FROM: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink) SUBJECT: Re: Advertising Auctions Ban Them DATE: Mon, 27 Sep 99 07:14:39 GMT ORGANIZATION: A1 Internet news-server NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.marketplace In article <19990927004359.15353.00002205@ng-bk1.aol.com>, okwaazakca@aol.com (Okwaazakca) wrote: >>The policy on Phil Greenspun's photo.net site is if your ad >includes a string >referencing eBay, the ad will not be >accepted. > >First of all, who the heck is Phil Greenspun?? > >>He wants no reference to it and his opinion is that the >advertisers are not >thrilled with eBay. > >And they have every right to this opinion and to choose to advertise there and >not Ebay. > >>That is how I view the newsgroup, a place to trade >>camera equipment and not a forum to advertise auctions. >And the way I see it is "Why not?" People who advertise an item that is on Ebay >are advertising the item, not Ebay. How is it any different from seeing an item >posted for sale and then having to link to a person's web site to see details, >and have the web site advertising a person's business or another business on an >ad banner? It is cute to see people pick the wrong analogy all the time. The true analogy is when people start posting references/links to newspaper-/magazine-ad's in this newsgroup, with no details whatsoever ('Sorry Sir, you must read the newspaper/magazine first'). Add the commercial interest of Ebay to get all this exposure, plus the possibility of an insane reserve price, cutely hidden, and any analogy to a normal transaction in this newsgroup is hilariously mooth. An even better analogy is if people started to post references/links to photo dealers, where their equipment is for sale, on a commission basis. Would you invite all those offers here too? Even if they came from only one shop? And what if that shop started posting huge listings of 'under commission' offers themselves? Why is that different? It's just as commercial as Ebay, and that is not in the spirit of this newsgroup. Let Ebay take care of their own advertising, just as such a shop should. >>It seems to me that probably most rec.photo.marketplace >visitors are people >who prefer this medium over the >frenetic and often over bid auctions. > >And when did you survey everyone in the world that reads this newgroup to >determine this? And so what if most people do feel this way? That should not >matter to those that do like the frenetic and often over bid auctions. Nor >should it matter to you how they feel. Pick the correct analogies, and apply Kant, and you know the answer. >>This newsgroup marketplace is a place where >reasonable negotiations are >possible and settled upon >between two parties who happen to be subscribers of >>the group. > >Yes, that is entirely true. The key word being 'possible'. And an auction is a >place where the market will determine the price of an object, whether is is >'worth it' or not. Both are marketplaces of photo equipment. And an item is >SOLD at auction. It is just that it is sold to the highest bidder. Never heard of a reserve price, did you? It could be a perfectly waste of time, unlike a transaction in this newsgroup. >>I have sold a few items on ebay but never listed them as >FA on the newsgroup >because I don't believe it is >appropriate to "advertise". > >How noble of you. But isn't every post on the newsgroup an advertisement? > >>Nor do I feel it is appropriate for anyone else. > >And how arrogant of you to tell others what is appropriate for them. At least some understand the spirit of the charter, and intuitively pick the correct analogies. >>Sellers get tremendous marketing exposure with eBay >so lets leave it at that >and maintain a distinction between >auctions and the photo marketplace >newsgroups. > >I disagree. Isn't one goal of advertising to reach as many people as possible >that are interested in an item or product? Why not let people on the newgroup >know that a particular item is available through auction? It is still >technically for sale. Again-to the highest bidder. Why not let Ebay take care of their own advertising, just like a shop should for their 'under commission' sales? >>With those who are annoyed with auction ads in all of >there forms and >advocate exclusion from the newsgroup, >I agree. > >I don't. So what if a person looking through the ads in the newsgroup sees >what he or she is looking for up for auction? And so what if a person wants to >let people know that something is on the auction block? Any idea how many Ebay ads he is already missing here? Thank god not even one promille of Ebay crap ends up here.... >Why is it that just because some of you don't like the way some do things, that >way should be banned from the newgroup? There is room for both sides on the >newsgroup. There are ways to filter out these posts for those who don't want >them, you don't have to read FA posts, but do they really need to be excluded >just because you don't like them? WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL?????? Apply the Universal Principle from Kant and you know the answer. There are thousands of photo related ads on Ebay. In your line of thinking, they are all welcome here. And you would be the last to stick around in this newsgroup if it were the case. -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] FROM: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink) SUBJECT: Re: Advertising Auctions Ban Them DATE: Fri, 22 Oct 99 18:56:28 GMT ORGANIZATION: A1 Internet news-server NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.marketplace In article <380f6b14.3071511@NEWS.ultravision.NET>, GARAND_OVER_50@HOTMAIL.COM (JOHN GARAND) wrote: >ON Mon, 27 Sep 99 07:14:39 GMT, w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan >Markerink) WROTE: > >>In article <19990927004359.15353.00002205@ng-bk1.aol.com>, > >snip > >>Apply the Universal Principle from Kant and you know the answer. >>There are thousands of photo related ads on Ebay. >>In your line of thinking, they are all welcome here. >>And you would be the last to stick around in this newsgroup if it were the >>case. > >For those of us who use news readers, the solution is simple: use the >filter capability to kill the auction ads. > > Yes, they are numerous. No, I don't care to see them. I believe >they are not in keeping with the "spirit" and "intent" of the NG. I >suppose some people do wish to see such "advertising", so absent a >group vote to exclude these ads they are legitimate (just irritating >to those who wouldn't buy anything via Ebay). They are just as legitimate as a flood of private FS's pointing to a single dealer, where someones equipment is for sale (at a commission for the dealer). Same thing, same commercial interest, hence not just against the spririt, but also against the charter of this newsgroup. As for irritation factor: indeed not much less than people posting pointers to an advertisement in a newspaper. "IMPORTANT: look elsewhere!". Abusing one medium because that other medium apparantly can't take care of itself. -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm CHARTER: all groups Rec.photo.marketplace.* will contain all "for sale" and "wanted" postings. These posting will be restricted to the private sale of personally owned and used equipment. These newsgroups specifically do *not* permit commercial advertising, postings by dealers selling or soliciting equipment, postings from internet auction sites, or postings by amateurs regularly dealing in used equipment principally or incidentally for purposes of financial gain. They are intended as forums in which photographers can sell, trade or request equipment in connection with their individual photographic interests. FROM: "Nicholas O. Lindan" SUBJECT: Re: F"For Auction" items don't belong on this NG DATE: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 19:51:00 -0500 ORGANIZATION: Technophilia, Ltd. NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.marketplace eromney wrote: > > There should be a separate "For Auction" newsgroup for the people who > auction things... FA doesn't belong anywhere on usenet. usenet is a non-profit venue with only it's self preservation at stake. o ebay and it's sellers provide no contribution to usenet. As such they are not even entitled to a 'flowers provided by' byline in the program. o ebay does not allow postings referring to rpm* adverts and the association is strictly predatory. o ebay is in competition with rpm* - if all sales go to ebay then rpm is a dead issue o Speaking for myself I have had no, zero, zip, nada problems with rpm* transactions. Often gotten better than I bargained for. With ebay my satisfaction rate is very low and I now avoid dealing there. I have a vested interest in the rpm* groups. Nick Lindan -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Technical Management Consulting & Engineering Services: New Product Development; Electrical Engineering; Software, System and Circuit Design. Oh, & Photography FROM: usenet@nareid.demon.co.uk (Helge Nareid) SUBJECT: Re: Now I know why everyone sells on ebay It's rude here! DATE: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:30:08 GMT NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.marketplace w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink) wrote in <97fvhu$ohtk8$3@ID-34205.news.dfncis.de>: >In article <3A9B1938.6F47FA21@home.com>, > Dave Voelker wrote: >> >>Willem-Jan Markerink wrote: [...big snip...] >>> Usenet is neither static, nor has this group improved with the flood >>> of FA >>> postings....which are totally irrelevant to this group, and have >>> driven off >>> more readers than sellers were ever driven to Ebay because of better >>> sales. >> >>I am not sure that I have intoned that usenet is static and I do >>strongly agree >>that FA ads on usenet do not make sense, in fact I would probably >>support a >>newsgroup ban on such activity I won't get into all the various points of this argument - as far as I can see both debatants have some valid points, _but_ it is time to clarify a couple of points. Dave Voelker talks about supporting a possible change of charter. Unfortunately, it is in no way possible to change the charter of an existing "big-8" newsgroup (and all rec.photo.* newsgroup fall into that category). Personally I consider this a misguided policy, since there are numerous examples of charters either being unclear about important issues, or where experience after a newsgroup has been in use for some time indicate that a change of charter would be beneficial. Alas, it cannot be done. >If you read the charter in the spirit it was created, it doesn't take >much imagination to expand 'postings from auction sites are not allowed' >to individual FA's.... And Willem-Jan Markerink is also inaccurate on a couple of points. This thread is posted to rec.photo.marketplace, where there is _no_ mention _whatsoever_ about auctions in the charter. This group was created in the first rec.photo.* reorganisation in 1994, and internet auction sites were unknown at that time. The phrase which Willem-Jan quotes above is part of the charter for all the _other_ rec.photo.marketplace.* groups which were created in 1999, and would have been part of the charter for this particular group if the vote to change the name to rec.photo.marketplace.misc had passed. It did _not_ pass, which may be considered unfortunate, but it means that the charter for this particular newsgroup has not been changed since its creation in 1994. As regards the spirit in which the phrase 'postings from auction sites are not allowed' was written, I remember it well - after all I was the person who wrote it. I was the proponent for the rec.photo.marketplace.* reorganisation in 1999. That phrase was added after some considerable discussion with Willem-Jan in the group creation discussion phase. At this point I should add that I have a lot of respect for Willem-Jan even though we do at times disagree - we agree a lot of times as well. Willem-Jan was also at that time a strong critic of FA posts on rec.photo.marketplace.* and wanted them banned altogether in the charter. I disagreed, and my line of argument was that auctions was just one other method of transaction. Jan-Willem countered that there was a real chance that in that case, auction sites could easily set up scripts to flood the rec.photo.marketplace.* groups with ads pointing to recent auctions on the various sites. This was a real potential problem, and I agreed that such postings would indeed be undesirable. I still maintained that postings from individuals advertising items put up for auctions would still be acceptable, as long as the subject line clearly indicated that the item was put up for auction, using a tag such as [auction] in the subject line (FA should be all right as well). That is what prompted the phrasing 'postings from auction sites are not allowed'. You may have noted that I have deliberately used the past tense in the above paragraph. Since the time of the rec.photo.marketplace.* reorganization, the use of auction sites has exploded, while the use of traditional usenet marketplace groups have stagnated or even declined. This is a development which was just taking off at the time of the rec.photo.marketplace.* reorganization, and I will freely admit that I did not see the full implications of that process at the time. Perhaps Willem-Jan did, I certainly remember that he was much more critical of auction sites than I was at the time. However, even though I have a lot of reservations regarding auction sites such as eBay, I can not see that the postings of FA posts from _individuals_ (i.e. not traders) is against the charters of any of the rec.photo.marketplace.* groups. If I had known then what I know now, the charters and/or the group structure of the rec.photo.marketplace.* groups may have been significantly different from what they currently are, but as I have mentioned above, it is not possible to change the charters of existing newsgroups. -- - Helge Nareid Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland FROM: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink) SUBJECT: Re: Now I know why everyone sells on ebay It's rude here! DATE: Tue, 27 Feb 01 23:04:52 GMT NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.marketplace In article <97h789.3vu8d6p.1@helge.nareid.demon.co.uk>, usenet@nareid.demon.co.uk (Helge Nareid) wrote: >w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink) wrote in ><97fvhu$ohtk8$3@ID-34205.news.dfncis.de>: > >>In article <3A9B1938.6F47FA21@home.com>, >> Dave Voelker wrote: >>> >>>Willem-Jan Markerink wrote: >[...big snip...] >>>> Usenet is neither static, nor has this group improved with the flood >>>> of FA >>>> postings....which are totally irrelevant to this group, and have >>>> driven off >>>> more readers than sellers were ever driven to Ebay because of better >>>> sales. >>> >>>I am not sure that I have intoned that usenet is static and I do >>>strongly agree >>>that FA ads on usenet do not make sense, in fact I would probably >>>support a >>>newsgroup ban on such activity > >I won't get into all the various points of this argument - as far as I >can see both debatants have some valid points, _but_ it is time to >clarify a couple of points. > >Dave Voelker talks about supporting a possible change of charter. >Unfortunately, it is in no way possible to change the charter of an >existing "big-8" newsgroup (and all rec.photo.* newsgroup fall into >that category). Personally I consider this a misguided policy, since >there are numerous examples of charters either being unclear about >important issues, or where experience after a newsgroup has been in >use for some time indicate that a change of charter would be beneficial. >Alas, it cannot be done. That's why the previous restructuring proposed r.p.m.misc I believe, while at the same time removing r.p.m. with the old charter (removing groups is a can of worms on itself). >>If you read the charter in the spirit it was created, it doesn't take >>much imagination to expand 'postings from auction sites are not allowed' >>to individual FA's.... > >And Willem-Jan Markerink is also inaccurate on a couple of points. This >thread is posted to rec.photo.marketplace, where there is _no_ mention >_whatsoever_ about auctions in the charter. This group was created in >the first rec.photo.* reorganisation in 1994, and internet auction sites >were unknown at that time. While technically correct, the above mentioned failure of r.p.m.misc can hardly be rationalized/analysed by the the proposed change of its charter....the only logical reason is that people didn't realize the total 'pack' of the restructuring, and only got interested in the additional groups (like r.p.m.large-format). Hence in the spirit >The phrase which Willem-Jan quotes above is part of the charter for all >the _other_ rec.photo.marketplace.* groups which were created in 1999, >and would have been part of the charter for this particular group if >the vote to change the name to rec.photo.marketplace.misc had passed. >It did _not_ pass, which may be considered unfortunate, but it means that >the charter for this particular newsgroup has not been changed since its >creation in 1994. > >As regards the spirit in which the phrase 'postings from auction sites >are not allowed' was written, I remember it well - after all I was the >person who wrote it. I was the proponent for the rec.photo.marketplace.* >reorganisation in 1999. > >That phrase was added after some considerable discussion with Willem-Jan >in the group creation discussion phase. At this point I should add that >I have a lot of respect for Willem-Jan even though we do at times >disagree - we agree a lot of times as well. Willem-Jan was also at that >time a strong critic of FA posts on rec.photo.marketplace.* and wanted >them banned altogether in the charter. > >I disagreed, and my line of argument was that auctions was just one >other method of transaction. Jan-Willem countered that there was a real >chance that in that case, auction sites could easily set up scripts to >flood the rec.photo.marketplace.* groups with ads pointing to recent >auctions on the various sites. I am not so sure it was my idea/pondering, but someone else using it as an example which did actually happen in the early days of auction sites (back then not so long ago). I was by far not the most vocal auction-opponent back then either....:)) >This was a real potential problem, and I >agreed that such postings would indeed be undesirable. I still maintained >that postings from individuals advertising items put up for auctions would >still be acceptable, as long as the subject line clearly indicated that >the item was put up for auction, using a tag such as [auction] in the >subject line (FA should be all right as well). That is what prompted the >phrasing 'postings from auction sites are not allowed'. > >You may have noted that I have deliberately used the past tense in the >above paragraph. Since the time of the rec.photo.marketplace.* >reorganization, the use of auction sites has exploded, while the use >of traditional usenet marketplace groups have stagnated or even >declined. This is a development which was just taking off at the time >of the rec.photo.marketplace.* reorganization, and I will freely admit >that I did not see the full implications of that process at the time. >Perhaps Willem-Jan did, I certainly remember that he was much more >critical of auction sites than I was at the time. I believe we did consider it back then, but that a total ban would raise too much opposition from folks outside r.p.*, and spoil the vote that way....contrary to real-life votes, foreigners can jump in, vote it down, and leave. (just like Ebay posters can jump in, post crap, never read, and leave....8-)) >However, even though I have a lot of reservations regarding auction sites >such as eBay, I can not see that the postings of FA posts from >_individuals_ (i.e. not traders) is against the charters of any of the >rec.photo.marketplace.* groups. > >If I had known then what I know now, the charters and/or the group >structure of the rec.photo.marketplace.* groups may have been >significantly different from what they currently are, but as I have >mentioned above, it is not possible to change the charters of existing >newsgroups. That's why r.p.m.misc was such a good idea....;)) But with only Ebay-posters left (who wouldn't see a RFD/CFV even if was written on their forehead....8-)), and less and less readers, the chances of a successful vote are even less now than they were back then. Perhaps when we have to restructure to r.p.e.m-f.digital and r.p.e.l-f.digital....;)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] FROM: ladagency@aol.com (Ladagency) SUBJECT: Re: Give Us a Break from all the FA posts. DATE: 05 Sep 2001 01:23:37 GMT ORGANIZATION: AOL http://www.aol.com NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.marketplace I don't know guys. While protecting one's territory is a testosterone thing, so is expanding one's own territory. I have found the FA links informative and appreciate their initiative. There is no profit motive for the ng to accept or deny FA postings. So Chill Bro' FROM: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink) SUBJECT: Re: Give Us a Break from all the FA posts. DATE: Thu, 06 Sep 01 19:30:14 GMT NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.marketplace In article <20010904212337.29072.00002991@mb-fg.aol.com>, ladagency@aol.com (Ladagency) wrote: >I don't know guys. While protecting one's territory is a testosterone thing, >so is expanding one's own territory. I have found the FA links informative and >appreciate their initiative. There is nothing preventing you to subscribe to Ebay, and be informed per keyword for any type of auction you want, and keep all that crap where it belongs. Or else have Ebay pay for the lack of marketing they obviously offer....why else would one post here? >There is no profit motive for the ng to accept or deny FA postings. So Chill >Bro' Like hell it is for-profit, just as it would be if people would post their 'for sale under commission at my local dealer' ads here, with full contact details for that dealer. Such crap would be spam too, just like Ebay. -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] FROM: "Tom Coates" SUBJECT: Re: Give Us a Break from all the FA posts. DATE: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 01:45:55 GMT ORGANIZATION: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.marketplace I read the charter. There is much detail, but I didn't see a word about auction notices in the marketplace groups. "Johnny" was correct--there is no basis in fact for a spam complaint to eBay regarding FA postings in the marketplace newsgroups. The charter does clearly discourage discussion threads in the marketplace groups. And, of course, deliberately spreading damaging falsehoods is abusive--and regarded very seriously--everywhere. As someone else has suggested, it's time to end this thread. In addition, we could all concentrate on minding our own business, taking personal responsibility for using our kill file (as Tony wisely suggested) where needed to protect our sensibilities. Tom FROM: nomullets@starfleet.org (Tuvok's Mullet©) SUBJECT: Re: Give Us a Break from all the FA posts. DATE: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 05:37:36 GMT ORGANIZATION: Bellsouth.Net NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.marketplace In article , tecoates@home.com managed to say >I read the charter. There is much detail, but I didn't see a word about >auction notices in the marketplace groups. Better read a little more slowly :) "Postings for auctions which are hosted on web-servers such as eBay, *must*" "include the keyword [Auction] at the start of the Subject line" "(e.g. "[Auction] Szabad half-plate camera for sale")." http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm FROM: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink) SUBJECT: Re: Give Us a Break from all the FA posts. DATE: Thu, 06 Sep 01 19:37:22 GMT NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.marketplace In article , nomullets@starfleet.org (Tuvok's Mullet©) wrote: >In article , >tecoates@home.com managed to say > >>I read the charter. There is much detail, but I didn't see a word about >>auction notices in the marketplace groups. > > > >Better read a little more slowly :) > > >"Postings for auctions which are hosted on web-servers such as eBay, *must*" >"include the keyword [Auction] at the start of the Subject line" >"(e.g. "[Auction] Szabad half-plate camera for sale")." > > >http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm > Ehh, no, that's for all the other rec.photo.*.marketplace groups, the newer ones that is. The original one, still applying to rec.photo.marketplace, does not mention auctions at all, simply because the concept didn't exist back then (around '94-96). Having known Bob for several years, I would bet my life on it he would have included it, had he known or foreseen. Too bad that this commercial corruption was too widely spread at the time of the more recent restructuring of rec.photo.* (where also the elimination/renaming of r.p.m. to r.p.m.general failed by a hair, unlike all other specific r.p.*.m. groups). And apart from all that, I invite anyone to explain the difference between Ebay and a load of 'for sale under commission at my local dealer; contact him at spamspamspam'. -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] FROM: Tony Polson SUBJECT: Re: Give Us a Break from all the FA posts. DATE: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 15:27:27 +0100 ORGANIZATION: . NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.marketplace nomullets@starfleet.org (Tuvok's Mullet©) wrote: > >I read the charter. There is much detail, but I didn't see a word about > >auction notices in the marketplace groups. > > Better read a little more slowly :) > > "Postings for auctions which are hosted on web-servers such as eBay, *must*" > "include the keyword [Auction] at the start of the Subject line" > "(e.g. "[Auction] Szabad half-plate camera for sale")." Thanks for posting that. You've helped establish that no-one on here has *any* right to complain about auction postings that comply with the charter. Of course this was the case for some considerable time before this thread started. I see no need to change the widely used and accepted "FA" to "Auction". The charter could perhaps be amended to reflect that common usage. Perhaps the example subject line should omit the words "for sale". Once you have typed "FA" you have really said enough about the mode of sale, although I like to add which auction server it's on, eBay, Yahoo etc.. I do agree with several posters in this thread that the auction posts with "FS" in the header are very annoying - even to someone like me who buys and sells large numbers of items using both methods. I did make this mistake, but only once. Never again. -- Best regards, Tony Polson FROM: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink) SUBJECT: Re: Give Us a Break from all the FA posts. DATE: Thu, 06 Sep 01 19:40:03 GMT NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.marketplace In article <1lccpt00t3nqihftatecr9c62jbl6279jf@4ax.com>, Tony Polson wrote: >nomullets@starfleet.org (Tuvok's Mullet©) wrote: > >> >I read the charter. There is much detail, but I didn't see a word about >> >auction notices in the marketplace groups. >> >> Better read a little more slowly :) >> >> "Postings for auctions which are hosted on web-servers such as eBay, *must*" >> "include the keyword [Auction] at the start of the Subject line" >> "(e.g. "[Auction] Szabad half-plate camera for sale")." > >Thanks for posting that. You've helped establish that no-one on here >has *any* right to complain about auction postings that comply with the >charter. Oh yes we have. The charter quoted above applies to the newer rec.photo.*.marketplaces groups (where '*' stands for darkroom, large-format, medium-format). > Of course this was the case for some considerable time before >this thread started. The charter for r.p.m. was created long before the concept of auctions existed. -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] FROM: "Tom Coates" SUBJECT: Re: Give Us a Break from all the FA posts. DATE: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 13:49:25 GMT ORGANIZATION: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.marketplace "Tuvok's Mullet©" wrote in message news:ASil7.17429$ZJ.410900@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com... > In article , > tecoates@home.com managed to say > > >I read the charter. There is much detail, but I didn't see a word about > >auction notices in the marketplace groups. > > > > Better read a little more slowly :) > > > "Postings for auctions which are hosted on web-servers such as eBay, *must*" > "include the keyword [Auction] at the start of the Subject line" > "(e.g. "[Auction] Szabad half-plate camera for sale")." > > > http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm Thanks very much. I had an earlier version. I also see that the prohibition of discussions in .marketplace has been removed. There was another error in my previous post--it was "JM" not "Johnny" who I meant to cite. Your post is very helpful, the most useful thing is the entire thread. Thanks again. Tom FROM: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink) SUBJECT: Re: Give Us a Break from all the FA posts. DATE: Thu, 06 Sep 01 19:54:56 GMT NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.marketplace In article , "Tom Coates" wrote: >Thanks very much. I had an earlier version. No you don't. You have the original version for r.p.m. The one for r.p.m. was never changed, only those for r.p.m.*. were *added*. (not r.p.*.m. as I wrote earlier btw). >I also see that the >prohibition of discussions in .marketplace has been removed. Impossible....r.p.m. was never changed, the attempt to dissolve/delete it, superseeded by r.p.m.misc (not r.p.m.general as I wrote earlier), failed by a hair. Only successfull votes can change a charter. And I doubt this item was forgotten in the charters for the new/accepted groups....perhaps Helge Nareid (the organisator for the last restructuring) can shed some light on this.... -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] FROM: Helge Nareid SUBJECT: Re: Give Us a Break from all the FA posts. DATE: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 10:11:56 GMT NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.marketplace w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink) wrote in news:9n8k55$61a86$8@ID-34205.news.dfncis.de: > In article , > "Tom Coates" wrote: >>Thanks very much. I had an earlier version. > > No you don't. > You have the original version for r.p.m. > The one for r.p.m. was never changed, only those for r.p.m.*. were > *added*. (not r.p.*.m. as I wrote earlier btw). > >>I also see that the >>prohibition of discussions in .marketplace has been removed. > > Impossible....r.p.m. was never changed, the attempt to dissolve/delete > it, superseeded by r.p.m.misc (not r.p.m.general as I wrote earlier), > failed by a hair. Only successfull votes can change a charter. > And I doubt this item was forgotten in the charters for the > new/accepted groups....perhaps Helge Nareid (the organisator for the > last restructuring) can shed some light on this.... The charter for all the rec.photo.marketplace.* newsgroups is less clear than I would wish in retrospect on this particular point. The most relevant part in the charter is: :Replies (other than factual corrections) should be sent *only* by :email and *never* posted in rec.photo.marketplace. That paragraph originated with the original "rec.photo.marketplace" charter, and was just copied into the charter for the newer groups. In retrospect, this point should have been made more clear in the charter for the new newsgroups. In the charters for the _new_ newsgroups, the following paragraph has been added: :Postings must _not_ be crossposted to any of the rec.photo.* discussion :groups. Crossposting within the rec.photo.marketplace.* groups is normally :not permitted, with the exception of informational postings. As regards the rec.photo.marketplace newsgroup, the original charter as voted on in 1994 is still valid, and can't be changed, as Jan-Willem quite correctly states. -- - Helge Nareid Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland FROM: "J. Bednar" SUBJECT: No eBay on Rec.Photo.Marketplace? DATE: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 11:33:01 GMT NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.marketplace Whats the story? I thought if I used the standard FA: tag on my post there wouldn't be a problem? Now I start getting email from eBay stating I'm spamming people with my auctions? What gives? I've been a newsgroup user for over 10 years, longer than most people here have even had computers. Just scrolling through my cached threads, it looks like there is a pretty even split between for sale and for auction, maybe it's time things changed a bit. I don't see what the problem is? I've sold plenty of stuff through both methods, online auctions and newsgroups. Actually, I typically prefer to sell through newsgroups and give somebody a halfway decent deal (as compared to the shark dealers that typically move broken merch through newsgroups). Cmon people, get with the times, why would anyone want to sit around trying to sell something for months on newsgroups when they can typically sell it in a week for much more money than they could ever have sold it for on newsgroups. Nowadays, it's a sellers market. -jb FROM: "Alec Jones" SUBJECT: Re: No eBay on Rec.Photo.Marketplace? DATE: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 08:02:39 -0500 ORGANIZATION: Bellsouth.Net NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.marketplace What are you bitching here for? According to your message, it's eBay that's complaining. Bitch to them!!!!!! Ever bother to read their rules????? FROM: leicalust2@aol.com (Leica Lust 2) SUBJECT: Re: No eBay on Rec.Photo.Marketplace? DATE: 09 Sep 2001 13:16:40 GMT ORGANIZATION: AOL http://www.aol.com NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.marketplace <<>> Ebay is incorrect if you are only listing your auctions on marketplace newsgroups like rec.photo.marketplace. However, if you also cross-post your ads to non-commercial newsgroups like rec.photo.equipment.35mm, you are in violation of the charter of the non-commercial newsgroups and Ebay TOS and they can yank your auctions or even yank you. FROM: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink) SUBJECT: Re: No eBay on Rec.Photo.Marketplace? DATE: Sun, 09 Sep 01 15:39:43 GMT NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.marketplace In article , "J. Bednar" wrote: >Whats the story? I thought if I used the standard FA: tag on my post there >wouldn't be a problem? Now I start getting email from eBay stating I'm >spamming people with my auctions? Lovely, they finally understand what a nuisance their auction-postings are. > What gives? I've been a newsgroup user >for over 10 years, longer than most people here have even had computers. >Just scrolling through my cached threads, it looks like there is a pretty >even split between for sale and for auction, maybe it's time things changed >a bit. I don't see what the problem is? I've sold plenty of stuff through >both methods, online auctions and newsgroups. Actually, I typically prefer >to sell through newsgroups and give somebody a halfway decent deal (as >compared to the shark dealers that typically move broken merch through >newsgroups). Cmon people, get with the times, why would anyone want to sit >around trying to sell something for months on newsgroups when they can >typically sell it in a week for much more money than they could ever have >sold it for on newsgroups. Nowadays, it's a sellers market. Nothing that forces anyone to bring their auction ads over to this newsgroup. I've said it before, and I say it again: let Ebay take care of their own advertising and keyword-mailings, and keep this newsgroup a *marketplace*, and not a bulletin-board full with notes saying 'look elsewhere'. And in respect to the for-profit/marketing nature of these postings: they are no silly bit different than someone posting an 'under-commission-sale-at-my-local-dealer', with full contact address of that dealer. Or what would you do if your local photo-flea-market consisted only of stand-holders sitting behind a desk with notes saying 'item X, for auction at Ebay'? Bravo to Ebay, for finally seeing the light of spam. -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]