Home > Message Boards > Epinions > Epinions General > Cross-posting your reviews onto other sites, including Amazon

Cross-posting your reviews onto other sites, including Amazon
Posts on this Topic   Search in Epinions General   
Showing 401-412 of 412 posts << Previous  Page 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 21  
Hide member images Print         
sageandsavory Posted: Aug 16 '06,  10:16 am           
Reviews written: 1
Member since: Mar 10, 2000

Post: 70786
RE: Happy Monday!

Quote: roheblius
I'm looking for some long time member help here.

I haven't been able to find a User Agreement on our site that says the cross posting to price comparison websites was ever ok. I've found the original UA and a second one that came out in 2003. That second UA said, "We ask that you refer or provide links to Epinions if you choose to republish your Content elsewhere and that you do not publish the same items of Content on both Epinions and other product or price comparison sites." That is consistent with what the message in the 2006 version of the UA. The only message I have found that contradicts that language is Nirav's letter in 2002, which is what members have been abiding by. I don't see any specific UA changes that have taken out the cross posting phrase. Am I missing something?


Sorry if someone else has already suggested this but I have pages left to read and I wanted to comment before I got side tracked.

Why doesn't Epinions announce that they are rescinding, revoking, whatever the proper legal terminology is, the Nirav letter of 2002. You could have Epinions lawyers write up something short and sweet like the following letter is hereby rescinded, revoked, no longer in force, then of course ensure that everyone gets to read what has been revoked so that there is no confusion. This should put a stop to the most egregious double posting, and conscientious members will probably e-mail you when in doubt. It at least stops the bleeding.
roheblius Posted: Aug 16 '06,  10:27 am           
Reviews written: 672
Member since: Dec 13, 1999

moderator in Music
Post: 70790
RE: stare decisis

Quote: mobiprof
You can keeep denying it and trying to spin it, but the language in the UA does allow it.

It's over. We disagree. You love being repetitive. End of story.
roheblius Posted: Aug 16 '06,  10:30 am (Updated: Aug 16 '06,  10:30 am)           
Reviews written: 672
Member since: Dec 13, 1999

moderator in Music
Post: 70792
RE: Happy Monday!

Quote: drdevience
*bangs head on desk*

ASK: To make a request for. Often used with an infinitive or clause: ask a favor of a friend; asked to go along on the trip; asked that he be allowed to stay out late.

combined with Epinion's own CEO's statement it would be allowed. I had just joined when the ban was lifted for cross-posting. I have told several folks who came over from Amazon it was ok based on what Nirav said. I am far from the only advisor who has suggested to newer folks that they add to the bottom of their reviews that they have posted the same review elsewhere in order to head off accusations of plagiarism.

This has been standard operating procedure since 2002.

You cannot now punish people for doing what Eps Reps (advisors) have told them to do based on what the CEO told them to do...

You are digging for loopholes and it looks like (to some) that you are trying to find a fine line somewhere which will validate a mass ticketing. That may not be true, but it is the perception of that post.

I do, however, disagree on the whole grandfathering thing. You absolutely can say the ones already posted stand, and then go by dates published of any reviews to smack new cross-posts.


I don't think you understood my request. I want to see if there was any UA that took out that statement or said, "You can now do ....." That's it.

Now quit banging your head on your desk. It might break. Your head I mean.
roheblius Posted: Aug 16 '06,  10:32 am           
Reviews written: 672
Member since: Dec 13, 1999

moderator in Music
Post: 70793
RE: stare decisis

Quote: drdevience

And yeah... Andy left it at a good place, but then GG came in last night looking like they were trying to twist the old understandings. He had all the clarification... numerous times... yet is still wording things like he is looking for a way to smack old cross-posts as well as the new ones.

Incorrect. I'm just trying to find "everything" we've ever said because obviously we missed some stuff.
roheblius Posted: Aug 16 '06,  10:34 am           
Reviews written: 672
Member since: Dec 13, 1999

moderator in Music
Post: 70795
RE: stare decisis

Quote: drdevience
Actually, it is being dicussed amongst them all and GG's input is valuable. It is imperative that he understand all possible repurcussions on this, and why.


Believe me, I've been here long enough to see where this was going on Friday. You thought I stayed on the boards Friday, Saturday, and Sunday only to raise my blood pressure? I understand the repurcussions better than anyone with an Epinions name tag. We just need to be as consistent as we can. I don't want us to not completely understand what was done in the past ever again.
sageandsavory Posted: Aug 16 '06,  10:34 am           
Reviews written: 1
Member since: Mar 10, 2000

Post: 70796
RE: oh and...

Quote: pearannoyed
Dude - that's gonna be murder on the love life...

Maybe like a priest he had to take a vow of celibacy because we are such an important flock. Now some members may be waiting in line to confess.


drdevience Posted: Aug 16 '06,  10:36 am (Updated: Aug 16 '06,  10:37 am)           
Reviews written: 647
Member since: Jun 9, 2002

moderator in Movies, Video Games
Post: 70797
RE: stare decisis

Here's a thought...

Real simple. I know folks love to respond immediately to any post they see, but it is ever so easy to right-click the quote button and keep it readily available to respond to all at once with any others you do the same too once you have finished reading the full batch of posts....

NOT aimed at GG and Sage necessarily, but in general.


bob_tomato Posted: Aug 16 '06,  10:43 am           
Reviews written: 286
Member since: Nov 17, 2002

moderator in Musical Equipment
Post: 70800
Closing Cross Post Discussion

Quote: Andyman
Your point of order is well-taken. This thread really is out of control at this point. I am concerned that, until we ammend the UA, a lot of this discussion is moot. I am also concerned that this thread is so huge that it's extremely difficult for anyone coming in to figure out what's really going on. There is a ton of conjecture, conflicting information, etc. My inclination would be to lock it and take a few deep breaths over the next couple of days until we can release the UA change. Then we can begin this from a more productive point. That's a call for the Moderators to make, of course. Leaving it open so that more people can weigh in isn't a bad thing either. But it seems likely we'll just keep covering old ground.

I agree - everything has been discussed in great detail, there is nothing new being added at this point, and now it is up to Epinions to take the action they feel is necessary.

I am closing this thread, and we can pick this up again when the announcement is ready.
mobiprof Posted: Aug 16 '06,  10:50 am           
Reviews written: 181
Member since: Jun 27, 2000

Post: 70802
RE: stare decisis

Quote: Andyman
Your entire premise here is that the prohibition in the UA is weak, it is an "ask" and not a "command."

Huh? That is neither mine nor a premise.

Many members have pointed that there is no prohibition, there is just a request.
Lots of evidence has been provided by various members to back that up.

Quote: Andyman

And you equate a weak prohibition of cross posting with an outright endorsement, even a hearty encouragement to cross post.

No I do not. I do not understand what you hope to accomplish with taht false claim?
I have pointed out that the TOS was changed and that members are allowed to cross-post. I have never said that epinions.com encourages it, I have in fact pointed out, several times already, that epinions.com requests membes not do so.

Quote: Andyman
the UA itself contains a prohibition, albeit a weak one.

Don't be misled by your resident spinmeister.
The UA contains no cross-posting prohibition. It contains a request.
That is not the same by any stretch of the imagination.

Quote: Andyman
If it weren't for Nirav's letter, the weak wording in the UA would have been a minor point of confusion easily cleared up in this MB thread.

I just posted the before and after the change links again.
Compare the two UA versions yourself.

The CEO's letter may certainly help you in interpreting and understanding the change, but it is just one piece of evidence. There are Member Centre announcements, there are the chats, there is four years of practice, there are emails members have received.... suggesting that the CEO letter is somehow pivotal in all this... nah, it is certainly noteworthy, but not essential. Without it, there is enough other evidence left.

Quote: Andyman
So you can stop prancing around in glee at the belief that you've "caught an employee contradicting the UA."

Are you taking lessons from the spinmeister?
Your suggestion that I am gleefully happy "catching" an employee contradicting the UA is ludicrious beyond belief. You know better and if you read the thread (it's big, I know), you'd have notice me and others trying to help roheb understand the UA.

I have very clearly stated that I find it worrysome me to see an employee contradict the UA. I am quite sure that I am not the only one who feels that way. I fail to see see how any member can be happy with this, or why you gleefully claim anyone is happy with it. I also feel to such how such claims contribute anything to this thread.

Quote: Andyman
the wording in the UA is not sufficient and will be tweaked to come in line with what I've laid out here.

That's definitive? I am sorry to hear you plan to curtail member rights, but happy to understand (I hope) that you will change the UA before ticketing anyone again for something explicitly allowed under the current UA.
I hope you have considered the effects of the change. I posted some thoughts on this, which suggest that even under a weak grandffathering rule, the effect on epinions.com's uniqueness will be minimal. Do understand that you risk causing the nth mass-exodus of long-time and loyal members if you don't do this right.

- MobiProf
mobiprof Posted: Aug 16 '06,  10:56 am           
Reviews written: 181
Member since: Jun 27, 2000

Post: 70803
providing clarity


You mention confusion and conflicting information.
I think you are a in great position to provide clarity.

Roheb may like to claim that members dont understand the UA, but the evidence so far is, to put it politely, quite different. Problem is, he is an employee, and for that reason many members will believe anything he says, especially when statement are made in his, hm, usual assertive way.
That is why you seem long-time members sticking their head out and contradicting him. Still, the confusion he has caused is considerable.

If you want to help users understand the UA, admit what so members have been pointing out already.
Admit to the stare decisis.

Admit that roheb's seven twist and spins are just that, and apologise for the confusion he caused.
Disowning his spins will go a long way to providing the much-desired clarity.

Make it very clear that, until the UA is changed
*. cross-posting is allowed
*. nothing in the UA justifies punishment of cross-posting
*. whatever is said on the EMB does not change the UA
*. planned changes do not affect the current UA
*. Nothing outside the UA changes the UA

I think many members would also be quite grateful if you announced a policy that makes spins like roheb's, that try to twist the UA into something it is not on misperceived and/or misrepresented verbal technicalities a thing of the past. It just winds many members up and gets us nowhere.
I suggest that epinions.com make it a policy that says that if there ever is any lack of clarity in the UA, it will be interpreted in the members favour [and speedily followed by a rewrite to provide clarity].

- MobiProf

gamblin_man Posted: Aug 16 '06,  12:36 pm (Updated: Aug 16 '06,  12:37 pm)           
Reviews written: 358
Member since: Apr 8, 2001

moderator in Home & Garden
Post: 70828
It Hit Number Two...

....maybe the next one will be a new record.


PS - This thread is locked and no one can post to it. So says one Genral Mod and so say we all.

bob_tomato Posted: Aug 17 '06,  2:21 pm (Updated: Aug 17 '06,  2:22 pm)           
Reviews written: 286
Member since: Nov 17, 2002

moderator in Musical Equipment
Post: 71054
Update Posted by Andyman

Please refer to this update from Andyman regarding where the Epinions staff is at right now with their decision about Cross Posting.

And an FYI - this thread may be re-opened in the future, depending on the direction the discussion takes once we have a decision. For now, let's see how Epinions wants to gather feedback from the community as they've indicated and work with them in that manner.



Hide member images Print         
Showing 401-412 of 412 posts << Previous  Page 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 21  
Return to top