I agree. And like I said earlier, who is to say G won't amend their rules again in the future and find something wrong with something still on your forum that you didn't wipe?
On the other hand, O/T isn't anywhere as valuable to the community as the other sections. So I don't personally think it would be any big loss if O/T got nuked.
But, having said that, if this was my forum, I wouldn't let a big search engine company with questionable political motives push me around, censor free speech, or dictate terms to me about how I was going to run my site. But that's just me.
I think you're looking at it the wrong way. This isn't a free speech issue. Cliff is a business owner. Google is a client. If a client doesn't like how you run your business, they'll take their business elsewhere. You have no obligation to do business with people you don't like, and neither does Google. It's no different than a brick and mortar store showing propaganda you find offensive then saying you're violating their free speech rights if you don't spend your money there.
It's about his livelihood. Our bravado doesn't pay his bills or keep this site open.
I understand where you are coming from. But where do you draw the line? And if he bends to their will today on this, what will they want him to bend to tomorrow?
Note that I'm sure this isn't just about some questionable pictures...
Look, this is Cliff's site and he can do what he wants. I'm just offering my opinion on how I would deal with this obvious bullying situation.
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 04-23-2016).]
But if it makes people feel any better, we made a site Google wants no part of. Now that's good for who?
Easy on the "we", eh. A few members contributed a heck of lot more to that dubious honor than most others. But yeah, now everyone suffers the consequences.
All we can do is clean up what they want us to, and move on. Like others have stated most forums have a NSFW section with special privileges that only verified members can see. I'm not talking about nudie pictures necessarily, but just a hidden section. The off topic section generates a lot of traffic.
[This message has been edited by Gwhite18 (edited 04-23-2016).]
To scan the threads you could create a program to pull up each page of a post in OT(start from post 1 page 1). A user would review that page and report if there was any questionable material. Then you or members you trust could take action. Show the message to everyone at a set interval and if they want to help(to weed out people that wouldn't really review it) they are linked to the page. If the page contains something they post in a thread with the link and a short description.
I think you're looking at it the wrong way. This isn't a free speech issue. Cliff is a business owner. Google is a client. If a client doesn't like how you run your business, they'll take their business elsewhere. You have no obligation to do business with people you don't like, and neither does Google. It's no different than a brick and mortar store showing propaganda you find offensive then saying you're violating their free speech rights if you don't spend your money there.
I disagree. Cliff isn't the one making statements or posting the material that has been deemed questionable by some. All Cliff has done is provided a place for free discussion of ideas. He may not agree with some of what is said here, but I respect him for allowing opposing viewpoints to be posted, and not deleting or editing viewpoints he may not agree with.
That being said, I don't know how long the ads have been running on here. But I do know there were posts on this forum that existed before the ads came along that violated google's rules - and perhaps that was an issue that should have been addressed from the beginning. But since it wasn't and the ads have been running for some time, why all of a sudden is google having an issue? Do they regularly enter into business agreements without investigating their clients?
According to Cliff, OT generates the bulk of the traffic to this site. I have to believe the reason why is because of the discussions that have been allowed to go on here. And now the ad company wants the power to potentially squelch much of what is discussed here that generated said traffic.
Just to be clear: I am in complete agreement with google's policy on pedophilia. But I think they are just using that as the initial excuse of what they say they don't like going on here. I have no doubt there are a lot of other posts on here they don't like. So don't be surprised if, after all your efforts of cleaning up OT of what they say they have a problem with at this moment are completed, another email appears explaining there is something else they want expunged from this site.
Just my opinion.
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 04-24-2016).]
And now the ad company wants the power to potentially squelch much of what is discussed here that generated said traffic. I have to believe the changes demanded by the ad company's rules will have a negative impact on that traffic.
A lot of decent folk have left PFF over the last few years due to being turned off by the antics in O/T. With Google stepping in and enforcing their guidelines, perhaps this exodus of quality members will abate and even possibly reverse. Maybe this apparent slap in the face will turn out to be a wake-up call, and end up being a positive step for the forum in general.
...... Cliff is a business owner. Google is a client. If a client doesn't like how you run your business, they'll take their business elsewhere. You have no obligation to do business with people you don't like, and neither does Google. It's no different than a brick and mortar store showing propaganda you find offensive then saying you're violating their free speech rights if you don't spend your money there.
And that is exactly why I feel no entitlement to my preferences in regard to Cliff's Management of his Business. All the considerations between Ads, Membership fee or Donations all have their benefits and burdens.
Ads and Membership both come at the expense of compliance.
however,
the Advertising option is usually limits compliance to content and behaviors to avoid a negative reflection upon them solely because of their association with you.
Members! usually presents you with the Cant Live With'em and Cant Live Without'em, catch22. Just image how many people would be loading Cliff's PM inbox with "I am mad/hurt and if you don't fix it, I'll cancel my membership" (Lol, that probably happens already)
Donations, are the nice middle ground where it's more a sign of appreciation. Especially when the community's bonds are based more on relationships than content. The down side is that donations generally flow like a fire brigade. The tap doesn't fully open unless the house is on fire and stops as soon as the fire is out. (forums can't operated between feast and famine, when famines are the norm)
I have tried to start several forums over the past 10 years and failed because I could not nail down a subject I cared about, that was not already covered. It is impossible to just setup a server, install forum (require) software and a full time connection without having first established a community to fill it. I considered Ads, membership and donations. But like I said, you can have money and an environment but without the community to fill it, it's just money paid out to support wasted potential. Had I actually been successful, I would have chosen to use all three but in specific areas.
Ads in the Free (public) area where visitors can read but only registered "Visitors" can post.
Membership and Ads in areas where anyone can view but only "Members" can post.
Membership (no ads) where "Members" communicate about forum issues and development that should not include public or 3rd party access.
Donations would be a standard link (as it is) on every page. In addition to the donation button or link, I would challenge members to brainstorm ideas for quarterly donation campaign drives.
I know I have posted my opinions here and I don't feel that for one second that my opinion should matter one way or another. I did not post to suggest any changes or to say things should have been done differently.
I truly admire and respect what Cliff has managed to do here. Likewise I remain impressed by the community that has built up over many years that is so well bonded that when tested by it's own diversity it finds away to become stronger. Whatever the outcome I know this community will survive without having to shut it down.
I too am wondering how much of this was initiated by Google checking content. It seems some things have become an issue that had not raised a flag sooner. Sure feels more like a 3rd party guiding googles attention. Obviously there were some content issues and those are being addresses, but the timing is a bit suspicious.
Donations would be a standard link (as it is) on every page. In addition to the donation button or link, I would challenge members to brainstorm ideas for quarterly donation campaign drives.
Interesting thought. I wonder how many would donate items to raffle or sell to fund the forum?
Easy on the "we", eh. A few members contributed a heck of lot more to that dubious honor than most others. But yeah, now everyone suffers the consequences.
I thought it was better than saying the generic "you" but my thoughts about what goes on here in OT has been said before and as you said, we are dealing with it. Frankly I am not sure some people would have throttled their actions even if they knew the finances of the site were at risk.
I'm waiting for Cliff to tell us if there is a path out of this avoid shutting it down. He's the only one that knows.
[This message has been edited by TK (edited 04-24-2016).]
I understand where you are coming from. But where do you draw the line? And if he bends to their will today on this, what will they want him to bend to tomorrow?
Note that I'm sure this isn't just about some questionable pictures...
Look, this is Cliff's site and he can do what he wants. I'm just offering my opinion on how I would deal with this obvious bullying situation.
You are right and I too wish there was a way to push back but I can't think of one. As we like to say, if someone doesn't like it, they can leave. Google has. I am hoping there is a compromise somewhere in this.
Jmclemore, the timing crossed my mind too.
[This message has been edited by TK (edited 04-24-2016).]
Interesting thought. I wonder how many would donate items to raffle or sell to fund the forum?
More like friendly competitions among members where a handful of members raise Pledges/Sponsorship from other members. Prevailing teams could receive forum recognition. Some other prize or award could be considered but it might be a bad idea to offer money as a prize since raffle and lottery laws are strictly enforced. Obviously, Any method for raising revenue first requires traffic to achieve. So I would suggest creative campaigns that focus on generating new members/registrations. I agree that donated items such as parts may encourage such fund raising campaigns.
At some point when this google issues is resolved, it might be worth discussing ways the PFF community could jointly find ways to stir up more interest in the Fiero. I would love to see a PFF inspired build that could be auctioned off to support and promote the forum.
Obviously there were some content issues and those are being addresses, but the timing is a bit suspicious.
quote
Originally posted by TK:
Jmclemore, the timing crossed my mind too.
Maybe it's because I've been avoiding O/T basically since last November, but I'm missing something here. If for some reason no one wants to mention publicly whatever this "timing" thing is, a PM to fill me in would be appreciated. Thanks.
Maybe it's because I've been avoiding O/T basically since last November, but I'm missing something here. If for some reason no one wants to mention publicly whatever this "timing" thing is, a PM to fill me in would be appreciated. Thanks.
It's just speculation that someone with a grudge tipped off Google but I certainly don't know anything. I was thinking that it was odd that only now Google is saying something when the offending threads have been around long time. But I know nothing factual at all. When he made the statement I just agreed I had the same thought. Nothing more. Considering the number of sites they have to review it could have easily taken them this long to get to us on their long list.
We could give it some legs ya know ... but I doubt Cliff will find out. Right now it's a waiting game. It certainly gives "forever on the internet" some reality now.
It's just speculation that someone with a grudge tipped off Google but I certainly don't know anything
And it is just speculation at this point that a lot of people have left PFF because of antics in the O/T section. Lots of opinions, few facts. If we are to help Cliff figure this out, we should stick to the facts.
And it is just speculation at this point that a lot of people have left PFF because of antics in the O/T section.
Tell yourself that if you wish, but over the years I've literally begged ex-members to return to PFF... but they'd had enough of the abuse in O/T. I've been here a long time, I know a lot of the members. I finally had enough of O/T myself at the end of last year, and if it wasn't for the fact that I still have and enjoy several Fieros, I would've left PFF as well. However, in my case I decided it might be more prudent simply to avoid the aggravation of O/T and focus instead on the tech forums. I've been very happy with my decision. If O/T changes due to the fallout from Google's guidelines, perhaps I'll return. In the meantime, the focus for all members is to help figure out how to satisfy Google that Cliff deserves to have ads and revenue returned to this site.
There are other sources of ad revenue, aren't there? I just think it's ridiculous that PFF is basically being held hostage by Google. Cliff didn't have a backup plan in case Google fell through?
Hey Cliff, since Google has code that filters through a site & identifies objectionable content, it doesn't seem much of a stretch to imagine applying that code to filter incoming submissions.
A warning message could be provided to the poster much like the PIP oversize message. The poster could then alter the post to make it acceptable. That could prevent a disgruntled person from shutting PFF down, considering that they now know how.
Objectionable content could be blocked before it's on the site. Might as well accept the unavoidable censorship up-front.
It has nothing to do with what I wish or want to believe. I too have been here for years, and was a club president for 5 years. and ran the Westfest for 8 years. So I too know a lot of people and am aware of people's reasons for losing interest.
I haven't been active for the last two years because I bought a new daily driver and mothballed my fieros. I know many other people who have dropped off the map for similar reasons. Let's face it, they stopped making the car 28 years ago. There was bound to be a natural drop off at some point. And, unfortunately, the mixed reputation of the car doesn't help. How many times have you heard the jokes about fieros and fires?
quote
but over the years I've literally begged ex-members to return to PFF... but they'd had enough of the abuse in O/T. I've been here a long time, I know a lot of the members. I finally had enough of O/T myself at the end of last year, and if it wasn't for the fact that I still have and enjoy several Fieros, I would've left PFF as well. However, in my case I decided it might be more prudent simply to avoid the aggravation of O/T and focus instead on the tech forums. I've been very happy with my decision. If O/T changes due to the fallout from Google's guidelines, perhaps I'll return. In the meantime, the focus for all members is to help figure out how to satisfy Google that Cliff deserves to have ads and revenue returned to this site.
It has always amazed me how people seem to have the attitude that they MUST read things they know they don't like. If O/T was such a problem for you, why did you go there at all? It isn't someone else's fault if you are offended in a place you know might offend you. You may know a few people who were off-put by O/T, but it appears you are applying confirmation bias to your hypothesis. I'd bet most people have reasons for leaving or losing interest other than the O/T section.
I'd bet most people have reasons for leaving or losing interest other than the O/T section.
I like your perception of former members. I too would rather believe they either sold their car and moved on or actually just got the answer they needed and thats all they wanted.
It sure beats the notion that most of them just wanted an environment void of opposing views and beliefs where they are surround by people who agree with their point of view.
My speculative consideration of a 3rd party instigating a Google review, doesn't change the fact that there was something to find/found. Kind of like a neighbor reporting you had a violation in your gloss box. All that matters is what they find when they look in your glove box.
The last few posts consisting of the 'blame game' regarding why people 'left' = subject matter discussions probably better left to or brought up IN OT and allow discussions in this thread to stay focused on alleviating the bigger problem the entire forum is now facing.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-24-2016).]
The last few posts consisting of the 'blame game' regarding why people 'left' = subject matter discussions probably better left to or brought up IN OT and allow discussions in this thread to stay focused on alleviating the bigger problem the entire forum is now facing.
Don, I don't think it hurts to make it known (to those in absolute denial) that the open hostility directed in O/T to those with differing opinions has probably contributed (directly or indirectly) to the situation we're now facing, and discussing.
Anyway, in light of your wishes, I'll refrain from dredging up more of the past... unless provoked.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 04-24-2016).]
Ice cold beer here! I vote for whatever measure is needed to keep the forum intact. I'd assume we could hang on to Tech, the Construction and also GFC.
I disagree. Cliff isn't the one making statements or posting the material that has been deemed questionable by some. All Cliff has done is provided a place for free discussion of ideas. He may not agree with some of what is said here, but I respect him for allowing opposing viewpoints to be posted, and not deleting or editing viewpoints he may not agree with.
That being said, I don't know how long the ads have been running on here. But I do know there were posts on this forum that existed before the ads came along that violated google's rules - and perhaps that was an issue that should have been addressed from the beginning. But since it wasn't and the ads have been running for some time, why all of a sudden is google having an issue? Do they regularly enter into business agreements without investigating their clients?
According to Cliff, OT generates the bulk of the traffic to this site. I have to believe the reason why is because of the discussions that have been allowed to go on here. And now the ad company wants the power to potentially squelch much of what is discussed here that generated said traffic.
Just to be clear: I am in complete agreement with google's policy on pedophilia. But I think they are just using that as the initial excuse of what they say they don't like going on here. I have no doubt there are a lot of other posts on here they don't like. So don't be surprised if, after all your efforts of cleaning up OT of what they say they have a problem with at this moment are completed, another email appears explaining there is something else they want expunged from this site.
Just my opinion.
I understand what you are saying without you saying it. I agree with you. That is all I will say about google.
While I haven't owned a Fiero since 2008(thank you Hurricane Ike)...I still visit frequently(although I don't post). This forum needs to remain...just as it is. I think a fund raiser...and/or annual/random donations to keep this site going as it is...is the right answer. I know for a fact I will be a Fiero owner again...and shudder at the thought of doing so without this site as a reference/meeting place. As many members as this site has...a once a year donation of $50-10 from each of us would more than likely be plenty to keep this ship afloat.
As for Google...does them opting out cause any changes to Google search results concerning this site and it's content?
Has Cliff ever mentioned the monthly costs to run the site? I wonder what we are looking at. It's hard to decide what would help without knowing, I certainly wouldn't begrudge him making a good profit but we can toss $10 here and there and be nowhere close. I can roughly guess but this isn't horse shoes.
Originally posted by robert1234: .but can't we just delete the bad posts and make Google happy?
That is the current plan and what we need to be doing. The offending posts/threads tho, are scattered over years of current and archived threads and posts, with offensive posts intermixed with otherwise innocuous threads--needles in haystacks, so a search has to be performed to remove the offensive material. It is this search, that Cliff needs help with.
For instance, the following thread, a comment on a news story in the NY Times, is a discussion on one of the subjects Google finds offensive. It's not terribly blatant, but falls under their guidline for material they won't alloow ads next to, therefore, It needs, probably in entirety, to be deleted:
On very first pg of this very lengthy thread (191 pgs) is mention of an underage girl and one of the 'forbidden' words that begins with 'p'. (Probably be easier to just nuke this whole thread) https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/036133.html
Yes, most are rather innocent looking threads and posts, but we here at PFF aren't the ones judging the posts. I leave it up to Cliff whether to delete the above posts or not.
The search continues...
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-26-2016).]
Has Cliff ever mentioned the monthly costs to run the site? I wonder what we are looking at. It's hard to decide what would help without knowing, I certainly wouldn't begrudge him making a good profit but we can toss $10 here and there and be nowhere close. I can roughly guess but this isn't horse shoes.
I realize that we are not entitled to updates on the progress being made and that the burden of digging deep into the entire site would not leave much available time to frequently post updates.
But, can I assume that the issue is ongoing until the ads have returned?
I am still curious if the cached content collected by google is delaying the process. Searches still bring up results to images and topics that could be a problem. Often those links produce a page that has already been cleaned. Is there a possibility that google's own cached data is keeping PFF being reinstated? If so, We could be at the mercy of Google's ability, desire or schedule for refreshing their own data.......
Okay Another webmaster asked how long it takes for google's cached content gets updated.
quote
Google will update the cache next time it crawls and indexes the page just like it does for any other site. How often that happens tends to depend on the number of links to a site and how often the page content changes. I have some pages on some of my sites with the cache date of late april still. ...others changed a few minutes ago.
There is nothing you can do to force it. It will happen when it happens. In the meantime get more links to the site (the more links means teh google crawler is more likely to stop by).
If we are not doing it already, It might be a good idea to visit the pages that have been cleaned and hope it causes google to update the cache for that page.... I don't know if that will work, I just can't imagine a more convenient time to update cached content then the why most browsers do. Which usually occurs the next time you visit..... IDK
What exactly is a "reset"? If that means deleting everything that was ever posted in O/T... Hell no!
Many of us have shared important personal events of our lives in O/T... births, deaths, relationships, pets, jobs, misfortunes, holidays, music, photographs, laughter, sorrow, etc. I've often searched through the archives to find posts (my own as well as other member's) from years ago.
Yes, a lot of useless political nonsense has been posted (and I despise it), but there's no need (hopefully) to throw out the baby with the bath water.
It would be an absolute shame to lose over 16 years worth of irreplaceable PFF member history.
Is that what people are talking about in O/T?? I thought that's what social media is for.
There are like hundreds of places people can whine on the internet about politics, religion and whatever. But precious few places to get technical information on Fieros.
I say Nuke the O/T and the trash and GFC if you have to, but do whatever you have to do to keep the lights on.
[This message has been edited by jscott1 (edited 04-25-2016).]
