Signature advertising personal small business not allowed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Raymond Lin said:
The way I see it.

The rule was in place so they can't change it or backtrack, not a rule like advertising anyway (it is a standard rule and kinda important), and in a way they KNOW this is happening (my site for example). But they chose to turn a blind eye to it as it was just taking photographs (1 man band), but Phate's thread and this thread and forced to powers that be to do something about it. They ignored it almost for a couple of days, you can see no people hardly posted here, but a few keep bumping it up for confirmation....so they had to do something...I would, if I was in their shoes.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, was the only way it could end.

As I said I imo Advertising is like stating cheap computer parts from different shops.

I would hope that common sense prevailed in this manor small non-related businesses were ignored within reason .i.e. links to personal company websites in sigs.

KaHn
Click to expand...

How would you deal with people signing up just to stick advertising links in their sigs and just post in any old thread to get views?

Would you have to have a post count limit before you could advertise, membership duration, maybe it would have to be "subtle" and no "I DO WEDDING PHOTOS FOR HALF THE PRICE OF PHATE"?

It would just make it far more complicated and more "grey" in terms of who could advertise.

But they can't turn a blind eye to it when you bring it up demanding answers.
 
Dunks said:
Blame Phate for bringing this up in the Photography section :p
Click to expand...

That was started because there were a few threads of people looking for wedding photographers in the photography forum of late and a few put their own name forward with a link to their site to offer their service (I don't, in fact, I posted to say no.). Afterwards I mentioned it to Phate on MSN along the lines of "that surely is advertising..."

I just didn't think he would start a thread to bring it up! lol
 
Tefal said:
But they can't turn a blind eye to it when you bring it up demanding answers.
Click to expand...

That's fine with me then atleast it means that they can forget about this thread in a few weeks and things will return to normal like they always do. Sorry if this has annoyed the people who put their links in their sigs (embedded like RaymondLin and a few others who havent had their sigs removed) but atleast it can be stated that it is a no no now.

KaHn
 
My tuppence worth.

If it is against the rules to advertise your business in your signature then it should be enforced across the board. Photography is still your business so in my eyes it's no different to advertising your computer repair business or selling your car in your sig.
 
KaHn said:
That's fine with me then atleast it means that they can forget about this thread in a few weeks and things will return to normal like they always do. Sorry if this has annoyed the people who put their links in their sigs (embedded like RaymondLin and a few others who havent had their sigs removed) but atleast it can be stated that it is a no no now.

KaHn
Click to expand...

Thanks for that KaHn lol

What if I do this? :p

Google Me
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
That was started because there were a few threads of people looking for wedding photographers in the photography forum of late and a few put their own name forward with a link to their site to offer their service (I don't, in fact, I posted to say no.). Afterwards I mentioned it to Phate on MSN along the lines of "that surely is advertising..."

I just didn't think he would start a thread to bring it up! lol
Click to expand...

I can see why people reccomending themselves in that thread is a no no. But having a link to your portfolio site which also doubled as your business' site didn't need to be brought up, let sleeping dogs lie and all that :p
 
Dunks said:
Blame Phate for bringing this up in the Photography section :p
Click to expand...

Do one :p

Everyone had the sig links knowing it was breaking the rules, if its been removed then it's your own fault for having it there.

Like Kahn has said. Give it a month or so and I doubt anyone will notice things changing back.
 
G|mp said:
My tuppence worth.

If it is against the rules to advertise your business in your signature then it should be enforced across the board. Photography is still your business so in my eyes it's no different to advertising your computer repair business or selling your car in your sig.
Click to expand...

Yep. I agree. A blanket rule is the only fair way.

Having a photography portfolio is the same as a web designer having a portfolio of website designs. They are both advertising services.
 
Phate said:
Do one :p

Everyone had the sig links knowing it was breaking the rules, if its been removed then it's your own fault for having it there.

Like Kahn has said. Give it a month or so and I doubt anyone will notice things changing back.
Click to expand...

So your sig with je-designs.co.uk should be removed then? ;)
 
Phate said:
Do one :p

Everyone had the sig links knowing it was breaking the rules, if its been removed then it's your own fault for having it there.

Like Kahn has said. Give it a month or so and I doubt anyone will notice things changing back.
Click to expand...

Then you had better remove the link to your website from your signature :).

Just because it's not clickable anymore doesn't mean it's not breaking the rules still.
 
JonRohan said:
Yep. I agree. A blanket rule is the only fair way.

Having a photography portfolio is the same as a web designer having a portfolio of website designs. They are both advertising services.
Click to expand...

What? If I linked to a portfolio of images I'm hardly advertising anything, considering I don't actually offer any photography services...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom