Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

SI - Site Forums : Silicon Investor - Welcome New SI Members! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeff Dryer who wrote (6188)	6/20/1999 2:38:00 AM
From: peter michaelson	Respond to of 32883

like whosaidthiswasparadise.com <g>

To: Jeff Dryer who wrote (6188)	6/20/1999 2:47:00 AM
From: Cheeky Kid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32883

Jeff, it's my opinion SI has started going down hill since the buyout. Posters suing other posters because their egos are hurt, companies suing members because of bashing, but yet it's alright to hype, and inconsistent enforcement of the SI terms of use. The Datek link is advertising period. I fully understand that you and Brad operate SI, but go2net owns SI and they will do what ever they please. You said: >>> As a financial discussion site, it would seem natural to have a link to a trading partner such as Datek just as we have other links including Inbox, Bookmarks, Hot Subjects, Quotes. Maybe the Datek link should be called "Trade" or "Buy/Sell shares" <<< Then why no link on this window to this site: gotonet.com There are charts on SI, and they have banner ads as well: techstocks.com I'm so disappointed at all the BS on SI of late, that I have decided not to take part in SI as much as I had in the past. Mind you most of my posts were not important any ways. The Datek link is advertising PERIOD. In my opinion.

To: Jeff Dryer who wrote (6188)	6/20/1999 3:05:00 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32883

Jeff, your post specifically mentioned "trading partner" in conjunction with Datek. Now, maybe I'm jumping a bit, but do you mean that SI might start offering direct online trading via Datek? Can I offer two cents here—People hate Datek, and that might be the source of much of the firestorm regarding this matter. The purple box with some other name might be sweeter. (just guessing here) If my guess is correct—if there were an online trading thing about to happen, I'll bet 50% or more of the fire on this thread would die off if it were somebody other than Datek. Maybe a Poll or something—or get some other partner, or offer a choice of partners? I dunno. I'm just trying to figure a way to put out the blaze.

To: Jeff Dryer who wrote (6188)	6/20/1999 7:25:00 AM
From: zonkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32883

>>>> Instead of an on/off option, is anyone open to the idea where each SI member can name the link whatever they want?<<<< I want to name it unsolcitated bombardment. If it is not a banner ad then why does this software that I am running that blocks out banner ads block out the datek part of the banner? z..........

To: Jeff Dryer who wrote (6188)	6/20/1999 7:33:00 AM
From: zonkie	Respond to of 32883

>>> Maybe the Datek link should be called "Trade" or "Buy/Sell shares." <<<<< How could someone "Trade or "Buy/Sell shares" if they don't have an account with datek? The account I use to trade is with waterhouse.com and I have no plans on switching and I don't want a link to waterhouse.com to appear on every page so that I can trade either. The best word that comes to mind for the banner is "bombardment". z........

To: Jeff Dryer who wrote (6188)	6/20/1999 10:59:00 AM
From: Dudley-ess DoWrong	Respond to of 32883

<<<< Quotes and Portfolios. Maybe the Datek link should be called "Trade" or "Buy/Sell shares." >>>>>>>>> A member who has paid money to Silicon Investor cannot "trade" or "buy/sell shares" with Datek unless and until they open an account. If a member wants to "trade" or "buy/sell" shares then give him/her the option to put in the url to his/her chosen broker when he/she clicks on the link. At the very least, your link is a solicitation and an argument can be made that it is a banner ad. Please address Brad Dryer's promises (which members have relied upon) that no bombardment of forms of solicitation would be put on the message threads. Btw, Caroline....what they are doing is more than just bad P.R.

To: Jeff Dryer who wrote (6188)	6/20/1999 1:31:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 32883

Thanks for the response. I'm glad that a dialogue with the powers who control our lives <g> is underway. As a financial discussion site, it would seem natural to have a link to a trading partner such as Datek just as we have other links including Inbox, Bookmarks, Hot Subjects, Quotes and Portfolios. Maybe the Datek link should be called "Trade" or "Buy/Sell shares." The difference, of course, being that Inbox, Bookmarks, etc. are all internal to SI. By the logic you use it could also be argued as natural to have a link to research sites (links to several paid research services), a link to buy investment related books (fight it out between Amazon, Borders, & B&N), a link to order pizza while you're busy at the computer posting on SI, etc. Once you start this chain of thinking, it has no natural end. Maybe the Datek link should be called "Trade" or "Buy/Sell shares." Instead of an on/off option, is anyone open to the idea where each SI member can name the link whatever they want? I would go for the ability to put any link I wanted in that space. For example, I use Schwab. If I could put a link to Schwab there, those that use ETrade put an ETrade link there, etc., that would be useful, and I would not feel that unwanted advertising was being shoved down my throat. Short of that, I would look hope you would follow through on the commitment / agreement / expectation / whatever you want to call it that Brad offered us. Thanks again for your time. I was quite worried about the length of time that was going by without hearing from anybody at SI. So unusual as to be of significant concern.

To: Jeff Dryer who wrote (6188)	6/20/1999 2:32:00 PM
From: Razorbak	Respond to of 32883

Speaking of User Options Regarding the last option on the list: Activate Pop-Ups in StockTalk area... Yes No (Netscape only. Does NOT work with Explorer) When this is activated, member names, quotes, charts, and profile hotlinks will be preceded by a "+" sign. The part in bold is no longer true, at least with IE4 and IE5. This should probably be changed when you add the option to turn off advertising links. Might as well kill two birds with one stone, eh? ;^) Razor datek.com

To: Jeff Dryer who wrote (6188)	6/21/1999 7:38:00 PM
From: Tom_	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32883

To Brad and SI/GNET: Please take this as another "valid concerns" letter, from a member who cares, and who very much appreciates what you have created and have worked to maintain. But who doesn't feel therefore proscribed from submitting honestly-felt feedback. I am pleased that SI/GNET has responded publicly to the concerns of various members about the advertising issue. I am disappointed with several aspects of those responses. In the main, I feel the responses can be made more full and forthright. (I am not referring to Russell's response. It appears, to me, he walked unwittingly into a hornet's nest.) The words "bombard" and "solicitation" have been ignored, or danced around. I can understand the avoidance, because the Datek link is so obviously a solicitation to visit Datek, and the crux of this whole matter is the "promise" (your word, not mine) that "We will not bombard you with...forms of solicitation." Your position is that one small advertisement, repeated on every single member message page, is not a "bombardment." I hope you can see how reasonable people could very, very strongly disagree with that. You state, positively: "No banners. No bombardment." No mention of solicitations. I am concerned about possible plans to place "button" ads on the member message pages, in the top area where the Datek link is placed. Jeff chose to insert a reference to "button" ads in one of his reply posts. He didn't have to, but he did. And then you post saying that the space above the member's message boards is fair game for "tasteful" ads. The impression is left that button ads are an actively considered option. However, when I asked directly about buttons ads, silence. And you state "No banners. No bombardment." No mention of buttons. The Green Slime dominated the screen (I must assume purposefully so) because of its color; the eye could not help but go to it; it ignited the firestorm-reaction on the Welcome to SI thread. It's been changed, good, but I'm not sure it is at all appropriate to describe it as an "unintrusive" ad. I mention all this for the following reason. SI members have a legal right, IMO, only to hold SI/GNET to is what is posted on the homepage: "As a full member ($60 semi-annually), you can...Elect to permanently turn off advertising banners." That being the case, it comes down, again in my opinion, to a matter of ethics. My hope is that you folks will act in the future in the spirit of your previous acts and statements, which I believe to be that you will strive to minimize the intrusions of advertising on the splendid vehicle for conversation between members that you have created. That's why such responses, and non-responses, cause me concern. Thank you for listening. Best wishes, Tom

To: Jeff Dryer who wrote (6188)	6/21/1999 9:26:00 PM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32883

Jeff, let me join the others in thanking you for addressing this issue. And its great to her you are thinking of ways to enhance SI. A few people have commented on your suggestion of perhaps changing the labeling of the Datek sponsorship to 'trade' or 'buy/sell shares'. If possible it would be great to opt for a link to the broker of your choice much in the same way Quicken allows a connection to a variety of banks. If you are obligated to providing a Datek link, which I suspect you are, the ability to rename the link is as good a fall back as any. But being able to change the background color to match the banner would be even more helpful in making it less noticeable and intrusive. Henry