Blog Links

[Nuts]

This wont get far (given some of those who have them) but I had the thought (as a forum member) that blog site links should really be just all given in one 'Blog Links' topic, then not again as a signature on every post.

For those of us without a blog link- What say you?

[eggs]

Sorry - this survey question is a bit ambiguous.
The "Yes" answer is OK - but "No" could mean that no links should ever be used, or it may mean that links can be used all the time!
I think the idea here is that No would mean that people can use links in their signatures.

[Nuts]

I see eggs lol, the poll question is limited to 100 characters and my editing made it ambiguous. It also started with 'For those of us without blog links...'

These usually have a 'don't care' option but I figured that would be obvious.. don't answer.. It's a tie so lets say
the Question is:

Should blog links in signatures be allowed? Y/N

It's not something that overly bothers me personally, it does seem to irk some people on here, i think it could encourage more meaningful content (on here) to not have a blog link (not that meaningful content is any rule or anything)

Edit.. Sorry, it's probably best to start again

[Hallu]

I like the blog links in signatures, when somebody's helping me about an itinerary or a walk, or is talking about an interesting trip, then I can check out his blog. I certainly prefer this to some rather ridiculous long philosophical quotes in signatures (I'm not aiming at anybody in particular).

[Nuts]

Just to say that a discussion is fine too, there may be very good reason why people should be interested in one's opinion (on every topic..), not obvious to me but then I don't visit blogs (from here/as a rule). If someone pops up and says that they have info directly relevant in their blog (here's a link), for example, I might personally be more interested.. It may also be phrased, 'I have a lot of opinion (on this topic), here is a link' ?

[sthughes]

I'm fine with a blog link in the signature. What annoys me is when you get new topics that basically say nothing except "I did/saw/heard/think something, now go to my blog to find out more." Or if their contribution to a topic is simple "go to my blog to see my opinion".

[ollster]

I don't mind them at all. I only take umbrage when people start threads that have no conversational value and only serve as a gateway back to their *&%$#! blog.

[Son of a Beach]

I don't mind them at all. I only take umbrage when people start threads that have no conversational value and only serve as a gateway back to their *&%$#! blog.

Yeah, people should not be doing this.

As for blog links in signatures, I can see both sides of the debate there. However, if people do link to their own blogs (or their own sites) I would think it would be only fair if their blog or site linked back to this one also.

[Nuts]

77 plays 23, none of you bloggers voting are there
There are a couple of forum members I know of who have blogs/websites outside the forum (myself included) and some of them are very interesting. Occasionally they get a mention in topics where they are relevant, I guess (personally) they get more respect, perhaps not as much traffic. Perhaps traffic matters more in the case of sponsors etc (and this pay per post thing iv'e been seeing around the place..)
I guess it's also that information is not really challenged like it is on here by more experienced people than even those who have a blog...

[tastrax]

its not only blog links that are in signatures but the rules for the forum are pretty specific...

Links and URLs in profiles and signatures should be for personal interest, not for for commercial purposes, and should not link to content that is not suitable for a family audience. The definitions of 'personal interest', 'commercial purposes' and 'suitable for a family audience' will be at the moderators' discretion, but will usually be obvious (if unsure, please check with an admin/moderator first).

Signatures should include no more than one link or URL.

Signatures should include nothing other than text, and no large text.

Signatures that link to commercial sites (including external sites that contain advertising), may be removed or modified without notice at the discretion of the site admins.

[wander]

What sthughes and ollster said. Maybe something could be included in the Forum Rules, unless it is there already and I missed it.

[LandSailor]

I'm fine with a blog link in the signature. What annoys me is when you get new topics that basically say nothing except "I did/saw/heard/think something, now go to my blog to find out more." Or if their contribution to a topic is simple "go to my blog to see my opinion".

I dont particularly mind if people are publicising their blogs. They are usually in more depth and better illustrated than a forum post and can be interesting to read.
Maybe we could create a new forum/thread specifically for new blog entry notifications (non-commercial blogs only of course).

[Nuts]

Good idea Phil, thanks for copying that (I kinda think of 'blog' (or use the term) as including anything with owner content, sites, facebook pages, 'blogs' for whatever purpose). 'Links' could also include any such thing, even a research paper or somewhere the member has content as part of another site I guess. Does it also include 'not for profit' organisations, charities? afterall they compete for an audience (and their $) Some of these clearly do rely on moderator discretion.

(Iv'e opened the poll back with the option of changing votes. I don't think i'd change mine.. but I was only thinking of the few bloggers that post regularly. The discussion might bring up good points (either for or against))

[Nuts]

Maybe we could create a new forum/thread specifically for new blog entry notifications (non-commercial blogs only of course).

That would be one alternative? Like an intro to the blog, what, why etc- rather than needing to even go and visit it to find out?

Should links be relevant to bushwalking (as a general rule)?

[FatCanyoner]

So, I'm one of these evil folks with a blog link in my signature...

Personally I like the links in signatures. I constantly discover new blogs that I would have otherwise missed. I suppose it is different if it is something commercial, but for most of the bloggers on here we put a lot of time and effort into our sites for one reason: to promote bushwalking an encourage people to do it. That's why there are trip reports, notes, photos, reviews, tips, philosphical discussions etc, because we love being in the bush and we want to share that. No one makes you click on a link. In fact, no one even makes you read a signature (you'll find it looks exactly the same as it has at the end of every other post I've made). And I guarantee 99% of the people with outdoor blogs from here make no money out of them. And at the end of the day, if the links allow you to find out more about the person who commented, or to simply discover a new site about bushwalking, then they are pretty handy.

I do agree with posts that simply say "click here", especially when they take you to a page with advertising. Perhaps I've been guilty of that at times, but personally I think I shouldn't have to duplicate every word and photo here if I've already done it once on my blog (especially as post here do have advertising, when my blog has none). My blog has no commercial benefits for me (although my wife does get pissed off due to the amount of time it takes to maintain, not to mention the costs of web hosting etc). What it has done is inspire people to do trips they wouldn't have otherwise done, and experience new things. That's enough for me. And I'm willing to annoy a few purists with a signature link if it means continuing to do that.

[north-north-west]

Actually, Fatso, yours is probably the only blog I always read. Even when you're dressed.

[FatCanyoner]

Actually, Fatso, yours is probably the only blog I always read.

Well, between you and my dad that explains most of the hits... I just need to work out who the third reader is!

Even when you're dressed.

Don't worry, I'll be doing a nude night abseiling trip under the full moon in just over a week, so you won't have to worry about seeing my dressed any time soon!

[Nuts]

I'm not sure if there is any history of people not wanting your link on here FC?, one never knows.. (and tbh I haven't been interested enough to look into it.. and just to be clear this topic hasn't been spurred by anything recent 'behind the scenes' ). The site isn't even a democracy so if the poll was turned around wouldn't mean anything would be done about blog links. The issue of links gets a few snide remarks on here now and then so the way I see it a discussion at least lets them/us/you have a say in a civil manner... I'm not really sure where the purist thing comes from? I would say that if some people don't want to meet a bloke in the bush in the raw? then that should be as much their position without being judged a prude (purist or whatever..) Discussion is the point- helpful now and into the future. So anyhow.. good to know all that I guess, perhaps just that should be said in a intro topic as was suggested? (rather than defensively as it seems to come across). Despite the fact that This site isn't a democracy it's likely always going to be closer than any private forum or blog.

[Son of a Beach]

What sthughes and ollster said. Maybe something could be included in the Forum Rules, unless it is there already and I missed it.

There already is and you missed it.

[FatCanyoner]

Nuts, don't worry mate, I didn't take your comment as defensive. My post should also not be takes as such. I just wanted to give my response and thoughts on the topic. And the the purist thing was a throw away line about people not wanting any blog links in signatures, not about whether people are happy seeing 'nuts' in the bush (see what I did there! ).

It's always good to discuss things, but given how many blogs are in signatures I can't see the mods changing the forum rules. (And given how little most of us seem to know the rules... and how often we all fail to obey them religiously... it would be a struggle to enforce anyway!)

Personally I'm a big fan of live and let live. If I don't want to read your posts, I won't. If I don't want to read your blog, I won't. And if you don't want to look at my stuff because it doesn't interest you, then that's perfectly fine. I think individual freedom is probably better than autocratic action on this topic...

[Nuts]

Ha, fair enough, I haven't read enough of your stuff to know whether you were serious or just another nutter
I suppose the content of your site just makes me think your likely being defensive of your site, the right to bare bums more than the topic in general.. see what that does?

[whynotwalk]

Like FatCanyoner, I'm one of those "naughties" with a blog link in my signature. I also plead guilty to putting the occasional link to my blog in a post (and to being a little surprised by some grumpy reactions).

The way I see it, quite a bit of what I write in my blog relates to quite a lot of what is discussed on the forum. A blog simply gives me the space and format to say and show so much more. But it is still optional. Those who click on the link and find it not to their taste can vote with their mouse. Those who object to the whole blog idea, can also choose not to click. There is no compulsion involved.

I DO agree that anything that's posted on the forum should stand alone, and not rely on "tricking" readers onto a blog site. From the feedback I've had from quite a few forum members, some enjoy going on a longer word/picture journey with me via my blog. And those who don't, I understand your right to choose. In the end, as long as we abide by the forum rules, blog links are an option for those who care to exercise it,

cheers

Peter

[Nuts]

I'v'e been there a few times Peter (imo) well worth visiting (when did you remove the link?) actually referenced back to it on here before, perhaps I even first visited from your signature link.

[whynotwalk]

Actually **blush** it's NOT in my signature, just under my avatar ... oops

[FatCanyoner]

Actually **blush** it's NOT in my signature, just under my avatar ... oops

Yep, I just scratched my head over that... then clicked on your avatar and followed the link to your blog...

Nice site by the way!

[Stibb]

"Should Blog Links in signatures be allowed?"

Huh?

As usual, I just don't see where the problem is.

All I see is that a banal "problem" has just been created which is being dissected.
What's the point?

[doogs]

I don't mind them at all. I only take umbrage when people start threads that have no conversational value and only serve as a gateway back to their *&%$#! blog.

There's plenty of threads that don't have blog links which also have no conversational value. I'm looking forward to the day that a thread is started along the lines of ' Which sock do you put on first, right or left?'. I'd rather a link to a *&%$#! blog than some dullards verbal prolapse.
So..um.. I don't have a problem with blog links.

[Nuts]

As usual, I just don't see where the problem is.
All I see is that a banal "problem" has just been created which is being dissected.
What's the point?

Perhaps I should have been more articulate in the first post, some people do seem to get annoyed with blog links (I thought in signatures but it seems more related to associated post content). The point was a topic to encourage discussion rather than the continual need for cutting remarks (both from those 'irked' and perhaps for those giving links to understand what 'irks').

As I said, personally, I agree. I'm not really That fussed either way. Perhaps it should have been a general discussion of what causes people to flare up, what irks them. To understand the myriad things that annoy people would require doing a lot of reading (Otherwise I guess you'll just have to trust that there really are a number of issues that crop up from time to time).

For instance, for me, worse than those posting topics discussing 'what sock first' are people that appear to sit in the background waiting for the opportunity to give a intolerant negative 'contribution', seemingly not much else..

[doogs]

It would be nice if people who enjoy writing blogs could contribute some of their trip reports to this forum rather than encouraging people to visit their blogs to read them. It would only take a few minutes to copy and paste the story from their blog and then add a few pictures. A forum is only what it's members make it and the more folk who that make a meaningful contribution then the better it is going to be. If all regular visitors to this site endeavoured write a trip report or added some pictures to the gallery a couple of times a year it would be a fantastically amazing resource.

[FatCanyoner]

It would be nice if people who enjoy writing blogs could contribute some of their trip reports to this forum rather than encouraging people to visit their blogs to read them. It would only take a few minutes to copy and paste the story from their blog and then add a few pictures.

At least they are writing trip reports and sharing photos, which is more than many of the non-bloggers on this site do... I would have thought creating and sharing bushwalking information is far more important than what forum it appears on. And personally, I don't feel comfortable giving over complete rights to my words and photos to a site with commercial advertising, no matter how pure it is. I'll give some, because I want to share and encourage people to explore new areas, but there is no forum or site that I would be willing to give everything I write and do to. In reality, most bloggers on here give far more to bushwalk.com than they get in return!