Page 41 of 43

Re: Another Commercial Post

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 6:57 pm
by brichardsson

Re: Another Commercial Post

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:59 pm
by Josh Lewis
brichardsson wrote:http://www.summitpost.org/users/snz/105165


I removed that members many duplicate photos. I don't see how they qualify as a commercial post? Yes they have a website area on the profile for linking to their site which they have the right to do, otherwise why even have the field? They posted a trip report as well. However once we start seeing company logos, content with commercial interest, and of course bad forum posts, that's when the line is drawn. But if you have some evidence of why they should be reported, we'd like to hear.

Re: Another Commercial Post

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:28 am
by brichardsson
Josh Lewis wrote:
brichardsson wrote:http://www.summitpost.org/users/snz/105165


I removed that members many duplicate photos. I don't see how they qualify as a commercial post? Yes they have a website area on the profile for linking to their site which they have the right to do, otherwise why even have the field? They posted a trip report as well. However once we start seeing company logos, content with commercial interest, and of course bad forum posts, that's when the line is drawn. But if you have some evidence of why they should be reported, we'd like to hear.


it was reported because in addition to what appears to be a shill for cash, there is also what looks like a backhanded advert for a guide service (see the aforementioned trip report), and one that appears to be strewn with errors to boot. i only report the junk, i don't determine whether it stays. that's the job of someone higher up the food chain than i :D

Re: Another Commercial Post

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 3:06 pm
by brichardsson

Re: Another Commercial Post

PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:55 pm
by Kiefer

Re: Another Commercial Post

PostPosted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:22 pm
by jdenyes

Re: Another Commercial Post

PostPosted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:45 pm
by boyblue
jdenyes wrote:http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/hydration-product-t64955.html


Chad's doing a great job of dealing with this one. :lol:

http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=64955

Re: Another Commercial Post

PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 12:53 am
by Josh Lewis
Too funny. :D Chad handled this case quite well. 8)

Re: Another Commercial Post

PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:58 pm
by nader
Home builder advertising on SP:

http://www.summitpost.org/arandahomes/852823

Re: Another Commercial Post

PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 2:41 am
by mconnell

Re: Another Commercial Post

PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 5:56 pm
by Kiefer

Re: Another Commercial Post

PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 7:18 pm
by JHH60
Kiefer Thomas wrote:http://www.summitpost.org/users/richard1949/106564


This guy posted a link to an online graphic novel he writes. It actually does seem to pertain to mountaineering and it's not obvious that he gets money from it - perhaps we can cut him some slack?

Re: Another Commercial Post

PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 1:43 am
by Kiefer
JHH60 wrote:
Kiefer Thomas wrote:http://www.summitpost.org/users/richard1949/106564


This guy posted a link to an online graphic novel he writes. It actually does seem to pertain to mountaineering and it's not obvious that he gets money from it - perhaps we can cut him some slack?


So by this reasoning, someone, let's say Candy for example, who has mountain pictures posted but is trying to sell you a turbocharger, qualifies to have their profile remain intact?
Seems the standards are getting pretty loose around here.

Re: Another Commercial Post

PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:17 am
by lcarreau
Kiefer Thomas wrote:Seems the standards are getting pretty loose around here.


I've noticed that! Perhaps the mods are on vacation?

Re: Another Commercial Post

PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:47 am
by JHH60
Kiefer Thomas wrote:
JHH60 wrote:
Kiefer Thomas wrote:http://www.summitpost.org/users/richard1949/106564


This guy posted a link to an online graphic novel he writes. It actually does seem to pertain to mountaineering and it's not obvious that he gets money from it - perhaps we can cut him some slack?


So by this reasoning, someone, let's say Candy for example, who has mountain pictures posted but is trying to sell you a turbocharger, qualifies to have their profile remain intact?
Seems the standards are getting pretty loose around here.


But that's my point. This guy *isn't* selling turbos or anything else for that matter. His website doesn't even have ads. His post may be self serving in that he wants people to check out his mountaineering cartoons, but what's the difference between that and people who want you to check out their heavily photoshopped pics? It isn't commercial, at least until he starts asking for a subscription fee.