Posters recommending services they own or partly own with no disclosure of interest.

[snoopy]

Thought I would bring this up as I see it as on ongoing issue with certain posters very regularly promoting sites they have an economic interest in with no disclosure at all that the service they are suggesting is partly owned by them.

Personally I think if someone is going to promote a service they own part of they should have to include a statement in their sig to that effect, or mention it in the thread they are posting in.

Please vote in the poll as I don't expect everyone in favour of this will necessarily post (usernames when voting will not be public).

 

[DavidL]

On ya snoop - there's been far too much of this sort of blatant promoting.

 

[Data Glasses]

On ya snoop - there's been far too much of this sort of blatant promoting.

but i thought he was referring to .....

 

[petermeadit]

Hi Snoopy, I know where you are coming, not sure I agree with your approach. You said:

Personally I think if someone is going to promote a service they own part of they should have to include a statement in their sig to that effect, or mention it in the thread they are posting in.

I think your Poll is a bit over-simplistic, because it just asks for yes, no, maybe, when linking out to resources we have an interest in. The question does not really allow scope for disussion, so here is my My $0.02

I think this is fine if it is done within context of the conversation, it is then helpful and I like it. This is how newbies discover these recources.

However, if people are just finding any excuses to link out to their own sites at every opportunity, that is not helping the discussion and is obviously a distraction.

Also, some people have many business interests and in a lot of places, and that would get boring reading everytime a disclosure about it.

People might not want to declare to us they have shares in a business, and why should they? Do we really need to know?

Is there anything in the DNTrade rules that requires people decare their interest in any given recources linked to or recommended within these forums?

I would prefer established methods for addressing breaches of rules rather than a Poll, which may disrupt the harmony of this forum through impulsive responses.

 

[helloworld]

Nothing wrong with blatant promotion but if this is a community based website then you need to say you have an interest in your link if you're posting it. Unless of course you're asking for a suggestion/feedback then it's kinda obvious. Agree with OP

 

[chris]

Are there any examples that many people are doing this?

I like to promote sponsors where possible and I'll usually try and disclose that within the post.

I also like to promote members and their businesses where possible. I reckon there are enough opportunities for everyone, but it's something that's worth discussing and I'm interested in what other members think.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[Data Glasses]

Are there any examples that many people are doing this?

I like to promote sponsors where possible and I'll usually try and disclose that within the post.

I also like to promote members and their businesses where possible. I reckon there are enough opportunities for everyone, but it's something that's worth discussing and I'm interested in what other members think.

Cheers,
Chris

seems the voting agrees with snoopy in this instance

 

[snoopy]

It has been a week and there is a good number of votes,

86.2% (25) think members should be required to disclose ownership when recommending a service.
6.9% (2) Unsure
6.9% (2) Say no disclosure of ownership. (no prizes for guessing who those two voters are).

 

[CyberClick]

I would have expected this would be covered off in existing rules and enforced when anyone was off topic or annoying rather than a duty of disclosure.

Who would investigate and police? In many cases it would be impossible to know who had an interest in what.