suggestion re: linking rules

2.  Linking To Videos.

We would like to ask that members use good judgment when posting links to dog training videos, and that you do not contribute to a thread *solely* in order to link to such videos.  If you are describing a technique and occasionally post a video link to illustrate your point that can be very useful, but for the most part we want to hear *your* experiences and for you to share your own knowledge.  In particular, frequently posting links to the videos of any one person borders very closely on advertising for that person - advertising that they are not entitled to on this forum.  In the worst case scenario, attempting to follow a training technique from a video clip - which are usually small in size and have low resolution - could be dangerous.  What you are seeing is not always completely clear.  Please do not post links to training clips unless you must, and if you must, please include in the post your own experiences with that technique and a disclaimer that "trying this at home" could be hazardous and when in doubt, consulting a trainer in person is the best idea.

While I am not sure what is unclear or unfair about this statement, I'm sure that the Administration will take your point of view under advisement.

Thank you Ixas_girl for starting this thread.  I was relunctant to comment.

I did recognize 3 instances in the guidelines that were specific to one individual, that would be the individual you are referring to.   I was also looking for answers in the guidelines that would have addressed my question that I have been asking for 3 weeks now concerning a thread.  I am still not clear and there has been no direct response from the PMs I have sent.  Here's the thread.

http://community.dog.com/forums/t/61762.aspx

Guidelines,...are interesting things...they seldom exist in, or are borne of a vacuum. Seldom are they plucked from air...no...usually there is something, somewhere...that comes up that needs to be addressed. Esp among large groups of people that cannot see or hear, one another.

I would say that's probably the case with all laws on the books currently wherever it is you live...if one were to search hard enough...one could likely find one single instance or person that would account for about every single rule, guideline, law or other directive ON EARTH.

This is just a thought that I had...I've been pondering it today:

"Maybe it's not all about me...you...or that guy waaay over there. Maybe it's just something that will help the forum as a whole, out...or maybe not...I guess we'll see."

Thank you for the suggestions.

None of the content in the posted guidelines is aimed at any one individual.  Mods and Admins have a close eye on the forums and thus perhaps see things that members do not, so I would very much appreciate it if no assumptions were made regarding what staff think/see and how we respond to such.  The guidelines are just that, and apply to ALL members present and future...it does not take long for trends to start.

The request for a disclaimer and how a video applies to the thread in which it is posted was specifically put in and we are happy with the way it is worded. 

DPU - I have addressed your concerns.

I would ask that this not become another "TOS" thread, a thread I am sure most members can recall.  Guidelines are guidelines...not rules, simply suggestions for making everyone's forum experience as pleasant as possible.  Anyone with queries as to what is appropriate to post is more than welcome to contact me via PM or email. 

In the worst case scenario, attempting to follow a training technique from a video clip - which are usually small in size and have low resolution - could be dangerous. What you are seeing is not always completely clear.

I repeat, again, that neither the video link guideline nor any other is intended to single out any one person.  Further suggestions that I am for some reason lying about this are pointless because they are wrong.   

Ixas_girl

links to dogwise.com, clickersolutions.com and clickertraining.com

Arent these links considered advertising? i mean if you go to any of them you can see that they are web pages with a purpose of selling you something, on the clicker links, once you go, you get all kind of advertisement to buy their products, i mean just by seeing that is a ".com" website tells you is a site that tries to sell you something, if the web page ends on ".net" or ".org"  then they are totally different things, those are not looking for a monetary solution

The .com thing isn't really as true as it is supposed to be....lots of non-profit sites are .com, it's not hard to buy one.

HOWEVER....if we can accept that no one person was being singled out, I will change the wording of that clause to include ALL links to training, not just videos.  Thus, ANYONE posting a link to ANY kind of training content should explain, at least briefly, why it is relevant to the thread in question.  That seems reasonable to me....are you all OK with that?
 

I believe that the guideline is pretty clear that ALL links should be used with care. 

As for .com vs .net, well, Charter (giant cable company) is .net and they have a whole lot of stuff to sell, so that isn't necessarily accurate.

The guidelines apply to ALL members, present and future, and as Kate said, they are a fair way to keep our forum a pleasant place to be.

 Linking to videos= personal experience and disclaimer, gotcha , i just hope i dont get questioned then with stuff like "really? when did you do that? with who? how much experience do you have" etc

I ask the moderators to please check on that, we know that asking for "credentials" or "experience" dont come with the best intentions
 

Excellent.  Given that it's 1:30 am, I will change it in the morning.   

Benedict

Excellent.  Given that it's 1:30 am, I will change it in the morning.

Wow, sounds like you've got a lot of extra work Kate.  If there's anything I can do to help just let me know!  

I'm a busy gal Ed, lol.  Thanks. :)

The language of the guideline has been altered slightly....I do hope this is the end of the matter.   

Benedict

The .com thing isn't really as true as it is supposed to be....lots of non-profit sites are .com, it's not hard to buy one.

Correct.  I have purchased and maintain three .coms, a .net, and a .org.  Those are all the same price and there are no rules.  I believe .edu is one where you have to qualify.  I always thought that you had to qualify for a .org, but that wasn't the case.  I got my .net b/c the domain I wanted .com was already taken.  The .net was the same price, no requirements to qualify.