I've got other articles where I've put hundreds of images. I'm obviously not going to put them all in a post here and it's much easier to include a link to it for anyone who might like to have a look.

 

There's no incentive for us to have people going to our web site other than to showcase our photography. We don't get any income, advertisement revenue-per-view or whatever and I'm not asking people to subscribe or "join" anything. 

 

Ironically I guess I can't post a link here either to illustrate what I mean?

 

Is there any flexibility in this rule in that case?

 

Cheers,

Motty.

Motty I sympathise with what you say. I think the rule has to have a no exceptions and results in necessarily being a bit of a blunt instrument accordingly. Sometimes we forget Mike and the Mods are volunteering their spare time and with the membership we have and are that’s a big enough job already I suspect. Relaxation of the rule albeit for the good reasons you suggest might just require too much engagement. 
 

That’s just my speculation and no doubt Mike will confirm the rationale behind it more accurately in due course. 
 

not sure if there is a clever tech answer 

[jackroadkill]

22 hours ago, alt-92 said:

IDGARA.

That's a new one for me but I love it!

[Black Knight]

1 hour ago, Motty said:

 

Is there any flexibility in this rule in that case?

 

Cheers,

Motty.

As said before; you can put a link in your signature

[Motty]

19 minutes ago, Black Knight said:

As said before; you can put a link in your signature

Yes, I can, and I have, but that still doesn't let me link to a specific article which may be of interest (such as the Spitfire post) or relevant to a post I want to contribute to (such as JASDF Phantom images for example).

 

It's not about getting people onto the site. It's about being able to more easily engage with people over stuff that I have which may be of interest or relevant to a discussion. It's one of the reasons we run the site.

 

Cheers,

Motty.

[alt-92]

I think the purpose of this particular policy is more to prevent/reduce/limit people from NOT sharing content here but instead getting them to like & subscribe to their (income generating) channel/blog/website. 

Putting website links in a post wel within the context of the discussion should not raise the ire of the admins I'd guess - otherwise they would have more than a dayjob checking every link to many a site or blog that members here already frequently use to share interesting knowledge ( http://www.aviationofjapan.com/ or the Tailspin blogs for instance)... 

 

As with any forum (and I used to be moderator on a tech board) it's a grey zone in which admin discretion is paramount  - but you need such a policy or guideline to have tools to hammer out the excesses sometimes. 
Usually there's no real problem until some enterprising soul tries to stretch the boundaries a bit too much

[Mike]

8 minutes ago, alt-92 said:

I think the purpose of this particular policy is more to prevent/reduce/limit people from NOT sharing content here but instead getting them to like & subscribe to their (income generating) channel/blog/website.

To an extent, yes. The other side of it is so that people that click on a thread to view some pics of models and maybe learn a bit about our hobby, only to have to click on more things and go offsite.  It's a bit like going to a party at someone's house, sidling up to the guests and inviting them to your party across the road because yours is better.  I know some folks will do this from laziness and not wanting to be bothered posting their pics somewhere else, but they're probably in a minority.  That's a bit of a poor excuse if you ask me.  Don't be lazy.  The ones that are hoping to draw everyone to their party are generally doing so for ego or monetary reasons, and they're often the ones that give very little back to our hobby, and I'd imagine wouldn't take kindly to us wanting links back to here prominently placed on their sites/channels.  Coincidence?  Probably not.  Don't forget that it's because of these people that we had to introduce the regs for blogs etc., so you can thank them for its existence.  The few spoil it for the many, as usual.

 

If people are really that desperate for people to view their stuff offsite, we've allowed links in signatures for years now, so post a minimum of four substantially differing pictures directly on Britmodeller (i.e. actual pictures, not links or four pics of a gear leg), and mention that more are available on your site/channel if there's interest, the link for which is in your signature.  That way, you're not expecting people to go blindly to your stuff, as nothing irritates more than going in blind to find you've wasted their time.  Click-bait anyone?