Announcement - New Posting Limit and Rules for Deals with Affiliate Links

moocher on 26/07/2012 - 10:00
Last edited 22/01/2013 - 07:46

As of today, posting limits apply to deals that contain affiliate links. Deals with affiliate links will be marked with an 'AFF' tag next to the OP's name. Each user will be allowed to post a maximum of 2 deals with affiliate links in a week.

The deal posting guidelines have been updated to reflect the new rules.

Update 22 Jan 2013

We are introducing vote-average based affiliate post throttling, similar to the representative posting limits, and the deal posting guidelines have been updated. Basically this means that:

  • Users are limited to 1 affiliate post (deal + forum) every 24 hours or 2 affiliate posts (deal + forum) every rolling week by default, however
  • Users that have posted affiliate 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 affilate 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 affiliate 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 affiliate post per week.
  • If the two most recent affiliate deals made the front page, the limit is increased to 3 posts per week.
  • Users who have reached or exceeded their affiliate posting limits will see a message in their list of posts, visible to themselves and moderators only.

Note that the existing rules still apply:

  • Affiliate links must be at the end of the deal description
  • Deals marked as containing affiliate links cannot be unpublished unless there is a very good reason. They also cannot be unmarked once marked.
  • The main URL must still be a non-affiliation link.
  • Affiliate and/or referral links on group buy/dailing deals are not permitted, including links or codes within the deal description.
Site Discussion

Comments

  • A3Australia on 26/07/2012 - 16:41
    +1

    Seems fair enough to me.

    I note that one particular user was posting lots of 'bargains' with affiliate links recently.

    Not that they were not true bargains, and they were listed according to the rules in place at the time, but there were just more and more of them…..

  • [Deactivated] on 27/07/2012 - 08:44

    Can the AFF be some other color as it is hard to read, or quickly realise its different from the REP tag?

    • Moderatormoocher on 27/07/2012 - 09:04

      Yup Neil has raised this. I'll look into it.

  • dirtybird on 15/08/2012 - 12:59

    Does posting multiple different affiliate links in the one "bargain" circumvent this?

    How far away are we from people posting a paypal account for donations from users who find the deals to be useful and who appreciate the effort put into posting them etc etc.

    • Moderatorneil on 15/08/2012 - 14:32

      The affiliated post denotes that there are affiliate link(s) in the post description (never in the main link). We've always accepted affiliate links in the description and this new system limits the number of posts as well as makes it more transparent. In the next stage, I believe we are thinking of having a system that takes multiple users affiliate links so not just the poster benefits but also a number of users. Anything that reduces the cost for members should be a win?

      I guess I should ask, what do you propose dirtybird?

      • Moderatorscotty on 15/08/2012 - 14:37

        I believe we are thinking of having a system that takes multiple users affiliate links

        Yes this one here and I'm working on it now. Hopefully will be ready by next week.

      • dirtybird on 15/08/2012 - 14:53

        I'm reading Scottys post now.

  • [Deactivated] on 15/08/2012 - 14:38

    I find it funny that it bothers people so much. Everybody in this country expects payment for their time. OZbargain is excellent in that it is free. If a user invests time and gives another user the opportunity to score a bargain why should he or she not be rewarded for it, especially since the user does not pay for the reward but the company. Is it not better to hav the money in the pockets of Ozbargainers than in the pockets of companies?
    What is the big deal? I think it is only fair.
    Why all this envy for a couple of bucks? People can always post good deals themselves, can't they?

    • dirtybird on 15/08/2012 - 15:11

      Anyone who posts a deal here has invested time to give another user the opportunity to score a bargain. Most settle for a +ve and a thanks as reward and more often than not that is all that is available to them.
      Yes, we have the option to select the referral link or not.
      Most Amazon deals are taken from from camelcamelcamel.com but we don't see their affiliate link appear in any of the posts. Might see a price history link for an item maybe.

      You could argue that they are the ones who have actually invested the time and given the masses the opportunity to score a bargain?

      Dont get me wrong I enjoy seeing the products listed but credit where credits due, without camelcamelcamel.com we'd have to really invest some time and effort wouldnt we.

      • [Deactivated] on 17/08/2012 - 12:09
        -1

        I have never used camelcamelcamel at all. Never knew about it and only looked at it when someone mentioned it. Frankly, it is only informative in that it tells you whether what you get is a good price (and sometimes it is not accurate). But for purchasing purposes now it is irrelevant because I can obtain no benefit knowing the price was $100 six months ago when the cheapest I can get now is $110 and I need the item now.

        I invest my own time and use my eyes and head to look at things and also to develop software to that effect - so yes, all the deals I post are purely my efforts and labour (plus some team members as regards the software). I think it is pretty unfair if I spend time typing up a long post, and then other just write a one-liner providing their referral link.

        As regards the thanks - often that is enough but many times one does not get that but cop abuse for not doing a little thing right. And honestly, choosing between abuse as thanks and 3 Euros I'd rather pick the 3 Euros as I do not have any masochistic tendencies.

  • [Deactivated] on 30/08/2012 - 20:08

    Proposals to OB re the inclusion of direct & affiliate links.

    CONSISTENT ORDERING OF DIRECT & AFFILIATE LINKS

    This post with multiple deals http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/78682 has the affiliate link appearing before the direct link, while the clear intention behind the rules re posts that contain a single deal is for the affiliate link to appear last.

    I propose for consistency that OB insists that when there are affiliate links, that the direct link appears first, followed immediately by the affiliate link, with each link perhaps appearing on separate lines for clarity.

    LIMITATION OF ADDITIONAL REFS WITHIN DIRECT LINKS

    I think this only applies to direct links…

    The first direct link for the deal referred to above is this: http://www.amazon.it/gp/product/B004ULUJD8/ref=ox_sc_sfl_tit… while the minimum required to enable redirection is this: http://www.amazon.it/gp/product/B004ULUJD8

    How additional (non-affiliate) refs are used is not always clear to the user.

    I propose that OB encourages the usage of minimised links, especially by deal posters to Amazon.

    LIMITATION OF MULTIPLE DEALS WITHIN POSTS

    OB has introduced a limit of 2 deals a week containing affiliate links.

    This appears to have prompted posts with more and more embedded deals, as the example above shows.

    If this gets out of hand, OB may need to limit the number of effective deals per post as well (though I’m not proposing any action at this stage).

    • Moderatorneil on 30/08/2012 - 20:34

      I'm not sure it matters if the affiliate link comes first or the non-affiliate when they are right next to each other and are clearly labeled. Moderators certainly are not going to be pedantically formatting links. We have trouble with users just writing a legible title. ;) The big picture is that we don't want affiliate links put in before the cut/top.

      I'm not too sure about the latter point. It may just be more noticeable as the links are clearly marked as affiliate where as before there were no limits. Definitely something that needs to be monitored though. If the deals with affiliate links are good then reward the OP by allowing more or keeping the same limit. If users are posting bad deals with affiliate deals then restrict further posting. This is the system we currently have with store reps.

      • [Deactivated] on 30/08/2012 - 21:02

        We have trouble with users just writing a legible title.

        Yes, some of my suggestions are all very good in theory, but i'm not the mod who wants at least 8 hours sleep a day.

      • [Deactivated] on 31/08/2012 - 09:11
        -1

        Sounds very reasonable and sensible. The post you responded seems to have a slightly vengeful and envious undertone and seems to be aimed at reducing the participation of deal posters by imposing more and more onerous rules. As you said you are busy enough getting people to write adequate titles so maybe the proposal goes "slightly" beyong what is needed and can be considered serious overkill.
        If it gets too complicated people will refrain from posting and/or will be going elsewhere which would not be good for a community driven website as by its very nature without community no website
        Thank you for your hard work.

        • Moderatorscotty on 31/08/2012 - 09:29

          If it gets too complicated people will refrain from posting and/or will be going elsewhere

          You seem to have used this argument FOR the referral links. The fact is, OzBargain was growing fine for the last 5 years BEFORE any of these referral links mess was introduced. People posting them have other motives. What we are doing here is just a way to reward the posters, as thank you for contribution.

        • [Deactivated] on 31/08/2012 - 09:39
          -1

          OK. Point taken. And I do think it is correct to reward the posters as an incentive to post even more and better deals.
          However, in my opinion rules that become as complex as suggested by the poster above coupled with the "abuse" doled out by some "trolls" could stop some people - in some posts there are comments to the effect that that alone is sufficient.
          I think you are doing a great job - so it was not a criticism but rather an endorsement of you (and neil) handling the situation and responding to the overkill proposal.

  • Moderatormoocher on 18/01/2013 - 12:27

    Bumping this thread as the description has been updated - more changes coming next week.

    • Moderatormoocher on 22/01/2013 - 07:45

      The code for the new affiliate posting limit throttling has been rolled out this morning. See updated guidelines.

  • k on 18/01/2013 - 17:21

    Wow. Has OzBargain become OzNazi?

    • Moderatormoocher on 18/01/2013 - 17:25

      Not really. We just want to encourage people to post good deals. Note that if the deals are good, posters get to post 3/week instead of the usual 2/weeek.

      If the two most recent affiliate deals made the front page, the limit is increased to 3 posts per week.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join