[sbucciarel]

Originally Posted by kindsvater

It is the home page of Warrior Payments:

https://payments.warriorforum.com/

It's ironic. The forum enticing sellers to create WSOs by making what appears to be a fabricated income claim based on a fabricated results claim for a list building product - all in the context of an overstated claim of forum reach and with a testimonial implying 7 figures have been made.

It starts at the top. If the forum does not want sellers making certain claims then perhaps it should not be promoting those same types of claims.

Otherwise, sellers are just following the example of what the forum is showing them to do so that they can also make $63,000 by selling a WSO.

.

Ironic indeed. I searched for the WSO with the title of that screenshot and nothing comes up in either Google or WarPay Marketplace. It appears to be a completely made up screenshot.

[Michelle Stevens]

Rule #17: Income Claims & Guarantees

Sellers that make income claims may be asked to provide proof of income prior to their offer being approved. Sellers are strictly prohibited from offering income guarantees. This will be strictly enforced to protect the Warrior community.

I must admit I'm a bit bemused by this.

Warrior payments has only been about for 5 minutes, so established Warriors really aren't going to be able to provide proof using this.

I personally have a ton of income proof from JVZoo, Warrior+ and Paypal screenshots but I'm not allowed to use any of it.

So I can't actually prove to anyone that I've ever even earned a single dollar online, when I've actually been around earning for several years!

I'm all for keeping the forum clean but this is a bit nuts

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by kindsvater

Mike, I was not focusing on WSOs to make WSOs. Apparently my post went over your head, or I did not articulate it well enough.

No you articulated it fine. It was just lacking in ANY logical content when it got to insinuating there were ulterior motives to cleaning up the WSO section. However you have one small point - It may well have went over my head since I routinely duck when I see total nonsense.

Let me be very clear. I have no issue with you disagreeing with the policy. What I think its pretty outrageous and disgraceful is you and a few others implying the changes to income claims were a money grab to lock in WP. Its both outrageous and silly. However it does speak to what I have said before (and wonder when Fl will figure it out) They can't win for trying with a certain group. they do clean up but make one little exception about WP and bam!! - ulterior motive accusations of why they cleaned up come flowing in

I don't know your upbringing but where I come from if you are going to stand on someones property and claim to know their motivations you better be down right sure there are no other explanations. I have cited three times today a perfectly legit explanation for why they came up with that exception simply because it was the only income they could verify (an d it is). Apparently you will have none of it because you want to claim its all about promoting WP and that feeds into th e evil corporation narrative

But Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Cut out a chunk load of income from present offers just to make a few pennies on WSOs about WSO. ROFL.... such a silly accusation.

Again not the argument against the income claim rules itself but the ever increasing slander/insinuation that it was just for forcing WP.

For shame.

[Mike Anthony]

Now with the main issue highlighted to your other points

By disallowing income claims, unless the income is generated via Warrior Payments, is thus not a rule designed to protect buyers, reduce fraud, and have better products. It is a rule designed to entice more products to be sold via Warrior Payments instead of JVZoo and W+.

You assertion stated as evidence does not meet the quality of any known criteria for evidence. You of all people should know that and its sad if you don't. It is a fact - stated and actually never rebutted by any of you claiming ulterior motives - that WP is the only logical way that they can verify income because it belongs to them. It is an exception to the rule because the basis of the rule is that income claims cannot be verified BUT this one can be. You have no clue that it was designed to do what you claim. You are just making empty accusations.

Fact or not? If someone is selling how to do WSOs does the income made from selling WSOs confirm they know how to do so? Yes it does no matter how you complain - so your claim it does nothing is total nonsense. it shows they can do WSOs. How can that be verified by WF with JVzoo and W+?? (I hear crickets). Well again no matter how you complain it can't be because they do not have access BECAUSE THEY DO NOT OWN OR OPERATE those external third party systems.

The silly self serving amnesia thing about it is that when the rules first came out there was nothing about WP. When people complained they would not be able to verify using screenshots they then came to WP wording. So they are getting accused in part because they listened to the community saying verification with screen shots wouldn't work.

rguably, the fraud concern about income claims is exacerbated by new new rule, and sellers can point to "verified" and approved income numbers to tout their products

As the rules are presently written and the present usage of WP dictates it allows for the claim to be made only in relationship to the single product it verifies not their products plural. However it will be nice to know that if I buy a WSO about doing WSOs it will actually be something I know the person knows about. Heres a novel thought. Why don't you wait to see what gets approved. That way when you make your sweeping accusations it will have an actual fact to back it up?

Still the idea that the management that actually is cleaning up income claims is exacerbating it is kind of funny especially when you reference the years you advocated it and nothing was done before them.

they should get credit but nah......they only did it to get those pennies from WP related to WSOs. they are going to be rich

[kindsvater]

Mike, I can think of numerous ways income claims can be proven. That's not the point. If income claims are to be banned to clean things up - great. But ban them all.

Let me add - the proper reference should be "results" claims, not just income claims.

Don't make an "exception" for products sold via Warrior Payments because the gross sales amount is irrelevant.

I've given examples and analysis, all of which you ignore in a zeal to make a personal attack.

The issue really is what is wrong with income claims? Is it because what seller made cannot be verified? Or is it because even if the seller did make that amount it does not represent what the typical buyer will make from using the product?

As for discussing the issue and trying to explain why the policy is misplaced and should be changed, that is what forums are for. That is why an email was sent this morning linking to this thread so there could be feedback and discussion.

Freelancer are big boys and don't need you making absurd threats about coming into someone's home and slandering them. You're out of line.

If you want to discuss why income claims are good/bad, and whether the new rule promotes good policy, that is fine.

Let me suggest this to keep this in the proper place.

Assume Product #1 sells for $10 and makes 100 sales via Warrior Payments or $1000.

Assume Product #2 sells for $6 and makes 100 sales via Acme Payments or $600.

What is the relevance to the amount of gross revenue for either product when it comes to selling Product #3 via a WSO?

I am saying there is none. Neither income claim should be allowed because either improperly suggests how much money a buyer will make from using the product.


You ask, has the forum at least moved in the right direction by at least banning an income claim related to Product #2?

Maybe. Maybe not.

The reason why not is because a seller can now point to the $1000 income claim and advertise this is a "verified" income claim expressly approved by the Warrior Forum.

So not only is the seller making the income claim, implicitly the forum is too.


Consider this scenario:

Black Hat Seller uses Warrior Payments as the payment processor for a product on their own web page. The product is not even publicly available to be sold. Seller pays himself $1500 buying his own product. Warrior Payments shows gross revenue of $1500.

(Remember, Warrior Payments can be used for more than just WSOs. Payment buttons can be used offsite.)

Black Hat Seller is now in a position to sell his product as a WSO making a $1500 income claim solely because he used Warrior Payments. Buyers are duped because this is a "verified" income claim authorized by the forum.


My thought about the new policy has several components:

1. The problem with income claims is not that the seller cannot verify their income, but the buyer is induced to buy thinking that is how much they will make, and that doesn't happen. That is why the FTC wants "typical" results for buyers - not a verification of what the seller made. If the seller did not make that money that is a different fraud issue.

2. Gross revenue numbers are irrelevant.

3. If anything, buyers are at a worse risk of buying scammy products because, effectively, there is what some could say a "Warrior Forum Seal of Approval" for irrelevant and potentially fraudulent income claims.

.

[Mike Anthony]

Kindsvater if you want to make statements about what Freelancer 's motivation is like you can read minds then you'll just have to live with people calling you out on your evidence (or lack thereof) for your accusations. You won't be telling me (especially not me)what the issues I can talk about are and are not after that doozy. You can go start your own forum for that.Just stick to the point and skip the mind reading and slanderous accusations against Warrior Forums and we would not be on the issue at all.

and public request. Stop making up lies....I at no point made any threat. I used an analogy. If you don't know the difference thats even sadder.

[atlanta2008]

Mike Anthony, can you please comment on the issue regarding moving offers to sub-forums .
Se my post: http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-...ml#post9798963
thanks
Frank

[Mark Singletary]

Mike,

I hope you can take your own advice and lay off the constant mind reading you have going on regarding those of us that have anything negative or critical (constructive or otherwise) to say about the forum. You bring up over and over that we are anti-FL, or have a case of the sour grapes, or we are upset that the forum has new owners, or are part of a good old boys type club.

Yet you don't know anyone's motivation and so please don't pretend that you do.
I don't know of anyone that is anti-FL but I know a lot of people don't like some of the changes that have been made (or not made). It's not the same thing.

Many of the people making suggestions and comments and complaints have also thanked FL for the good things they are doing. And most of the main ones discussing these issues also were involved in complaints and criticism before under the previous administration.

Mark

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Kindsvater if you want to make statements about what Freelancer 's motivation is like you can read minds then you'll just have to live with people calling you out on your evidence (or lack thereof) for your accusations. You won't be telling me (especially not me)what the issues are I can talk about and are not after that doozy. You can go start your own forum for that.Just stick to the point and skip the mind reading and slanderous accusations and we would not be on the issue at all.

and public request. Stop making up lies....I at no point made any threat. I used an analogy. If you don't know the difference thats even sadder.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Mark Singletary

Mike,

I hope you can take your own advice and lay off the constant mind reading you have going on regarding those of us that have anything negative or critical

I'm not doing any mind reading Mark. I'm responding to exactly what has been accused in this thread. Along those lines I had forgotten this was already here - post 4. it pretty much crushes the claims/insinuations claiming income claims was a move for WP

Originally Posted by Alaister

In regards to this we'll be judging the quality of the offers and focusing on presenting value to the community. If there is a great product and offer where the seller does provide income claims we'll ask them for some sort of proof in order to verify it and protect buyers as much as possible.

At times income claims when backed up with proof is important when trying to sell certain products.

In terms of the actual proof, the onus is on the seller to provide sufficient evidence for the offer to be approved. As you mentioned screenshots can be faked so we'll definitely be looking at them closely. When we do decide to approve an offer with an income claim, we'll clearly state the sort of proof that was provided by the seller and it's still up to the buyer whether they want to proceed to purchase or not.

So when this started other income claims were going to be allowed and it was no move to push WP. the community said that wouldn't work so they said well then the only thing we can do is verify what we can actually verify

Now as to whether Anti - FL or bigfoot or the island of Barbados actually exists we can have that discussion another place. Suffice to say I don't think that requires mindreading at all given the amount of posts and statements that have been made. reading and hearing speech is not mind reading. I follow my own advice just fine - to make such accusations of management DIRECTLY indicates there is a distrust of them. You can pretend as you like but it does not meet the definition of mind reading. Sorry.

If you think that its constructive to make up these accusations then we have different definitions of constructive. I'm saying that to you because you seem to have defined yourself in a "we" I never defined and wouldn't define as anyone who had criticisms since ummm ...I've had my own. Its also fair to say I am saying it to you because well you read through all the accusations and had nothing you thought worthy to respond to until you came to my objections to the accusations.

Timing sometimes is everything.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by atlanta2008

Mike Anthony, can you please comment on the issue regarding moving offers to sub-forums .
Se my post: http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-...ml#post9798963
thanks
Frank

If you insist sure. I didn' t notice it before. You do have a point. I think the solution is to leave those where they are and not allow them to be bumped. No one will be seeing them on the forum except for direct traffic and then the seller can open a new thread where he can bump and leave a link to it from the old space.

I'll bet Freelancer will be open to it given its a lot less work than moving them.

[atlanta2008]

Sounds like a fair resolution, thanks for your comment.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

If you insist sure. I didn' t notice it before. You do have a point. I think the solution is to leave those where they are and not allow them to be bumped. No one will be seeing them on the forum except for direct traffic and then the seller can open a new thread where he can bump and leave a link to it from the old space.

I'll bet Freelancer will be open to it given its a lot less work than moving them.

[ForumGuru]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

I think the solution is to leave those where they are and not allow them to be bumped. No one will be seeing them on the forum except for direct traffic and then the seller can open a new thread where he can bump and leave a link to it from the old space.

I'll bet Freelancer will be open to it given its a lot less work than moving them.

The forum's search function (and google search etc. etc.) brings up those threads. I think the best solution is to clean them up and make all sellers play by the same rules.

Cheers

-don

[James Campbell]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

I'm not doing any mind reading Mark blah blah blah.....

All you've managed to prove to anyone with your arguments is that you believe or have implied you believe that those who have posted logically and factually valid arguments against the rules are somehow engaging in some sort of anti-FL conspiracy. You are literally just making up a theory as the basis for your argument.

Your responses zealously ignore valid points and arguments while taking other portions of posts out of context in order to fit your own made up theories about the posts and/or opinion of others.

Meh... I don't know why I'm even bothering to point out the obvious to you. It will just got over your head and you'll continue one with more inane BS that doesn't make any sense.

Carry on, your genius is amusing me.

[Kay King]

I think the best solution is to clean them up and make all sellers play by the same rules.

That's what an admin told me would be done - and I assume that's the purpose of the email that went out.

It's a big job mainly because WSO's now run forever. If they had an expiration date, it would be easier to make the change but if they stick with it - eventually all WSOs will be in compliance.

I see good reasons for the new rules - I see problems that might arise. Anyone here should be able to express their opinion without another member (not a mod, not an admin) making snide personal remarks.

Everyone working on this WF has been polite and professional in their responses. If you want to support them, you might try the same level of professionalism.

kay

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

The forum's search function (and google search etc. etc.) also brings up those threads. I think the best solution is to make all sellers play by the same rules.

Cheers

-don

Hey Don,

He's talking about SEO and outside direct traffic through links to those pages . Once you move the ads under new forum headings the links will be broken and they also will not rank in google searches the same. The forum itself will lose that traffic as it will result in a 404 error so there is a bit of self interest for WF to preserve them (they would have to assess what the traffic lost based on their own stats)

All sellers being moved could have that and all sellers are not affected by the same rules - only some kin d of offers are due to be moved.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by James Campbell

you'll continue one with more inane BS that doesn't make any sense.

I can't see how I could improve on your last post which was the quintessential demonstration .

Originally Posted by Kay King

. Anyone here should be able to express their opinion without another member (not a mod, not an admin) making snide personal remarks.

here here like what went over anyone's head.

f you want to support them, you might try the same level of professionalism.

and if you don't you might want to try some level of courtesy in not making false accusations against them

P.S. why it needs explanation I have no idea but I am quite accustomed now to getting flamed for disagreeing with false accusations against FL. The flame retardant suit works so well its like the AC is on with Bermuda shorts. Still additional testing never hurts so by all means

[atlanta2008]

Cleaning up expired ,outdated or abandoned WSO's is one thing ,
getting rid of active service offers ( Classified Ads) generating loads of direct traffic is another.

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

The forum's search function (and google search etc. etc.) brings up those threads. I think the best solution is to clean them up and make all sellers play by the same rules.

Cheers

-don

[James Campbell]

And the entertainment continues as predicted.

[ForumGuru]

Originally Posted by Kay King

That's what an admin told me would be done - and I assume that's the purpose of the email that went out.

That's been common knowledge among many of us forum regulars since the admins have been posting exactly that for a few weeks now.

It's a big job mainly because WSO's now run forever. If they had an expiration date, it would be easier to make the change but if they stick with it - eventually all WSOs will be in compliance.

Sending an email to tell the vendors to clean them up should do a lot of it. If the vendors don't comply then remove the WSO or block it until they do. I am sure they realize it's a big job, but with the help of our reports it should be able to be accomplished.

Anyone here should be able to express their opinion without another member (not a mod, not an admin) making snide personal remarks.

Everyone working on this WF has been polite and professional in their responses. If you want to support them, you might try the same level of professionalism.

Snide personal remarks and professionalism? I hope you were not directing that at me, I have been nothing but on-topic and professional on these subjects. On top of that I have been thanked by several mods and admins for doing my part in helping clean up the forum.

It appears as if you may be trying to get a bit snide and/or personal, Kay.

Cheers

-don

[JensSteyaert]

After reading this stuff about the new rule on income guarantee, i'm in a bit of a tricky situation. The concept of my Wso is actually based on the fact that i promote other people's affiliate link on the Wso page so they can get their first sale for a certain service.

So how am i supposed to formulate the fact that i will help people get their first sale if i can't make an income guarantee?

Any mods here want to help me out on this one? I hope it's not illegal to help people make money...

Thanks,
Jens

[ForumGuru]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Hey Don,

He's talking about SEO and outside direct traffic through links to those pages . Once you move the ads under new forum headings the links will be broken and they also will not rank in google searches the same. The forum itself will lose that traffic as it will result in a 404 error so there is a bit of self interest for WF to preserve them (they would have to assess what the traffic lost based on their own stats)

All sellers being moved could have that and all sellers are not affected by the same rules - only some kin d of offers are due to be moved.

Got it, the free offers and the like. I think a 301 redirect may be the best way would do the trick if that's possible.

Cheers

-don

[Mike Anthony]

You could do a redirect based on the new paths. Not sure how that works in VB. the problem is you are moving to different forums and paths

FREE and Services

and that would get pretty tricky. In fact I don't think that could be done

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

It appears as if you may be trying to get a bit snide and/or personal, Kay.

I'd rest easy my man. I think that was a snide (definitely) swipe at me for daring to object to snide comments against management.

[Kay King]

No, Don, not aimed at you. I understand people get heated on subjects like this - because it can affect income.

But some are getting too personal in their defense of the changes here and it doesn't help if anger ends up being the go-to. I expect you agree with that.

Mgmt has taken on a big job - but it's big because no one bothered to do anything about it until now. It may be messy for a while but eventually with adjustments and common sense, it should all fall into place.

[ForumGuru]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

You could do a redirect based on the new paths. Not sure how that works in VB. the problem is you are moving to different forums and paths

FREE and Services and that would get pretty tricky. In fact I don't think that could be done

I could be wrong, but you should be able to do a redirect a forum URL directly in CPanel or whatever. I have redirected all sorts of URLs in the past, including forum URLs so unless something seriously complex is going on it it should be able to be done.

If no other means is available, the BB Code from each post could be moved manually to a manually created new thread. It would be a lot of work, but it could be done.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

I'd rest easy my man. I think that was a snide (definitely) swipe at me.

LoL...got it.

Cheers

-don

[James Campbell]

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

I could be wrong, but you should be able to do a redirect a forum URL directly in CPanel or whatever. I have redirected all sorts of URLs in the past, including forum URLs so unless something seriously complex is going on it it should be able to be done.

Yes the BBCode from each post may have to be moved manually, after a new thread is created, it's some work, but it could be done.



LoL...got it.

Cheers

-don

They've done it successfully in the past with other threads. Ones that didn't comply with WSO rules at the time and were put in the classifieds section. Not sure exactly how they did it, but it appeared to work rather seamlessly.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Kay King

But some are getting too personal in their defense of the changes here and it doesn't help if anger ends up being the go-to. I expect you agree with that.

thats the convenient thing about it though. Its always personal when its a defense of changes but never characterized as personal when its in an attack on changes or accusations made about them. let those go by without rebuttal and everything is fine and dandy.

[ForumGuru]

Originally Posted by James Campbell

They've done it successfully in the past with other threads. Ones that didn't comply with WSO rules at the time and were put in the classifieds section. Not sure exactly how they did it, but it appeared to work rather seamlessly.

Yeah, that's exactly right! I have reported deveral WSOs that should have been posted in Classifieds and they sure did seamlessly redirect to classifieds after being moved. Those threads had slipped my mind when I made my post.

Cheers

-don

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

I could be wrong, but you should be able to do a redirect a forum URL directly in CPanel or whatever. I have redirected all sorts of URLs in the past, including forum URLs so unless something seriously complex is going on it it should be able to be done.

Certainly 301 redirects are common (we do them all the time in SEO) but in those scenarios you are redirecting everything in one folder to another set location folder. Pretty simple and straightforward. IF you think about it what you are doing with this is taking service offers under the WSO folder and redirecting them to one folder and then taking free offers in the same present WSO location and redirecting them to another location. Thats different. substantially different.

the redirect cannot determine what is a free offer and what is a service offer. Only a human would be able to identify them. Thats where the trickiness would be.

[Paul Myers]

Mike,

I don't think anyone is suggesting your defense of the new management is out of place.

You're an intelligent man. I would bet you can express exactly the same ideas without questioning the intelligence of those who disagree with you or see things differently.

I'm betting if you let some of that anger subside, you'd see the potential for other rational perspectives, too. Not that you would (or should) necessarily agree with them, but you'd see them. And that's Useful.


Paul

[ForumGuru]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Certainly 301 redirects are common but in those scenarios you are redirecting everything in one folder to another set location folder. Pretty simple and straightforward IF you think about it what you are doing with this is taking service offers under the WSO folder and redirecting them to one folder and then taking free offers in the same presetn WSO location and redirecting them to another location. Thats different . substantially different

the redirect cannot determine what is a free offer and what is a service offer. Only a human would be able to identify them. Thats where the trickiness would be.

As mentioned above, the forum admins have been able to move threads from the WSO section to classifieds and not break the URL in the past.

Even doing a manual move you could still set up a server-side 301 using the old URL and a manually created new thread, but that should not be necessary.

Cheers

-don

[Paul Myers]

Don,

As mentioned above, the forum admins have been able to move threads from the WSO section to classifieds and not break the URL in the past.

The forum finds posts differently than SEs do.

The forum software looks for the thread number, which is why you can move things around and change titles without the links breaking internally.

vBulletin doesn't care what words are in the URL. SEs do. If you even change the title while leaving everything else intact, the SEs will no longer recognize it as the same URL. (At least that's my understanding of it...)


Paul

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

Even doing a manual move you could still set up a server-side 301 using the old URL and a manually created new thread, but that should not be necessary.

Cheers

-don

Perhaps in VB (although I am not sure thats a true redirect) but manually server side you would have to do a redirect on every single thread individually which would be a bear.

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

vBulletin doesn't care what words are in the URL. SEs do. If you even change the title while leaving everything else intact, the SEs will no longer recognize it as the same URL. (At least that's my understanding of it...)


Paul

Thats what I thought but I can't recall doing any SEO work for a forum. so in that case whatever traffic would be lost (have no idea if its significant)

[ForumGuru]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Don,The forum finds posts differently than SEs do.

The forum software looks for the thread number, which is why you can move things around and change titles without the links breaking internally.

vBulletin doesn't care what words are in the URL. SEs do. If you even change the title while leaving everything else intact, the SEs will no longer recognize it as the same URL. (At least that's my understanding of it...)

Paul

For sure, but by moving the thread via the thread ID# ---> the URL, the title, and the content of the thread will stay the same so it should not drastically harm the SE rank, correct? These are basically rewritten URLs anyway, and the SE URL will remain the same.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Perhaps in VB (although I am not sure thats a true redirect) but manually server side you would have to do a redirect on every single thread individually which would be a bear.

Yes, it would be a bear as mentioned above.

Cheers

-don

[Paul Myers]

Don,

For sure, but by only moving the thread via thread ID# the title and the content of the thread will stay the same so it should not drastically harm the SE rank, correct?

Ask someone who knows SEO. That ain't me.

When they changed the name of one of the sections a while back, an absolute ton of links dropped out of the SERPs. If moving them has the same effect (and I'm not sure if it would or not), it would be pretty drastic.


Paul

[atlanta2008]

Thanks everyone for contributing to the URL move subject.
BTW, Is there a limit on how many Thanks I can givein a day or something.
The Button diapered on my just while ago..

[ForumGuru]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Don,Ask someone who knows SEO. That ain't me.

When they changed the name of one of the sections a while back, an absolute ton of links dropped out of the SERPs. If moving them has the same effect (and I'm not sure if it would or not), it would be pretty drastic.

Paul

Paul,

We are not talking about changing titles or names if the threads are moved via ID# --> the URL, the content, and the thread title will still look the same to the search engines.

Cheers

-don

[Paul Myers]

Yep. I believe it's 20 thanks in a 24 hour period. Might be different now, but I know that was the limit for a long time.


Paul

[Paul Myers]

Don,

It wouldn't, though. If you move it, the "directory" part of the string changes. From wso to classifieds, for example.


Paul

[atlanta2008]

Exactly right, that's why I have not changed a single letter in the title of my sale thread since it was started 2.5 years ago.Otherwise the URL would change too and so would all the link juice, SERRPs,traffic and sales.

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

vBulletin doesn't care what words are in the URL. SEs do. If you even change the title while leaving everything else intact, the SEs will no longer recognize it as the same URL. (At least that's my understanding of it...)Paul

[Cali16]

Originally Posted by atlanta2008

BTW, Is there a limit on how many Thanks I can givein a day or something.
The Button diapered on my just while ago..

Yes, just 20 in a 24-hour period (as Paul pointed out above).

(Had to respond because "diapered" was just too funny to ignore!)

[Paul Myers]

Otherwise the URL would change too and so would all the link juice, SERPs,traffic and sales.

That's the part I'm not sure about. If Google crawls the forum and drops links that don't match the database, then yes. You probably would. If they call links from the database individually, it would find the thing still intact, so it probably wouldn't hurt as much as you say.

I don't know which of those is correct, though.


Paul

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Mike,

I don't think anyone is suggesting your defense of the new management is out of place.

You're an intelligent man. I would bet you can express exactly the same ideas without questioning the intelligence of those who disagree with you or see things differently.

Paul we all have biases that make us see some things more than others. Its like the new car effect. You buy a new car you start seeing them all over the place. You and a few others tend to see things in my response because you are in disagreement with them.

Someone comes on and blasts new management to bits - its constructive criticism because - "we care". I defend management and disagree with those attacking well - its personal and Mike's a dick (lol...not this thread but your usual charge). Kindvater went straight after my intelligence by saying what he was saying went "straight over my head". No biggie. Mike says an idea is silly well he needs to reconstruct that.

Now in regard to emotion thats actually quite funny because wow some innuendos have been flowing because of emotion s regarding FL and how their cleaning up of the Wso secrion is just a play to FORCE WP payments.

LoL...one of them even implied things in large red font (nothing emotional implied there)

So my suggestion to you is. If you want to come across as reasonable and unbiased. speak to those doing attacking against any and all sides. When you and Mark read through all the other stuff and let your eyes slide past accusation in big red fonts to respond to me its a bit obvious its not unbiased at all.

[ForumGuru]

@ Paul

Yeah, true that on the new URL, and it would be nice to know how the board and the SEs are handling that redirect. The original title and the content remain the same and the original URL is still valid, so I figure it can still be crawled and that's gotta be sizable part of the equation.

Cheers

-don

[Paul Myers]

Cali,

(Had to respond because "diapered" was just too funny to ignore!)

And across the land was heard the cry, "Damn you, autocorrect!"

[Paleochora]

Reading through the latter couple of pages of this thread, it appears to me that there has been strong suggestion that The Warrior Forum has been using false income claims and faked screenshots to entice people to pay to run a WSO.

This seems to be an extremely serious accusation. Am I alone in finding this extremely disturbing?

Also, it appears that it is breaking its own rules with testimonials about income that are unsubstantiated.

What is probably more disturbing is the silence on these matters from the WF management.

[David Mcalorum]

Originally Posted by Michelle Stevens

Rule #17: Income Claims & Guarantees

Sellers that make income claims may be asked to provide proof of income prior to their offer being approved. Sellers are strictly prohibited from offering income guarantees. This will be strictly enforced to protect the Warrior community.

I must admit I'm a bit bemused by this.

Warrior payments has only been about for 5 minutes, so established Warriors really aren't going to be able to provide proof using this.

I personally have a ton of income proof from JVZoo, Warrior+ and Paypal screenshots but I'm not allowed to use any of it.

So I can't actually prove to anyone that I've ever even earned a single dollar online, when I've actually been around earning for several years!

I'm all for keeping the forum clean but this is a bit nuts

E x a c t l y Michelle!

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Paleochora

What is probably more disturbing is the silence on these matters from the WF management.

There hasn't been a post from management for many days and long before that was raised so I wouldn't think that in itself means anything. Does look like an artist rendition (faked screenshot composed in the monitor). I think I see Alaister's name as logged in (not that he did it or necessarily knew).

They'll DEFINITELY Need to change that by the 12th. I am not as shocked as you though. Income claims have been the norm in IM and they may well have not rethought them until recently. That and I have confirmed myself people have made far far more than the figures shown marketing on WF.

[Kay King]

Try coming to any part of this forum without being signed in. You'll get a pop-up "encouraging" you to sign up or sign in.

I remember seeing that question asked here recently and someone (Alaister?) posted it was a good point and "we will look into it". Nothing more that I've seen.

My computers log me in automatically here but I've also been using other family members' computers here and there so I've seen how persistent that popup is.

[Net66]

Originally Posted by David Mcalorum

Someone please address THESE issues. Havent heard anything so far....And I know you (the mods or owners) have read them. Are you going to do something? If not, kiss your 2 million goodbye. Seriously. As the good old saying goes... "if it aint broke, don't fix it"

They've already broke it quite a bit. That's why more and more sellers aren't listing as WSOs now. Sad really.

Andy

[XXXXXXXX]

Well look guys...this is a total "no win" situation for the management team now. I wouldn't expect them to answer at this point.

No matter what they do... they are going to get flamed from someone. Either the "don't pull income claims" or the " do pull income claims" group is going to crush them.

So any response they make will be picked apart word by word until 10 more pages are written about this.

I just hope they come to the conclusion that pulling income claims sound good "on paper" but that ......overall.... it has a very negative long term effect on the warrior forum. They will have fewer sellers, fewer people buying wso's, and fewer people willing to pay for ad space on the forum.

So really it boils down to how important revenue from wso's the and ad sales are to them.

That's my 2 cents

X

Originally Posted by Paleochora

Reading through the latter couple of pages of this thread, it appears to me that there has been strong suggestion that The Warrior Forum has been using false income claims and faked screenshots to entice people to pay to run a WSO.

This seems to be an extremely serious accusation. Am I alone in finding this extremely disturbing?

Also, it appears that it is breaking its own rules with testimonials about income that are unsubstantiated.

What is probably more disturbing is the silence on these matters from the WF management.