OzBargain 101: Lesson 3: Referral Links

neil on 22/03/2016 - 17:43
Last edited 05/04/2018 - 15:02

Updated

This guide is now out of date. Use this page

---

This is an often confusing and provocative subject. It’s also an area that moderators have spent a lot of time seeking feedback, changing the guidelines as well as creating mechanisms to assist the system.

The Basics

What is a referral link or code?

A referral link or code is something a company gives out to enable a customer to invite their friends. The company gains another customer, the existing customer earns a credit, and sometimes the new customer also gains credit. A win for all 3.

Example:

Uber offers a referral code and link that existing customers can give out to others. Both the referrer and referee will receive a promo ride up to $10 value.

What is an affiliate link and how is it different?

Affiliate links are similar to the above but instead of getting paid in credit, they pay out in real money. One example is Amazon, where they pay a commission from every sale. Affiliate links are what the majority of websites use to monetize their sites are are usually run by affiliate networks such as DGM, Commission Junction, LinkShare, etc.

Referrals on OzBargain

The original simplistic idea was that if a member posted a deal and the store has a referral system, then they are free to mention that link or code in the deal. But like any true bargain hunters, the temptation to push their referral links everywhere meant that the site needed to come up with guidelines which are to this day still evolving.

Do I need to have special permissions to post a referral link/code in a deal?

Due to numerous users signing up to SPAM their referral codes/links, only members who don’t have a , or plate against their name are permitted to put referral links or codes in their deals. You will be off your P plates 6 weeks after posting a deal.

OK, I’m ready to post a deal and would like to include a referral link. How do I do this?

• Make sure the non-referral link (e.g. a clean link) is posted in the URL field.
• Add your referral link to the bottom of the post with a note letting others know that it is a referral link. (NOT in the coupon code box, NOT in the title)
• If you list a code that can’t be used in conjunction with a referral link, it is best NOT to include the link.
• Please don’t change the price to factor in the referral. The deal should stand on its own.

Referral Deal Etiquette:

• Do not mention ways to circumvent a sites referral rules - eg multiple sign ups.
• Do not add your referral link to your deal post if it was posted more than 7 days ago.
• Do not post referral links from a merchant, retailer or service provider different to the one for the main deal.
• Either put your referral link at the end of the deal description or don't mention it at all - do not solicit referrals.

I have posted a deal and put the referral link in the description. Now what?

Your deal will now be marked with a R

and the referral link will be made grey.

I’d like to post another deal with a referral link. Can I?

Once you post a deal marked as a referral, you will be subject to posting limitations as follows:

• Users are limited to 1 referral post (deal + forum) every 24 hours or 2 referral posts (deal + forum) every rolling week, however
• Users that have posted referral deals that have low votes will be further limited. The vote average is calculated by taking the sum of (positive vote - negative vote) for each deal post, divided by the number of recent deals.
  
  • If the vote average across the recent deals is 0 or below, the user cannot submit referral posts until the vote average is corrected over time.
  • If the vote average across the recent deals is between 0 and 3, the user cannot submit referral posts for 2 weeks from the last post.
  • If the vote average across the recent deals is between 3 and 8, the user's limit is reduced to maximum 1 referral post per week.
  • Users who have posted good deals with referral links are rewarded - if the two most recent referral deals made the front page, the limit is increased to 3 posts per week.
• Users who have reached their referral posting limit will see a warning on the deal submission page. If they continue to submit posts with referral links despite the warning, their account will be placed in the penalty bin.
• Users who have exceeded their referral posting limit will not be able submit further posts.
• Users who have reached or exceeded their referral posting limits will be able to see further information on the vote average/breakdown of posts in their post history page, visible to themselves and moderators only.

These are the same posting limits as a rep has.

Why are there posting limits for deals with referral links/codes?

The top priority of OzBargain is serving members with good deals. If you are posting good deals that have referral links, then you will likely not be affected the the posting limits. However, if you are posting bad deals with referral links, you will be limited. Moderators constantly monitor deals and if we see a store that continually has poor performing deals that have referral links, we may ban users from including referral links for that store.

Has OzBargain banned the posting of referral links for some stores?

Yes. One example: Referral links in Vinomofo deals have been banned. See discussion .

I saw a grey box in some deals mentioning referrals. What is that?

Any user can add their referral link into OzBargain’s automated system. If you are not the deal poster, your link will be among other users in the random link section. This doesn't count as a referral post as this is an automated function.

How do I put my referral link into the system?

Go to My Account - Edit - Referrals.

What stores are in the automated system?

Amino Z	Dropbox	Naked Wines	ShopandMint
Appsumo	Etsy	nitrous.io	StackSocial
ArtsCow	Giving Assistant	Nova FM (Competition)	The Home
Beat The Q	GreenManGaming	OFX	Top Cashback
Belong	Groupon	OneDrive	TransferWise
BitGold	iHerb.com	OZSALE	Travel Pony
Catch Of The Day	ING Direct	Paula's Choice	Uber
Cracka Wines	Kleenheat Gas	PricePal	Vinomofo
Cudo	Koding	Ratesetter	Vitacost
Delivery Hero	LastPass	Rebtel	Wordery
Digital Ocean	LivingSocial Australia	ReShip.com

I’ve added my link to the referral system and posted a deal but it is not showing in the grey box.

The OP’s referral link only shows after 5 votes (Now 25 votes). This is ensure that only good deals are posted.

Will having my link in the automated system and posting a deal count as a referral post?

No. Since you aren’t mentioning the referral link or code, it doesn’t count as a referral post.

I noticed there are some stores that have wiki pages for referrals. What is that?

Only stores that provide a link can go into our automated referral system. For businesses that only give out codes or require other non-URL information, wiki pages are made. Feel free to add your information to any of the wiki pages.

See Wiki: List of Referral Codes & Links

OK. Deal description, automated system, wiki pages. Anywhere else?

Link	In Deal Link	In Post Content (Deal or Forum)	In Comments	Coupon Code Box
Affiliate Links	Not allowed	Not allowed	Not allowed	Not allowed
Referral Links	Not allowed	Allowed	Not allowed	Not allowed
Other Links	Allowed	Allowed	Allowed	Not allowed

That’s it. Referral links are not permitted in comments. You also shouldn’t link to your deal elsewhere on OzBargain if it is a marked as a referral post.

Can I post a deal that is about a store’s referral system?

• You may post a deal that is for the retailer's referral system, under the basis the referee also earns credit and it has not been posted previously (unless it is a temporary offer that had previously expired) or is already included in the OzBargain referral system.

• Referral links or codes are not permitted in deals that are for the retailer's referral system (As of March 2016). Create a Referral Wiki Page and add your link or code there. See the ZenMarket Referral Deal as an example.

• In the case of long running referral only deals: All subsequent “announcements” about the referral program shouldn't be posted as new deals, including updates to the referral program. This does not include limited time referral only deals where the previous offer was expired/ended and is now being offered again. You may post a forum topic about any updates to a referral program (with a link to the referral wiki or referral system only).

• Examples: (1) Airbnb update their refer a friend credit from $32 to $34. As this is a long running referral only deal, updates to the referral program should not be posted as a deal. (2) A Bank has a promotion for the month of April, sign up to a new account and both the referee and referrer receive $50. In July they have the same promotion again - this can be posted as a new deal as it is not a long running referral deal and the previous offer had expired/ended.

I've noticed some deals are marked as a referral but don't link to a referral but rather another site.

Third-party price comparison/tracking, cashback sites, blogs and product review website operators need to follow the Third-Party Website Operator deal posting guidelines. The same guidelines as referral links apply and should be mentioned at the bottom of the deal. Referral posting limits will equally apply.

Examples:

• Business Shirts from $24.95 + $20 off When Spend $60 @ Van Heusen

Fashionlane is a site that scrapes fashion retailers for price changes. The deal is for Van Heusen while Fashionlane is mentioned in the description.

• Lenovo ThinkPad E460 i7-6500u (3.1Ghz) 8GB FHD 14" 2GB VRAM 1TB HDD $888 Shipped @ Lenovo

Tightarse is the rep for Cashrewards however he posted a deal for Lenovo.

OK, but I've noticed a Cashrewards deal posted by Tightarse and he is marked as a rep.

That's right. Cashrewards is a unique situation in that it offers deals and also can be a supplementary bonus (cashback) to deals. So if the deal itself is a cashback, then the deal is linked directly to Cashrewards, and rep posting limits apply. If the deal is for another site, like Lenovo, and there also happens to be a cashback mentioned in the description, then it is marked as a referral.

So a rep for a company, a user who posts a referral link/code in a deal, and 3rd party sites are all restricted to the same posting limits?

Yes, that is correct. We want the focus on posting good deals.
If the deal is popular, then that allows the user to post more deals.
If the deal is not popular, then that restricts the user from posting.

Rep Posting Limits - Referral Posting Limits

---

So that is a very long summary of referrals. The guidelines always evolve but this is what currently works to ensure good quality deals are posted and users are able to add referral links.

With that said, we are always looking for feedback to improve OzBargain. In a couple of recent threads, there were some different (and very heated!) opinions on referrals. Basically the following camps:

• People who don’t care either way (most users).
• People who don’t care if there is a referral link as it doesn’t affect the deal.
• People who do care if there is a referral link as there is a perception that the user is posting for referral credits (irregardless of whether the deal is voted popular or not).

I hope this summary at least explains the big picture of referrals. Referral deals make up a very small % of overall deals. Feel free to ask for any particular stats and I'll see if I can track them down.

Useful Links:

Deal Posting Guidelines: Referrals
Posting Referral Links
Referral Posting Limits)
List of Referral Codes and Links
User-Submitted Referral Code Updates (Updated March 2016)
OzBargain 101: Lesson 1: Commenting and Deal Formatting
OzBargain 101: Lesson 2: Tagging Deals and Forum Posts

Questions, comments, feedback?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

• • • • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 11:22

        +1

        @pointless comment:

        what is the maximum number of posts per week a user can submit with the grey box

        Users aren't submitting the grey box. That is via the automated referral system which will ALWAYS SHOWS for sites like Catchoftheday or Groupon etc.

        I forgot anout those old posts

        Yes, I especially like this one. :)

        If i get a credit for referral, thats a bonus - ill probably grab a free pair of volleys and some horrible cookies!

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 11:33

        @neil: 1) you have not answered a direct quiestion so ill repeat:

        Given both allowances are in place, what is the maximum number of posts per week a user can submit with the grey box that includes the ability to profit from ozbargain through referral credits please - i think that is the very heart of the issue here?

        Given that the issue IS the current referal system and ALL frameworks that allow its current iteration from a macro perspective i think that this is the most pertinant question on the whole page.

        2) i dont think that digging through my posts,especially from when i was new to the site with no idea who was who and how things worked in order perhaps to discredit me is a good look for a fair and impartial mod.

        In saying that, i really dont see anything wrong with my posts - ill stand by them and evenencourage others to view them :)

        Perhaps you feel i am calling out a particualr poster - i have said repeatedly that this is about site reform, not to penalise any one person.

        If any single poster feels they need to refute/defend/retailiate, its up to them….certainly not a mod!

      • 

        spackbace on 23/03/2016 - 11:53

        @pointless comment:

        you have not answered a direct quiestion so ill repeat:

        Sorry, but neil has answered it (I believe a couple of times now) when he explained earlier the differences. The grey box isn't counted, only if an OP adds their referral link to the body of the post.
        So, once again, the grey box isn't counted towards a user's posting limits.

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 11:57

        @Spackbace: ok…im sorry then…but im not sure if i get it… I can be pretty thick at times!

        So am i to understand that the number of times any one user can have their referral link displayed in a single week is therefore infinite?

        Under the current system, So long as a user gets 5 votes on every deal by companies that are loaded into the auto system generation of the grey box, they can effectively display as many referral deals as they can muster for personal gain?

      • 

        spackbace on 23/03/2016 - 12:02

        +1

        @pointless comment:

        Yes, I'm not sure if you're trying to have this repeated just to prove a point, but you're correct.

        I pushed for the 5+ votes maybe 12 months ago, but I think previous suggestions of 20+ votes might just help the current 'situation'.

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 12:08

        @Spackbace: actually no….i was not aware of the infinite nature of the referral system.

        Thanks for clarifying - i highly doubt many memebers are aware of this - most, as i did - would think that the system is capped at 3 per week as per the rulebook

      • 

        illumination on 23/03/2016 - 12:09

        +1

        @Spackbace:

        The 20+ votes thing sounds reasonable to me.

        However, still doesn't solve the issue around certain users establishing themselves as a "brand".

        For example, if I posted a Groupon deal, I'd get like 10 votes (lol) for 10% off sitewide
        If an established user posted it, maybe 20?

        I don't know if there's much you can do about that, but my point is that there definitely is username branding as mentioned further up in this discussion

      • 

        spackbace on 23/03/2016 - 12:13

        @illumination:

        There's no getting away from that and I don't think the whole system needs revising based off that.

        I look at votes for stores and deals and stuff (love finding shill voters) and it's interesting seeing some members voting patterns. They will up-vote what appears to be a really bad deal from a store, for whatever reason I don't know, but they'll vote up like 5-6 deals in a row. Yes, there is now a daily cap of 15 pos votes a member can cast (I believe that's the number) to stop that. But what I'm getting at is that while some members may have people that just instinctively vote for them, it's not an automatic thing. All the top posters - TA/Trent/Lyl/Myself - all have deals that don't hit front page, some more than others, but it happens. None of them have 20 people waiting in the shadows to up-vote their post to get it to the front page.

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 12:26

        @Spackbace:

        Yes, there is now a daily cap of 15 pos votes a member can cast (I believe that's the number) to stop that.

        There is no threshold anymore. It used to be 1/3 of all deals posted. e.g. 100 deals posted in 24 hours. Can't vote for more than 33.

        However, our systems flag users who go on a voting spree. The system also flags suspicious voting patterns. So other than deal with the 2000+ reports a month from users, we get loads of reports from the system. It's like that machine from Lost…

      • 

        spackbace on 23/03/2016 - 12:28

        @neil:

        It's like that machine from Lost…

        Ooh are there Pandas at Head Office too? :P

        So (out of curiousity) what do you do about people that go on voting sprees? Do you then have to ban them from voting for 24hrs or something, and send a PM as to why?

      • 

        illumination on 23/03/2016 - 12:38

        +1

        @Spackbace:

        Just thought of this but it is probably impractical and sounds like it would annoy too many people.

        Force people to change their username once every 6 months? 12 months?
        Nah. That's dumb. Ignore. lol.

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 15:33

        @Spackbace:

        So (out of curiousity) what do you do about people that go on voting sprees? Do you then have to ban them from voting for 24hrs or something, and send a PM as to why?

        Nothing. It's more noticeable on ChoiceCheapies especially with comps so we let them know you can mark as entered.

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 15:54

        @neil: I will. Say The posts you chose were very clever of you , i commend you on that…it actually broguht a smile….definitely 'play of the day'

        :)

• 

  illumination on 23/03/2016 - 12:10

  I have a side question - sorry if it should not be posted here but thought it might be ok?

  What is the rationale behind not allowing users to say "hey I'm selling my SSD. who wants to buy it?" in comments of a deal? I don't see much wrong with those but they are always removed as "private selling not allowed in comments".

  • 

    spackbace on 23/03/2016 - 12:15

    At a guess it's to keep the site organised, basically. Rather than have posts ruined by people trying to capitalise on the attention of the deal, by selling their secondhand stuff. It's not like there's a shortage of sites to sell stuff ;)

    • 

      neil on 23/03/2016 - 12:19

      Yes, this. We have a classifieds area where members can buy/sell/trade their stuff. So if people are looking for information on a product, they won't see people trying to sell their crap as well you may notice off-topic conversation collapsed. It's helpful if someone is looking to say buy an SSD and they can see all the comments regarding reviews. Off-Topic conversations should be collapsed (if they are reported or we notice).

      • 

        illumination on 23/03/2016 - 12:37

        I can kind of see the logic, but then where do you draw the line then?
        Plenty of users post joke comments which often get lots of positives - these are largely irrelevant and not helpful either from the point of view of obtaining product information/tips. Are these allowed simply because the community gives them positives?

        I guess my perspective with private selling in comments is say for example a deal is posted for a $90 240GB SSD.
        Someone has a brand new one purchased from a previous deal which they don't want to use. They post a comment to try and sell it for $80. People reply, maybe some want to reply.

        I understand it's not on-topic and that brings me back to the "where do you draw the line?" question. It's more about exposure, because personally I feel if you're after a SSD, the likelihood of you reading the comments in a deal about product info and then stumbling upon someone offloading for a cheaper price are much higher than you going to the Classified section to look for someone offloading it.

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 12:56

        @illumination:

        Plenty of users post joke comments which often get lots of positives - these are largely irrelevant and not helpful either from the point of view of obtaining product information/tips. Are these allowed simply because the community gives them positives?

        No.

        I guess my perspective with private selling in comments

        I see your point and it sort of relates back to referrals. The original idea was if the poster wanted to add a referral link with their deal then that would be OK. However, as with everything bargain people pushed the limits and we had people posting referrals all over the place.

        The same thing about selling in the comments. The scenario you state is ideal. However, we get lots of people signing up for accounts to SPAM including private sales in comments. Now all the moderators need to act in a consistent way towards guidelines so there isn't much grey area. So unfortunately that means a blanket ban on selling in the comments.

        Maybe there is a solution in there?

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 23/03/2016 - 13:08

        @neil: Do you allow someone to say in the comments "I have one for sale i don't want, please check the classifieds"? Surely that would be ok.

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 14:43

        @clarky:

        No. Again it gets into the grey area. or I have one for sale, check out the the link in my profile. It ends up at the same place where there are usually replies.

        Don't get me wrong, I see your point. I'm just wondering if there is a more efficient way of doing it without everyone making separate comments.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 23/03/2016 - 14:49

        @neil: it's hard. If you make it too easy OzB becomes a resale site where people grab the bargains and then realist them ASAP to make money. But then again if someone genuinely misses out on a bargain it would be nice to have a way that a buyer may decide later he or she doesn't need it anymore.

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 14:57

        @clarky:

        Broden :)

• 

  pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 12:50

  After venturing through the rabbit hole on the issues surrounding referrals, i thought it would be a good idea to summarise what i learnt and my own suggestions that i wish to put forward for consideration…if only to gather my own thoughts on the situation, perhaps it will clarify for other too.

  1) Any member of ozbargain can effectively have a direct link to their unique referral code displayed via the ubiquitous 'grey box' for all companies that are loaded into to ozbargains system an infinite number of times in any given week

  2) The restrictions of a maximum of 3 referrals per week as outlined in the Referral Link guidelines relate only to posts where the referrer is actively pushing their link by including it in the main body of the posts text, and therefore the post is marked as 'referrer' at the top of the page

  3) After 5 votes on any deal posted relating to a company loaded into ozbargains referral system, the 'grey box' will display a direct link to the OPs referral code with the company - if the OP actively pushes that code, they are in breach of the rules

  There is a situation with some posters where current vote limits designed to keep ozbargain fair and egalitarian are are effectively moot. These posters are getting assistance through upvotes from a core of 'ozbargain friends' for want of a better term who repeatedly vote unconditionally for them.

  To address the malcontent with the current referral system and reflect ozbargains growing number of repeat and unique users, After taking on board other users posts on this thread I suggest the following be considered

  1) Increase the number of votes taken to reveal the OPs link in the grey box in deals that are technically not 'referrer' deals - 20 has been floated a few times, and sounds about right to me

  2) Increase the number of votes it takes to actually get on the front page for established users only - its currently 20, if it was raised it would go a long way to weed out referral spamming given that many such deals hover around this mark, and that 20 is a much smaller hurdle for established posters

  3) Introduce an upvote cap of one per day for each each ozbargain member on each deal poster, thus placing a greater value on votes - much like forum negs are capped at 5 per day

  Given that the most prolific deal posters post, on average in the vicinity of 1-2 posts each day across a month, i think 1 vote per member per deal poster each day is quite fair. Using Feb stats as an example, if you remove the top 5 posters for the month from the sample, the average post per day drops well below 1 post per day.

  So as not to disincentivise people who want to post several deals per day, each member could change a vote as many times as they Iike each day so that you are effectively voting for the posters best deal, but still you can only vote for each poster once.

  Obviously, this would still allow any member to cast as many votes as you like across different deal posters

  This may work in tandem or as an alternative to increasing the magic numbers to better reflect ozbargains increasing membership and over all traffic.

  • 

    spackbace on 23/03/2016 - 13:05

    +1

    2) Increase the number of votes it takes to actually get on the front page for established users only - its currently 20, if it was raised it would go a long way to weed out referral spamming given that many such deals hover around this mark, and that 20 is a much smaller hurdle for established posters

    Penalising those that post the most? Sorry, but that's just a really, really bad idea PC. It's like saying Usain Bolt should wear heavier shoes because he's doing so well.

    • 

      pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 13:15

      Not when they have an established group of unconditional voters as i outlined…its like usain bolt running in his own wind tunnel with a few industrial fans aimed at the finish line :)

      a vote cap addresses this..

      • 

        spackbace on 23/03/2016 - 13:19

        And now you've gone the way of far left-wing/right-wing voters, rather than push for middle ground, you've pushed for your own extreme version of unbalanced rights as a resolution, when there can be middle ground. But in doing so, it's further ruined your argument, and it's kinda hard to take you seriously now.

        a vote cap addresses this..

        That's not the point I was addressing with my reply.

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 13:25

        @Spackbace: bit harsh mate…you misunderstand….im merely putting forward concepts for comsideration…i am in no way expecting that an absolute solution on my terms …it was not a list of demands !

        Tbh What im expecting is that all this goes nowhere. the thread willl be closed with a "thanks for your input, some good considerations for future reference which will be discussed at the highest levels" and the status quo will remain.

      • 

        spackbace on 23/03/2016 - 13:29

        @pointless comment:

        But you can instigate change by offering a fair and reasonable suggestion. You target specific members, even with a suggestion, and any other suggestion you make will be glazed over. Mods won't even consider that suggestion, so why bother even writing it down to begin with? It destroys your whole argument.

        But change can be made, it's happened before and it can happen again, but it has to be fair and reasonable. Unfortunately, the number of posters in this thread are probably less than 10, a far cry from the number of members on this site or the number of posters even. Hell, a lot of the core posters hardly even, or never even, visit the forums/competition sections. So it makes it kinda hard to have all sides weigh in on an argument when they're not all here.

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 13:29

        @Spackbace: one of the underlying issues is that some posters can count on 10+ votes from their buddies to begin with, do you get that concept in its entirety?

        20 votes is not 20 votes for everyone…. My thought in addressing this is to limit votes , if a front page vote increase is deemed a bad idea..lite merely a counter idea to consider

      • 

        spackbace on 23/03/2016 - 13:32

        @pointless comment:

        one of the underlying issues is that some posters can count on 10+ votes from their buddies to begin with, do you get that concept in its entirety?

        Yep, but as I've already said, check the stats yourself, no one has a perfect ratio to get to front page.

        20 votes is not 20 votes for everyone

        Don't go down that path

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 13:34

        @Spackbace: when the issues are about site reform, inadvertantly specific members will be greater effected.

        You are sayong mods wont cosider which suggestion, sorry?

        And you can be sure that any poster with a vested interested is monitoring this thread , they just dotn want to have to defend theimselves publically or be drawn into debate

        And you are right in saying next to nobody cares. At thenvery least, some people ahve learnt a few things about the workings of ozbargain, i know i have

  • 

    King Tightarse on 23/03/2016 - 13:19

    OK that referral deal distinction certainly surprised me. Two different types of referral posts. OK well I think that should be made clear in the rules. I don't see any way people would pick that up as it is.
    I wonder exactly why this distinction came to be? To put and end to people spruiking their referral links when posting referral deals?

    • 

      pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 13:22

      Eaxactly why i posted it … I had no idea of the distinction until this morning.

      A system that allows this needs questions asked of it…IMO 'infinite' is too large a number

    • 

      neil on 23/03/2016 - 13:36

      One is a referral post AND the other IS NOT a referral post. Every single Groupon or Greenmangaming will have the box displayed whether or not the OP puts in a link or not.

      Just like the cashback shows on EVERY post which has a cashback available. It doesn't count towards Cashrewards or Pricepal posting limits.

      • 

        King Tightarse on 23/03/2016 - 13:42

        +2

        OK by your definition then, Neil.
        It makes very little effective difference. What most of us are discussing here are posts that contain referral links attributed to the OP whether they are a "Referral Post" by that definition or not. Each contains a link that will reward the OP with a referral. The difference is quite narrow. Just semantics. Another grey link and perhaps a line or two. They are all effectively posts that often seem motivated by the fact that they contain referral links and that is the problem here. That is what I have meant the whole time I have spoken about a "referral post". Do we have a name for posts that contain an auto generated link to the OP's referral?
        Why no limits on posts that contain the OP's auto-generated refferal link?
        Change THAT to random-only, leave the rules as the are for a true "Referral Post", by the Ozbargain rules definition, and this problem would be solved.

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 13:48

        @King Tightarse: there is no effectvie difference. The overarching fact is that any poster can have hteir referral link displayed on ozbargain in the little grey box an infinite number of times per week.

  • 

    neil on 23/03/2016 - 13:28

    +1

    OK, let's recap from the guide.

    1) Any member of ozbargain can effectively have a direct link to their unique referral code displayed via the ubiquitous 'grey box' for all companies that are loaded into to ozbargains system an infinite number of times in any given week

    Only if that deal reaches 5 votes will their referral link show.

    So between 1-4 votes, this box should show:

    

    Between 5-∞ votes

    

    2) The restrictions of a maximum of 3 referrals per week as outlined in the Referral Link guidelines relate only to posts where the referrer is actively pushing their link by including it in the main body of the posts text, and therefore the post is marked as 'referrer' at the top of the page

    Only users who post good deals can reach a maximum of 3 deals marked as a referral post. On the flip side, users who post poor deals can be restricted to 0 a week. (EDIT: correction)

    I'll just throw the guidelines back in here:

    • By default, users are limited to 1 referral post (deal + forum) every 24 hours or 2 referral posts (deal + forum) every rolling week, however
      Users that have posted referral deals that have low votes will be further limited. The vote average is calculated by taking the sum of (positive vote - negative vote) for each deal post, divided by the number of recent deals.
      
      • If the vote average across the recent deals is 0 or below, the user cannot submit referral posts until the vote average is corrected over time.
      • If the vote average across the recent deals is between 0 and 3, the user cannot submit referral posts for 2 weeks from the last post.
      • If the vote average across the recent deals is between 3 and 8, the user's limit is reduced to maximum 1 referral post per week.

    3) After 5 votes on any deal posted relating to a company loaded into ozbargains referral system, the 'grey box' will display a direct link to the OPs referral code with the company - if the OP actively pushes that code, they are in breach of the rules

    Correct. From our deal posting guidelines:

    • Either put your referral link at the end of the deal description or don't mention it at all - do not solicit referrals.

    1) Increase the number of votes taken to reveal the OPs link in the grey box in deals that are technically not 'referrer' deals - 20 has been floated a few times, and sounds about right to me

    Good suggestion and mentioned by others. As SB mentioned before 5 was just a random figure so we can certainly discuss having it show if it hits the front page (e.g. 20).

    2) Increase the number of votes it takes to actually get on the front page for established users only - its currently 20, if it was raised it would go a long way to weed out referral spamming given that many such deals hover around this mark, and that 20 is a much smaller hurdle for established posters

    This is separate matter to referrals but it has been discussed by mods a couple of times over the past couple of years. Our last change went from 15 to 20. More than likely it would go from 20 to 25. As mentioned before the formula is to have about 2 days worth of posts on the front page, so we might need to run some queries + some math before changing. We won't be doing this now but probably later on the year.

    3) Introduce an upvote cap of one per day for each each ozbargain member on each deal poster, thus placing a greater value on votes - much like forum negs are capped at 5 per day
    if you remove the top 5 posters for the month from the sample, the average post per day drops well below 1 post per day.

    Sorry, I don't think this is feasible.

    • 

      pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 13:43

      @neil

      I appreciate the overarching need to have 2 days of deals on the front page.

      I realise the vote cap idea i came up with is hard to implement and too radical so as it would effect the site running as it is. Not for a second did i think it would be consodered…but it is nontheless a solution to several problems As perceived by a vocal minority

      What do you think of the 'ozbargain friends' concept, whereby some voters can count on support of others, effectively starting with several votes under their belt so to speak?

      Is this ever considered at admin level to be an issue?

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 13:56

        +1

        'ozbargain friends

        Yes, it happens on OzBargain, elections, workplace matters. There are many reasons to vote positive, none of which we are privvy too. So short of a mind reading functionality, I don't see a solution.

        Is this ever considered at admin level to be an issue?

        We discuss everything. We have a Hipchat chat room. We are discussing this right now (very meta) :)

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 14:02

        @neil:

        Yes, it happens on OzBargain, elections, workplace matters…I don't see a solution.

        Good to see the acknowledgement - capping votes to to 1 per day per voter per deal poster to circuvent repated ongoing support is one way…. Its an underlying issue that makes these referral deals so prominnent

        Given that the most prolific deal posters post, on average in the vicinity of 1-2 posts each day across a month, i think 1 vote per member per deal poster each day is quite fair. Using Feb stats as an example, if you remove the top 5 posters for the month from the sample, the average post per day drops well below 1 post per day.

        Can you outline why you do not think this is feasible?

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 14:38

        @pointless comment:

        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/3558333/redir

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 14:48

        @neil: coz u like pepsi and donuts…and some assertions about the non existant value of upvotes on facebook and twitter? Cmon man thats not an answer!

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 14:49

        @pointless comment:

        Just because you don't like my answer, doesn't make it not an answer. LOL.

        I reject your reality and substitute my own.

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 14:52

        @neil: the exact same can be said back at you….many of your replies to mine and other posts here are either loaded questions, Outright counter positions, or dismissal - or simply a link to the established rulebook.

        All this says to me that there is a preconceived position that the staus quo willr emain and this whole thread is just an excercise in frivolity.

        You are obviously an intelligent person, so i find it very hard to belive that you do not see the truths behind some these assertions - especially that there is no inherent problem with the current system allowing infinite referral links in the grey box to be displayed each week any user

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 15:14

        @pointless comment:

        Outright counter positions, or dismissal - or simply a link to the established rulebook.

        Yes, it's critical thinking. If everyone in this thread was saying keep the referrals, I'd counter with some of the arguments you have made. This is done on purpose so we can consider all possibilities.

        All this says to me that there is a preconceived position that the staus quo willr emain and this whole thread is just an excercise in frivolity.

        Guidelines were made and continue to change based on community feedback so that is incorrect. Have a browse through all of these suggestions and you'll see most of what you see on OzBargain.

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 15:24

        @neil: 1) there is critical thinking and there is also putting up walls….IMO you tread a fine line

        2) while i dont doubt that policy is a moving feast andchange can occur, IMo things will remain the same for the foreseeable future,,judging by your resposnes in this thread…i hope im proven wrong.

• 

  King Tightarse on 23/03/2016 - 13:11

  +1

  Clarky's initial suggest remains the best IMHO.
  Random referrals for everyone/everything. No mucking about fine tuning limits and conditions.
  Instant total solution.

  • 

    pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 13:57

    +1

    Clarky's initial suggest remains the best IMHO.

    Totally agree - the simplest and most transparent

    Perhaps Neil can recap why this is not considered for impelmentation ?

    • 

      neil on 23/03/2016 - 14:31

      I'm just trying to bring out both sides of the discussion so we can understand. It doesn't really bother me which implementation we have but I want to make sure we have all the info we need. As always, guidelines and the direction of the site are based on user continual feedback. However there have been many times where we have implemented features where they ended up not using them and times where we have implemented features (e.g. Competitions) where they have been successes.

      So as per the history, being able to put your referral link in is a bonus to OP's who post. You really said it the best in your previous comment:

      simply trying to give back to the website which has given me much over the past year or so. If i get a credit for referral, thats a bonus - ill probably grab a free pair of volleys and some horrible cookies!

      And that's cool. We get a good deal, OP gets the referral for finding + posting the deal, COTD gets more customers.

      Now while only having a randomiser would save the moderation crew headaches + time spent commenting in this thread, we should ponder this. Should the effort of finding and writing a post reward those in the referral system who have perhaps contributed nothing to the site? We can certainly draw parallels with this to the current issues in front of our Federal government in terms of proposed changes in taxes, super, and negative gearing. Of course, a bit easier for OzBargain. :)

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 14:42

        As the others have said the, random referral is the simplest and fairest way.

        Perhaps take it a step further and limit those who go in the pool to memebrs who have posted in the past two months -that cuts out irregular and non contributers

        And the issue is not about scraping enough credit togther to get a pair of $20 shoes or similar in my statement above, its about overt credit farming which adds up to triple figure pay days time and time again through exploiting the current framework which allows infinite referral links in the grey box to be displayed each week any user.

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 14:51

        @pointless comment:

        And the issue is not about scraping enough credit togther to get a pair of $20 shoes

        So you would be OK with a person making a deal post with their referral link showing but just not OK with a user making what you would consider too many deals with a referral link?

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 14:59

        @neil: you are clutching there mate….you understand the issue people have here is umpteen posts over a day or two farming for credit.

        A few scattered posts with the ubiquitous grey box is clearly not the issue

        What was it you said about substituting reality in another post?

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 15:21

        @pointless comment:

        I'm not having a go at you if that's what you think. I'm just trying to reach some kind of understand at what the issue is for each user who has commented on this thread.

        I'd really like to know the answer to the question:

        So you would be OK with a person making a deal post with their referral link showing but just not OK with a user making what you would consider too many deals with a referral link?

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 15:30

        @neil: ok… I ll entertain… I guess the answer lies on the definition of 'too many' deals

        1 per day is probably too much….multiples in the space of 24 hours is gaming the system.

        You are obviously a smart dude - i understand you are in here as an ozb emplyee but i sincerely doubt you dont get the disticntion ,and that infinite deal posts farming credit is a corruption of. The system

        You already had my answer, and i think you know it tooo…A few scattered posts with the ubiquitous grey box is clearly Ok…what i just said is not - if you put this in a survey with a third option "i dotn care" the majority will vote against more than one referral in the grey box per day

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 15:59

        @pointless comment:

        You already had my answer, and i think you know it tooo

        Sorry, I don't know your answer. There are a lot of comments on here, perhaps I missed it.

        1 per day is probably too much….multiples in the space of 24 hours is gaming the system.

        OK, so if 1 per day is too much, what is a better time period?

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 16:02

        @neil: enforce 3 per week as per the existing guidelines - none of that " it falls outsode of the little grey referrer tag bull dust…. Please dont come back woth a question on what i mean….you know by now…infinte referrals by any means is a joke

        EDIT thats if you wont do the random thing across all referrals

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 16:09

        @pointless comment:

        OK, so if I understood you correctly, you are OK with deals with referral links in the description as well the current referral posting guidelines (1 per day, 2 per week). What you are not OK is the grey automated referral box showing the OP link?

        Is that correct?

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 16:15

        +1

        @neil: obviously the little grey box can be used as a back door to circumvent the measures in place to prevent credit farming.

        as such there should be no distinction - a referal is a referrlal if the op referral is linked anywhere on the page.

        You seem to be hung up on the distinction between the two scenarios - there really is none!

        I , and others, cant be much clearer

        If a member wants to spam - and thats what it is regardless of the guidelines- they are basically repping for the company(s)

        Maybe another consideration is mark them as a rep - if any rep put up 10% off deals each week, theyd be laughed off stage.

        And isnt that a large reason why COTD, groupon etc dont rep themselves on the site? They need a friendly face to push the barrow

        Which leads to another reason why these posts are contentious - the potential for abuse with kickbacks and insider knowledge of upcoming promos is huge!

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 16:24

        @pointless comment:

        Sorry, I'm not that intelligent.

        So let's spell out scenarios that you would be OK with:

        • Deals with referral links in the description with current referral posting limits AND NO current grey automated referral box.
        • Deals with referral links in the description with current referral posting limits AND a grey automated referral box showing ONLY random.

        and what you are NOT OK with:

        • Deals with referral links in the description with current referral posting limits AND the current grey automated referral box.

        How about this?

        • Deals with referral links in the description with current referral posting limits AND a grey automated referral box showing random and the OP however only showing after 20 votes
        • Deals with referral links in the description with current referral posting limits AND a grey automated referral box showing random and the OP however only showing if the post is marked as a referral (e.g. link in description).

        Would this be a fair assessment?

      • 

        GameChanger on 23/03/2016 - 16:29

        @pointless comment: I think this is an excellent suggestion and perhaps the easiest to implement? It's quite different to the other suggestions and most likely change behaviour of farmers.

        The amount of money gained through afflication is pretty much like working for the company. Especially if this is on a constant basis and the user is somehow always the first to post the deal

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 16:50

        @neil: yes that seems to be ok under current framework - but again i think you are getting caught up in the two distinctions

        Consider a new paradigm without any disticntion between the referrer tags and the referral grey box.

        the referrer tag is next to meaningless as it is - you should consider simplifying and do away with any distinction

        either label everyone a referrer or noone a referrer whenever they post from the listed companies in the database

        If you dont want to make referral credits totally random, Apply the current 3 per week max to the referral link options in the grey box - after the max is hit, only random referral shows.

        And no links or nudges in the body of text fishing for referrals at all - leave it up to members to seek out the reward for OP if they so choose - its still there up to 3 times per week, but not in neon lights, so to speak

        Would that not be simpler for mods, casual referral posters and members alike? The incentive to post companies with referral credit is still there, it just spreads it more evenly after the competiiton to consistently post first is removed

        It would also serve to reduce any allegations of collusion or corruption between the companies being referred and the actual OP/referrer themselves

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 23/03/2016 - 17:17

        +1

        If you have concerns about people getting rewarded as part of a random referal system and they don't post deals then it's pretty easy to add an algorithm that removes them from the referal pool until such time that they go back in.

        Being an active member of OzB is easy to decipher, but I see random rewards no different than automatic entry into any competition.

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 17:29

        @clarky: agreed , i suggested that only memebers who have posted a proper deal within past two months are eligible for credits in a random system…. And that would probabyl count myself out for periods that last weeks on end

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 20:40

        @clarky:

        If you have concerns about people getting rewarded as part of a random referal system and they don't post deals then it's pretty easy to add an algorithm that removes them from the referal pool until such time that they go back in.

        I can't recall if we have some weighting for the random links but it's probably a good idea having good contributors whether it be deals or comps be higher ranked then others. Any banned accounts are definitely not collecting referrals.

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 20:44

        @pointless comment:

        and how about the other 2?

        • Deals with referral links in the description with current referral posting limits AND a grey automated referral box showing random and the OP however only showing after 20 votes
        • Deals with referral links in the description with current referral posting limits AND a grey automated referral box showing random and the OP however only showing if the post is marked as a referral (e.g. link in description).
      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 21:26

        @neil: 1) if the 20 vote limit before OP referal appears onscreen in grey box is the only concession the wise men (no disrespect) at ozb will make id consider it some progress. Deal with referral links in body of text are not the major issue as they are capped at 3 / 7 days, which is fair if no insider knowledge is suspected

        Issue is the ease at which it is to get your referral links up after 5 votes on spam posts after the 3 referral tags are exhausted

        2) if grey box link only appears for OP while they are eligible for the 3 referral tag criteria per week , im all for that ….so all other times it would be only random credit in grey box and OP would not be allowed to post referral link in text as it is in breach of current criteria?

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 21:36

        @pointless comment:

        OK, so in short, yes to both. Thanks.

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 21:37

        @neil: if i understand correctly as i tried my best to explain,….then yes

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 21:44

        @neil: Milking a credit here and there is fine by me..not trying to rob anyone for showing initiaitve…but it should be more evenly spread across the membership base and not so territorial.

        It breeds competition and resentment.

        As you know i am a casual poster and i doubt ill see many if any referral credit in a system where posters have to post a deal wvery 8 weeks or so to remain in a random credit pool

        If OzB rehauled the little grey box and the OP link frequency within it was also governed by the 3 referrals /7 days rule, that would go a long way to solving things

        As i said, the distinction between the grey box and the referral tag is the key issue here…treat them as one and the same, and give random credits more tim ein the sun!

• 

  neil on 23/03/2016 - 13:41

  One of the other points which people surprisingly haven't mentioned in regards to referral posting limits is rep posting limits.

  Now the argument is that users are posting deals to collect referrals rather than posting a good deal.

  Well, couldn't you say the same for a rep who posts a deal. In that case, they 100% are trying to collect sales rather than posting a good deal. Again if they post good deals, they will be rewarded with being able to post more often. Bad deals, less often. So my question is why is it we are OK with a company making sales on posts but not a user making referrals on a post?

  • 

    pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 13:45

    +1

    From what i have seen, reps are met with the most scrutiny….routinely they get a swathe of sarcastic comments and links to previous failures…this occurs on a near dailiy basis

    Even a rep who has a degree of goodwill through previuous posts is one step away fomr this treatment

  • 

    Clear on 23/03/2016 - 13:50

    +2

    So my question is why is it we are OK with a company making sales on posts but not a user making referrals on a post?

    Maybe because it's very obvious that someone associated with a company is getting some sort of finacial incentive and a lot of people are finding the referral system unclear?

    • 

      neil on 23/03/2016 - 14:18

      So you are saying the confusion lies in 2 places then:

      • You don't know if someone who posts a deal with a referral link is posting because its a good deal or to collect referrals. Whereas with a business, you know they are posting to collect sales.
      • Something about the referral system is confusing? What is it that you think that a lot of people would get confused about?
      • 

        Clear on 23/03/2016 - 15:29

        +1

        I understand how the referrals work, but reading the comments here and other posts with referral links it's clear that a lot of people find it confusing.

        There have been a few posts with referral links that I've considered to be iffy and haven't been sure if they're a genuine deal or just to make profit.

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 15:53

        @Clear:

        I understand how the referrals work, but reading the comments here and other posts with referral links it's clear that a lot of people find it confusing.

        Any suggestions? This thread was made to alleviate the confusion as we plan to point to this in the future as well link to it within the guidelines.

      • 

        Clear on 23/03/2016 - 16:01

        @neil: I like the idea from KTA below. Having the grey box like this.

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 16:05

        @Clear:

        So you think people are confused with having the OPs link in they grey box?

      • 

        Clear on 23/03/2016 - 16:15

        @neil: Yes. When going through the latest deals it's very easy to spot who is a Referrer as the tag is next to their username just like store rep tags. It's not so easy when the grey box is at the bottom of the post with their username.

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 16:33

        @Clear:

        OK, gotcha.

  • 

    King Tightarse on 23/03/2016 - 13:56

    +7

    In a word duplicity.
    A rep stands for a business. There is no hiding the fact that they are after sales. It is an honest representation.
    A referral-collector will often represent themselves as a "good mate/just posting to help" and obscure or never mention the considerable amount of money they are receiving for their posts and that money or rewards are actually motivating their posts.

    • 

      neil on 23/03/2016 - 14:15

      A refferal-collector will often represent themselves as a "good mate/just posting to help" and obscure or never mention the considerable amount of money they are receiving for their posts and possibly motivating their posts.

      So your issue is about some posts where you feel the OP's attitude and behavior is somehow false? On the flip side, could you see a user just posting a good deal with mentioning their referral where the motivation is still to post good deals?

      As you stated yourself + PC as well as myself, we have all posted deals with a referral link mentioned. None of us posted as a referral collector but simply as we thought it was a good deal.

      • 

        King Tightarse on 23/03/2016 - 14:32

        Well my answer "In a word duplicity" was to the question you posed regarding rep posting limits :
        "Well, couldn't you say the same for a rep who posts a deal…"

        You said:
        "On the flip side, could you see a user just posting a good deal with mentioning their referral where the motivation is still to post good deals?"

        When I posted a normal, not particularly remarkable referral deal, I was amazed at the pay off. It would be easy to see someone withe the time to make a mini hobby-business out of it. Who doesn't love/like/want money?
        For me, as a surprise, it was great. When you have people posting up to 5 referral-linked posts near daily (but not necessary OzB-defined "Referral Posts") I think questions start to be asked about their actual motivation.
        Each post that takes off can be worth hundreds.

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 14:36

        @King Tightarse:

        So you could say that posters who post deals with referral links come down to 2 categories?

        • Referral collectors (your term)
        • Those who genuinely post a good deal with a referral link mentioned.
      • 

        King Tightarse on 23/03/2016 - 14:48

        @neil:
        Yes, I think that is fair, provided we are talking about all referral posts including auto-generated and those marked "Referrer"
        I am sure it's more of a sliding scale. People usually have multiple motivations. Other additional motivations could include "forum pride" "being seen as a positive contributor" "genuinely wanting to help others etc but as soon as you have reasonable monetary reward in the mix, that must be seen as a prominent motivator especially when:
        Posters posting a large number of referral related posts.
        Posting most of the valuable referral posts, most often.
        Posting low interest/dubious posts seeming to propagate their referral link. (Sometimes the referral link will be more attractive to users than the deal in cases where both the poster and user receive rewards)

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 14:54

        @King Tightarse:

        Would it be fair to say that you would be OK with those who genuinely post a good deal with a referral link mentioned but NOT OK with referral collectors?

      • 

        King Tightarse on 23/03/2016 - 14:57

        @neil:
        Yes, of course!
        I believe that if you change the auto generated referral system - just have it set to 'Random' all the time, whilst leaving the "Referrer" marked posts as they are at three per week as outlined in the rules in your initial post, it will solve these issues. It will eliminate the dubious referral-box including posts. Real posts will live and die on their actual merits and if they include the random referral generator, everyone may occasionally get a little bonus.
        Good for community spirit.

      • 

        pyramid on 23/03/2016 - 15:05

        @King Tightarse: Good suggestion…

      • 

        King Tightarse on 23/03/2016 - 15:10

        @pyramid:
        Clarky's idea. https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/240029#comment-3557312
        Clean, simple.

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 15:19

        @King Tightarse:

        So it would be fair to say the crux of your issue is the grey automatic referral box BUT you are OK with the referrer marked posts?

      • 

        King Tightarse on 23/03/2016 - 16:38

        @neil:
        In discussing it here that seems like a good compromise, yes.
        It would knock out the excessive number of dubious "referral-box" posts.

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 16:42

        +1

        @King Tightarse:

        OK, cool.

• 

  GameChanger on 23/03/2016 - 14:35

  I would like to hear some feed back from the referral fans/posters

  Perhaps they agree with everything in this thread?

  • 

    pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 15:18

    No need to… I wouldnt if i was in their shoes

    Neils position is quite clearly favoured towards the easiest option in maintaining the status quo - most of his answers to the posts in this thread are either loaded questions, outright counter positions, or dismissal - or simply a link to the established rulebook.

    My prediction is that In a year or two, they will increase the front page limit to 25 as stated if the site continues to grow in unique page visits and membership. Thats likely the only significant change to be made.

    Although most simply do not care - just like politics int the real world - The best outcome over the duration that this thread is on the front page is that quite a few (not many, but quite a few) people will View this thread and learn a few things about how ozbargain actually works in terms of the numbers involved in voting, what actually constitutes a deal, factors effecting its visilbility etc etc.

    • 

      neil on 23/03/2016 - 15:24

      +1

      Neils position is quite clearly favoured towards the easiest option in maintaining the status quo - most of his answers to the posts in this thread are either loaded questions, outright counter positions, or dismissal - or simply a link to the established rulebook.

      Incorrect and False.

      I'm trying to get an outcome by making sure all sides of the argument are covered.

      • 

        GameChanger on 23/03/2016 - 15:29

        Thanks for clarifying that Neil.

        Do you think the lack of responses against purposed changes is indicative that the community wants the changes?

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 15:31

        Incorrect and False.

        you defined the traits i described of your answers as "critical thinking" above…your words

      • 

        themob on 23/03/2016 - 15:34

        -1

        @GameChanger: Actually, I can answer that. I'd suggest the lack of responses suggests no one really gives a shit what you and pointless comment think. Over and out.

      • 

        neil on 23/03/2016 - 15:37

        @pointless comment:

        Sorry,

        Neils position is quite clearly favoured towards the easiest option in maintaining the status quo

        Incorrect and False.

        most of his answers to the posts in this thread are either loaded questions,

        True.

        outright counter positions,

        True to spur critical thinking all sides of the argument need to be heard.

        or dismissal

        We haven't dismissed anything other than the vote capping.

        or simply a link to the established rulebook.

        Yes, the post is literally named OzBargain 101: Lesson 3: Referral Links.

        Let's play the ball not the man. Thanks!

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 15:39

        @neil: were you honestly playing the ball when you went digging through my old posts for quotes?

      • 

        pointless martyr on 23/03/2016 - 15:49

        @neil:

        i hope my opinion that the statis quo will remain is proved false…in the near future

        What you label critical thinking, i label dismissive in a lot of cases - you are clearly intelligent and use this to deflect questions - yes thats an opinion too so to comeback with a True/False answer is redundant

        With regard to all sides of the argument, there is a deafening silence from the so called 'credit farmers' - i dont think you need to fill that void by quoting existing rules…it affords protection IMO and in a thread about potential rule change, quoiting exisitng rules as a deflection is not constructive

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4