Commercial advertising.

[Chris Bacon]

Why isn't it welcome here?

[Christian McArdle]

Because people don't want to be snowed under loads of ads for really crap stuff.

Christian.

[Partac]

Yes, as Christian says it would end up getting filled up with the electronic equivalent of the sort of junk you get with the Sunday papers, which ends up in the bin without being read. Commercial ads in newgroups would be even worse, as at least the ads in the papers have to be paid for. Can you imagine the volume of advertising/spamming there would be in newsgroups if it were to go unchecked? Usenet then would just become pointless as nobody would be bothered to use it.

[PM]

Or loads of ads for really good stuff either.

[Alex]

Well, would you like your inbox overflowing with spam? :) (assuming it isn't already!)

alex

[david lang]

AAMOI, is it ermissable to sell unwanted tools etc via this group?

[meow2222]

Loads of newsgroups have died because they were so overflowed with spam they were not worth the massive effort to find anything worth reading. Only through vigilant anti-spam activity do newsgroups survive this threat.

You can however put your business contacts in as a sig line.

NT

[Tony Bryer]

It's not necessary. If someone needs pointing in the direction of a supplier or maker of something then one of us regulars will invariably point them in the right direction (or otherwise if it's IMM). If you are a manufacturer/supplier of same and are not being mentioned in dispatches then perhaps you need to start wondering why: perhaps your products are no good or your website is one to which one cannot provide a sensible link. And if you're a manufacturer/supplier then regularly doing a Google groups search to see what is being said about you would be useful bit of market research.

[Chris Bacon]

Yes, that's OnT and not commercial advertising.

FWIW, it's only a "FAQ" only that mentions commercial advertising, &, as a ground for complaint, is worthless. A charter would be different.

[Dave Fawthrop]

|david lang wrote: |> Chris Bacon wrote: |>>Why isn't it welcome here? |> |> AAMOI, is it ermissable to sell unwanted tools etc via this group? | |Yes, that's OnT and not commercial advertising. | |FWIW, it's only a "FAQ" only that mentions commercial advertising, &, |as a ground for complaint, is worthless. A charter would be different.

OK do we think that uk.d-i-y should have a charter? If so I will run one up with

submit it to Control. Or someone else ?Chris? can do it if they/he wish(s).

[Chris Bacon]

I think so. The FAQ, in its unofficial "Dictator Of What May Be Said" capacity , is extremely offensive to me (otherwise, it's quite good).

If I had the general knowledge needed, I'd have a go - however, for several reasons, I don't think I'm the right person to process this.

I started the "Commercial advertising" thread for a particular reason; perhaps someone can guess at it, and perhaps the charter could, in some small way, accommodate this.

[Chris Bacon]

See my other reply, and additionally: IMO it's quite likely that an attempt to instigate a charter may be met with opposition simply because of the somewhat anomalous name of this NG - I feel, but do not agree with, that some may think it might somehow legitamise uk.d-i-y, when they'd like a name change, and might oppose a charter for this NG "on principal", reprehensible though their principles would be.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Because it would be all about Viagra. If you can DIY ok you don't need it.

[Dave Fawthrop]

|> OK do we think that uk.d-i-y should have a charter? | |I think so. The FAQ, in its unofficial "Dictator Of What May Be Said" |capacity , is extremely offensive to me (otherwise, it's quite good). | | |> If so I will run one up with

submit it to |> Control. Or someone else ?Chris? can do it if they/he wish(s).

I would prefer not to do it myself, as I am too controversial on unnc | |If I had the general knowledge needed, I'd have a go - however, for |several reasons, I don't think I'm the right person to process this.

There is not much need for knowledge there are a bunch of nice people to hold your hand.

this thing gets off the ground, it will require all the regulars here to post to uk.net.news.config "I approve the new charter and am subscribed to uk.d-i-y and post there regularly" If it comes to a vote all the regulars will have to vote.

[Dave Fawthrop]

|Dave Fawthrop wrote: |> OK do we think that uk.d-i-y should have a charter? | |See my other reply, and additionally: IMO it's quite likely that an |attempt to instigate a charter may be met with opposition simply |because of the somewhat anomalous name of this NG - I feel, but |do not agree with, that some may think it might somehow legitamise |uk.d-i-y, when they'd like a name change, and might oppose a charter |for this NG "on principal", reprehensible though their principles |would be.

The regulars here could outvote the people you mention on unnc.

That will not happen IMO, because another anomalously named newsgroup uk.food+drink has become a hierarchy header with uk.food+drink.sausages, uk.food+drink.chinese, uk.food+drink.indian. also uk.legal.moderated has been added to uk.legal, without drastic objections

The official line is:

Note that there is no proposal to rename any of these groups at the present time, but their position should be reviewed if and when other related groups come to be considered. It is still possible that some of these will eventually form the roots of proper hierarchies.

A list follows:

uk.consultants uk.d-i-y uk.gay-lesbian-bi uk.legal uk.railway uk.singles uk.radio.amateur (not the basis for a good hierarchy now that uk.rec.* exists)

[EricP]

Would there be a great deal of point?

With Google allowing anybody to post anything with impunity.

[Dave Fawthrop]

|On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:59:38 +0000, Dave Fawthrop | wrote: | |>On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:44:04 +0000, Chris Bacon |>wrote: |>

|>|david lang wrote: |>|> Chris Bacon wrote: |>|>>Why isn't it welcome here? |>|> |>|> AAMOI, is it ermissable to sell unwanted tools etc via this group? |>| |>|Yes, that's OnT and not commercial advertising. |>| |>|FWIW, it's only a "FAQ" only that mentions commercial advertising, &, |>|as a ground for complaint, is worthless. A charter would be different. |>

|>OK do we think that uk.d-i-y should have a charter? |>If so I will run one up with

submit it to |>Control. Or someone else ?Chris? can do it if they/he wish(s). | |Would there be a great deal of point? | |With Google allowing anybody to post anything with impunity.

A charter gives basis for what *should* happen.

[Chris Bacon]

In what way is a targetted commercial post "spam"?

[Joe]

By 'targetted', do you mean adverts for exactly what I want at a particular time? Or do you mean 'anything at all that might sell to people who read a DIY newsgroup', which of course is not in any way limited to DIY products. Check your inbox for ads 'targetted' at you *personally*. How many of them do you find useful?

Creating a newsgroup is easy. Anyone who wishes to do so can do it in the alt hierarchy, where advertising is permitted. It can be (occasionally) advertised here. The whole point of newsgroups which prohibit advertising is to make communication between human beings possible.

Posting to Usenet is effectively free. What mechanism do you think would limit the quantity of such advertising to a level of, say, no more than a tenth of the posts by humans?

[Phil Addison]

I'm interested to know exactly which bits you refer to.

I'm always open to receive updates/improvements/new material for the FAQ. Suggestions get considered, written up input is likely to get included somewhat sooner.

Phil The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at

Google uk.d-i-y archive is at NOSPAM from address to email me