A dubious double standard
 

I reported a post by an individual to make notice about how the crackdown on signature links was not being applied to a certain person who seems to be given preferential treatment. Not only does this person have TWO links to sites that could be considered competitors (different ones, even!) in his signature, but one links to numerous competitors, all of which use affiliate coding, which could cost this site money and has been the reason to remove the signature links from other people.

I'd like to know why there was no action taken on this, as being fine with it essentially creates a second class of non-moderator/non-admin users on this site. If one wanted to say that if the person has worked for an IB site as a way to say it's fine, then couldn't I argue that I could link to all of my work across sites as well, since I worked for IB as well?

So as to prevent singling out said user, and to be fair to the mod team, I'm not posting a link or mentioning him by name. I do not think that would be fair, though I also believe allowing this person to not have to abide to the same rules as the rest of the site is equally unfair. If a mod/admin does not want to go through the trouble of looking at my post reports, they can PM me and I can detail this in greater detail.

It isn't my goal to be petty here, but just last week we had a user feel as though the site had a double standard to this particular policy (a policy I did defend and helped the user understand), and allowing this guy to siphon hits to competing sites is beyond hypocritical.

Re: A dubious double standard
 

The user in question has two links in his signature. One is for a site that is also owned by Internet Brands, and thus any money made there goes to the same company that owns this site. The other is a link to a site about an obsolete home video format that is not a main area of discussion for this site. I do not see the issue.

Re: A dubious double standard
 

I've messaged IB for further clarification.

Re: A dubious double standard
 

Disclaimer: Suppermallet currently is a COWORKER of said person, and should disclose that when he tries to pass off his opinion, as it's beyond biased as such. Don't even try to pass yourself off as some neutral third party to those who don't know who you are to try to dismiss the valid concerns of those who see preferential treatment being doled out.

Said "obsolete" site has links to other sites that have affiliate codes, like DVDFile or HTM, WHICH ARE COMPETITORS. By this justification, I could put my cinemasquid index as a signature, since it has my IB work AND others non-IB related, since it operates in the exact same function as this person's personal site, indexing personal work, in a classic case of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Tell me there's a difference there without lying through your teeth. You can't.

If this site doesn't consider other sites under the same banner competition, so be it, but linking on a site to other ones, including ones that make money off affiliate clicks, this is the exact same situation dealt with a week ago, when someone's photography page was banned because he had an affiliate link, whereas a person's photography page that didn't have said link was viewed as OK. Let's not just make up the rules as we go, as PRECEDENT was established and a user feels unfairly punished by it, as it affects not only his signature but also his picture hosting convenience for linking here.

Re: A dubious double standard
 

Thank you, Vin.

Re: A dubious double standard
 

Actually, aside from a few submissions to the roundtable posts, and one blog post about the new Doctor in Doctor Who, I haven't written for that website in months, and am not planning to continue writing there, as I am returning to school and do not have enough time to do both.

I would appreciate it if you didn't try to paint me as some deceitful double agent, thank you.

As for the rest, I will wait to see what IB says.

Re: A dubious double standard
 

I felt it relevant to point out, since you were dismissing me without really quite grasping the complaint, instead painting it as some non-factor pettiness. Rather, do some due diligence, look at the site, find the page with every cataloged review, and look at how many links there are to competing sites. LOTS. In fact, many of them relink to more modern pages of competitor sites, which is slightly worse, as it could draw traffic away from this site if they prefer that other one (the non-IB one).

My point is this: if someone can link in their signature to a site that indexes their work, even if some of it is IB related, there will be relevant pageview and revenue-stealing sites also linked to from competitors, which is the very thing this site has worked to remove in its own best interest. So, by that very logic, wouldn't this site that indexes film reviews (link in example: my personal work to point out how it would cross-advertise and be both a benefit and a detriment, same as the site this thread is about) not be considered the same thing? It does the same thing the user's site does, only better. You don't see me trying to champion and argue that a cinemasquid link to all my work should be permitted, now do you? No. Reason being? I know it would draw away from this site in every post I made, and potentially cost them readers and revenue.

Re: A dubious double standard
 

Does anyone actually click on links in signatures? I don't.

Re: A dubious double standard
 

The only time I have was in those "review my collection" threads. And, to be honest, I barely ever even look at sigs.

Re: A dubious double standard
 

Wow... someone is a little over the top...

Re: A dubious double standard
 

Given the fact that one of the sites linked to is also an IB owned entity and the other site is many years out of date, ownership does not have an issue with the signature at this time. Nate, if you wish to discuss it further you can PM me. Thanks.