Skimlinks trial on MSE forums

kermitfrog

Totality wrote: »

this should be opt in and it's clear the reason MSE don't want this is because those not logged/registered will have no choice but to use skimlinks.

No, it has to be 'opt out' because if you asked people to opt in, they wouldn't do it because there's no reason to. Therefore the whole point of the exercise is lost.

It's not rocket science, it's a simple understanding of human behaviour.

Totality

kermitfrog wrote: »

No, it has to be 'opt out' because if you asked people to opt in, they wouldn't do it because there's no reason to. Therefore the whole point of the exercise is lost.

It's not rocket science, it's a simple understanding of human behaviour.

Many companies automatically opt you in for things, and as I've said in a previous post, I'm sure if I was to search the web, I'd find Martin himself being keen to point out that this was not the right thing to do.

The whole point of the exercise is clear enough - to make money. Trying to blag forum members about increases in hosting etc isn't going to wash. Martin and MSE should simply admit that they want to do this to make money and as I and others have already said, the way this is being done isn't right.

JimmyTheWig

robt, Totality...

If we take it as read that MSE is wanting to do this to make money (either for the purposes of improving user experience or for the sake of lining their own pockets), and given that the change could have been communicated to users better, what are your actual problems with this change?

Totality

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

robt, Totality...

If we take it as read that MSE is wanting to do this to make money (either for the purposes of improving user experience or for the sake of lining their own pockets), and given that the change could have been communicated to users better, what are your actual problems with this change?

I think its a crafty way of making money from having forum members do the work.

If a forum member who, for example, found a great deal at M&S, was to put up a link to an item for sale, plenty of folk on here would follow that link and purchase said item.

If that forum member was to put their own affiliate link, that would be a no go, which we all know and understand.

However, this new scheme basically would mean forum members who spend time each day to trawl the net for offers etc, are effectively providing MSE with free labour.

kermitfrog

Totality wrote: »

The whole point of the exercise is clear enough - to make money.

BRAVO!!! At last you understand!

So apart from that, and the fact that what's already done can't be undone, what objections do you have?

PhiltheBear

What a self serving, self righteous, load of rubbish.

MSE_Archna wrote: »

Please can we clarify this again:

1. This is a trial.

Nothing has been introduced yet. This is software used on many sites, eg, the telegraph, mirror, netmums and more.

It has been introduced. It may be a trial but it's here. None of those other sites set themselves up as consumer friends in the way this one does.

MSE_Archna wrote: »

Unlike other sites, we've trialled skimlinks asked users for feedback, which we read and have already acted on many suggestions.

This includes:

• Adding an opt-out.
• Removing it from specific boards where it may cause users problems, eg, competitions, GIOL, freebies.

But the opt-out is difficult to find and the option isn't broadcast to the users.

MSE_Archna wrote: »

2. Communicating this.

Complaining we did that late misses the point we did it, because it was requested. We have given this far more prominence than most forum changes.

No it doesn't miss the point. The point was that it was introduced without telling people i.e. it was devious. And it's hardly a normal forum change. It's designed to make MSE money, possibly at the expense of someone who posted a link.

MSE_Archna wrote: »

We're not trying to hide this – we're trying to trial it. I think people forget that this is a thread where we ask your opinions. We could have turned this software on, as most sites do, without any mention and let people just discover it. But we wouldn't do that.

As we've said since the beginning, if we do go ahead in full, we will communicate the launch of it to the best of our ability. The current opt-out is simply there for testing and we've requested people do that – we're not informing people hardcore yet, as we want to check it all works first.

That's a PR puff of the worst sort. You are simply trying to deflect the justifiable criticism by hiding. Skimlinks works perfectly well everywhere else it's used. Yet, you aren't telling people until "it all works".

MSE_Archna wrote: »

We're also seeing if it's possible to let all users know initially at registration about the opt-out. MSE Ian is currently looking at the technicality of this.

For goodness sake. Send an email to every user. How hard is that? Put a notice on the sign up that this option exists with very clear instructions on how to opt out. A 10 year old can do it. I'll come and do it for you if your technical people are that poor.

MSE_Archna wrote: »

3. Profiting from user content?

We hope this doesn't come as a shock to some people - but this forum isn't something free that is thrown onto the web for you to post.

We understand people expect 'free' to be how the web works, but please remember:

A. The server and bandwidth costs alone are huge amounts of money.

Again - this isn't (or shouldn't) be true. Unless you think a few hundred pounds is 'huge'

MSE_Archna wrote: »

B. The forum has its own full time developer and is supported by the rest of the development team who also work on optimising the forum servers.
C. The forum has a professional paid abuse team.
D. The site's lawyer spends 90%+ of their time dealing with issues due to forums posts.
E. The site's editorial team often come into the forum and try and help people with their problems.
F. All the other ancillary costs associated with having a staff of people.

The forum is not a free publically funded place, it needs to be paid for. Currently all of the cost is met by the main site.

Isn't funny how you have to pay for all that, when so many other forums don't have anything like that level of payroll?

MSE_Archna wrote: »

The amount generated from skimlinks will only cover a fraction of the forum’s current costs, yet that’s not the aim, what we want to do is use most of what’s generated for new resources in the forum.

If we go ahead, we hope to substantially bulk up the forum team therefore increasing the speed that abuse is dealt with, plus a much more expanded team who can look at improving the forums and respond to users' requests faster.

We've also pencilled in a fixed percentage of what's generated (c. 20%) will go straight to the site charity fund, as it is user content that's generating this.

I can't think of another forum where you need a paid team to deal with abuse. Everywhere else they are called 'moderators' and do it for the love of doing it.

MSE_Archna wrote: »

As for "they take content from the forum and use it", a very small amount of the content on the main site comes from the forum – the vast majority is from the team of journalists and editorial staff. Yet sometimes we do spot things on the forum, then do detailed research to check it's correct, to add certainty and help people save money. It's quite hard to believe some of you think that's a bad thing.

It's also worth noting we're not the only site who uses the forums' content – you'll often see it popping up daily in national newspapers, on other websites and more –
both sourced and unsourced. This is an open forum, anyone can read it – and many do. We have no monopoly on using it for information nor any special privilege. The difference is MoneySavingExpert is the one who has to pay the bills for it.

Nobody is questioning that. What's in question is that a measure is being introduced to make money out of information that people post in the way of helpful links.

MSE_Archna wrote: »

We are aware of a vocal minority who are worried about this, yet many thousands of users have read this post but few have felt it necessary to comment. Ultimately if we do go ahead, users will have a choice. They will be able to use the site with skimlinks, opt out of skimlinks (and we will communicate that option as best we can), or they can choose not to use the site.

Please can you keep this thread on topic, reporting problems or glitches with Skimlinks. Otherwise we will have to separate off topic comments into another thread.

A vocal minority simply because a) most people haven't got a clue what it's about and b) most people can't be arsed to either find where to be vocal about it. In fact, as your last paragraph threatens, you don't want to hear the complaints - you want to sweep them away.

I'm appalled.

Totality

kermitfrog wrote: »

BRAVO!!! At last you understand!

I've understood that all along.

JimmyTheWig

Totality wrote: »

I think its a crafty way of making money from having forum members do the work.

If a forum member who, for example, found a great deal at M&S, was to put up a link to an item for sale, plenty of folk on here would follow that link and purchase said item.

If that forum member was to put their own affiliate link, that would be a no go, which we all know and understand.

However, this new scheme basically would mean forum members who spend time each day to trawl the net for offers etc, are effectively providing MSE with free labour.

But this represents no adverse change to the forum member. Previously they didn't get paid. Now they won't get paid.
There's the added bonus that they will now be contributing to the upkeep of the site and (hopefully) providing the means to have more resources spent on the forums. But I don't see any downside.

Totality

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

But this represents no adverse change to the forum member. Previously they didn't get paid. Now they won't get paid.
There's the added bonus that they will now be contributing to the upkeep of the site and (hopefully) providing the means to have more resources spent on the forums. But I don't see any downside.

Personally speaking, I've already seen a downside because I've had problems browsing a website as a result of this new linking system.

I appreciate many won't care about the changes. I just think it's a bit off that MSE are effectively getting free labour out of this and I think the whole way its being done (and the wording of statements being put on here by MSE staff) is bad.

Just my opinion though.

JimmyTheWig

PhiltheBear wrote: »

It's designed to make MSE money, possibly at the expense of someone who posted a link.

What expense? What have they lost?

I'm normally on the ball with this kind of thing, but I just don't see what the problem is here.
I understand that the change is being trialled in order to make money. I understand that some people aren't happy with the notification given about the trial. But I don't understand any real problems with it.