All Member Open Forum

David, 

I agree. Adding value to the conversation is the point. The rationale that a work with a "by" line is self-promotion is over the top as a criterion for censure.

I will offer another criterion of self-promotion. If when we go to the site via a provided link, we are required to enter personal information as a condition of download, then it is blatant use of the forum for sales prospecting and calls for censorship. The quality of information should not allow such sales prospecting.

Another form of sales prospecting that should not be allowed is to mention a document but not make it available by web site or attachment. These are the cases when the author states that, "whoever is interested, send me an email."

I don't think sales-hype words in a document disqualify the material as information as long as it meets your criterion: adds value to conversation at hand.

I agree with the conditions Richard lists regarding self-promoting; sales pitches; e-mail links; and document attaches.  I no longer enter personal information when the link requests such as I have found most of the documents are so general anyway that they are of little help or interest.  

David, 

I agree. Adding value to the conversation is the point. The rationale that a work with a "by" line is self-promotion is over the top as a criterion for censure.

I will offer another criterion of self-promotion. If when we go to the site via a provided link, we are required to enter personal information as a condition of download, then it is blatant use of the forum for sales prospecting and calls for censorship. The quality of information should not allow such sales prospecting.

Another form of sales prospecting that should not be allowed is to mention a document but not make it available by web site or attachment. These are the cases when the author states that, "whoever is interested, send me an email."

I don't think sales-hype words in a document disqualify the material as information as long as it meets your criterion: adds value to conversation at hand.

James, 

Excessive generality is not unusual. However, that raises another question. If it is not sales prospecting, should individuals be censored upon the information they contribute to a discussion upon the judgement of the depth of the contribution?

Although too general to be helpful, not all contributions are general on purpose so that readers must come to the author. Who should judge that? And if judgements are being made, are we comfortable that the judge is qualified to make the judgement?

I believe that only purveyors of blatant sales promotion should be censored because we should not block SMRP forum participants from information. The cases of identifying oneself to receive the information is blatant and should not be allowed.

I agree with the conditions Richard lists regarding self-promoting; sales pitches; e-mail links; and document attaches.  I no longer enter personal information when the link requests such as I have found most of the documents are so general anyway that they are of little help or interest.  

David, 

I agree. Adding value to the conversation is the point. The rationale that a work with a "by" line is self-promotion is over the top as a criterion for censure.

I will offer another criterion of self-promotion. If when we go to the site via a provided link, we are required to enter personal information as a condition of download, then it is blatant use of the forum for sales prospecting and calls for censorship. The quality of information should not allow such sales prospecting.

Another form of sales prospecting that should not be allowed is to mention a document but not make it available by web site or attachment. These are the cases when the author states that, "whoever is interested, send me an email."

I don't think sales-hype words in a document disqualify the material as information as long as it meets your criterion: adds value to conversation at hand.