Hi all,
Some fellow users have recently commented to me that they
don't know if they should put "plug" warnings on comments
they post.
At the risk of starting a long thread, here's how I feel:
If you benefit by recommending a product, you have an
obligation to indicate that the reference to it is a "plug".
Otherwise, you don't.
Sure, there are some gray areas, like: someone who wants to
help a friend by repeatedly promoting a product, thereby
hoping to benefit the friend. (I've seen this happen on
other newsgroups.)
So, if J. User (not an editor vendor) says:
I use QEDIT from Robelle to solve this problem.
then he/she shouldn't feel that they need to do a
plug disclaimer ANY MORE THAN THEY WOULD IF THEY
DID THIS:
I use EDITOR [from HP] to solve this problem.
This is a crucial concept: HP is a vendor!
By recommending QEDIT, you have a financial impact on
Robelle (and all other editor vendors).
By recommending EDITOR, you *also* have a financial impact on
Robelle (and all other editor vendors).
So, there should be no distinction between references to
the two products.
But, J. User isn't benefitting (financially) from the
recommendation of either product...
and it would be silly if every reference to any named piece
of software (HP's, Robelle's, Lund's, etc.) had to have
a "plug" disclaimer...
hence my suggestion:
if you benefit from the recommendation, it should be marked as a "plug".
Note that I said "J. User" was not an *editor* vendor...
Paul Wang should be just as free to mention what editor
he uses, without a disclaimer, as any other user ... Paul's
a vendor, but has no finanial interest in any editors (AFAIK).
OTOH, I'd expect Paul to do a disclaimer if he talks about
defragment tools, or compression tools.
What do you think? Is this "plug criteria" satisfactory?
Should it be in the FAQ?
Am I all wet?
Am I hungry? (Yes...I'm going to lunch)
:)
thanks,
--
Stan Sieler [log in to unmask]
http://www.allegro.com/sieler.html
|
