No solicitations or advertisements are allowed. Even in Blogs?

[ChrisPaine]

Hi,

I've just read this blog: [SAP hiring practices of 2010 and beyond|http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/weblogs?blog=/pub/wlg/20206] [original link is broken] [original link is broken] [original link is broken];

I would argue that it goes against the third point in the SCN Community Guidelines and Rules.

>No solicitations or advertisements are allowed.

although the blog doesn't mention explicitly anywhere to click on the URL that is the blog reference, it does so, hugely in my opinion implicitly.

It's my opinion that this blog is a step too far, and although I agree with the sentiments and I can see how the solution is a great business model that will benefit SAP consultants - it's an advertisement.

Other may think that this is a valuable use of SCN for the community, my view is otherwise. Do you agree or disagree?

I'm open to being persuaded that this particular case is OK - please try.

Chris

update, I've also sent an email as per the guidelines page to sdn @ sap . com, but given how many that address might receive, I still think posting here is a good idea.

Edited by: Chris Paine on Sep 1, 2010 11:09 PM

[stephenjohannes · Accepted solution]

Chris,

Good point, if you remove the url from the blog, then it really doesn't cross the line of being an advertisement. It think with the url included then it starts to cross the line as self promotion.

I'm not sure if perhaps the blog just needs to be stripped of the referring URL and company references (in the body of the blog), and then leave it alone.

Take care,

Stephen

[ChrisPaine · Accepted solution]

Thanks Stephen,

I've been told:

Hello Chris,
We are forwarding this information to the Weblogs team.
Kind Regards,
Support Group
SAP Community Network Team

But I agree, if you could remove the blogger's signature block and the URL, then it would be a valid - if rather confusing blog, but with them there, it seems to me to be quite clearly self advertising. Currently it's still there.

I think

>Co founder of SomeCompany.com - be proud of your SAP reputation and prove it to your next employer - free of charge.

as a sig line is overstepping the mark. (N.B. I've obviously not used the real company name here! Not wanting to do further advertising!)

Chris

[martinlang · Accepted solution]

Hi Chris,

We've reached out to the blogger (actually Claudine Lagerholm has) and in the meantime the URL was removed.

From my perspective the blogger signature is ok, maybe borderline, but that's the blogger's short bio and if somebody is the founder of some company, I think it's ok to mention it. there are no hyperlinks or pictures or anything possible in this bio though, so it's not too "intrusive" for the reader from my perspective.

Cheers, Martin

[che_eky · Accepted solution]

I too read the blog even before I so this post by Chris and the first thing I did upon noticing companyname.com in the signature was to open a new browser window and go to the URL. I'm sure the URL has had a healthy increase in hit rate.

"if somebody is the founder of some company, I think it's ok to mention it"

Not sure I agree with this. You may find yourself chasing bloggers to check if they really are the founder, co-founder, director, ceo, whatever of the said company. Should we discriminate on position? either all get to mention the company or no one.

Che

[ChrisPaine · Accepted solution]

>Not sure I agree with this. You may find yourself chasing bloggers to check if they really are the founder, co-founder, director, ceo, whatever of the said company. Should we discriminate on position? either all get to mention the company or no one.

Che - I think, if you work for a company, it's only fair to mention them in your bio. I don't think that is self promotion or advertising.

It's the context in which this article puts that reference that I objected to.

[ChrisPaine · Accepted solution]

Thanks Martin,

certainly removing the URL makes it less blatant self promotion. - However I still would take objection to some of the content of the blog given that the bio would remain...

in particular I feel this section:

The very latest solution to this problem, lay with a new direct connect product which brings both consultant and customer in direct contact and removes the entire agent process, using a sophisticated search and select solution it is possible to short list and select consultants by using the SAP centric criteria. 

can only be read (I believe) as that there is a new product, this is not a abstract idea, this is a developed solution and leaves me wondering what it could be... and then I see the bio and off I go to the website.

In print newspapers this is sometimes referred to as an "[aditorial|http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=aditorial]".

I don't think the blog should be allowed to run. it sets a dangerous precedent that I would not like to see repeated.

I certainly don't want to be put in the position where my company suddenly see that my SCN blogs could be used as a direct conduit to sell products we have developed.

Hope you can see where I am coming from.

Cheers,

Chris

[martinlang · Accepted solution]

I do see your point Chris, personally I don't feel strong enough about it to "un-release" the blog or other drastic measures.

As far as I know the blog author is still working with Claudine to possibly remove the reference in the blogger short bio underneath the blog also, apparently there was some misunderstanding on how that works (and needless to say it is not necessarily very intuitive).

Other than that, I would suggest if you continue to feel strongly about it, mention it in the blog comments. I wouldn't get out the sledge hammer right away, but maybe in some clear and polite way describe what issues you see back to the blog author and then we as a community can take it from there?

[ChrisPaine · Accepted solution]

> would suggest if you continue to feel strongly about it, mention it in the blog comments

Fair enough, I often do this in the forums too - post a reply kindly suggesting that the user provide some detail in their post before reporting the post as abusive to a moderator.

Even were the bio to be changed to just "Co founder of SomeOrganiation.com " without the more advertorial section after it I think given the blog content I highlighted, this isn't going to make much of a difference.

I could write a blog about how it would be really nice to have a tool for xxxxxxx administrators to lock xxxxxx which would have features 1,2, 3, and 4. And how it's great that it can do a,b,c,d. Not mentioning that we actually have one, but impying that such a tool exists. Now the company I work for do have such a tool, which they are keen to sell, but I think it's wrong to use SCN blogs for this purpose.

Anyway - I will wait a day or so, to see if the content is at all modified, and if not, well perhaps a blog about how SCN shouldn't be used to to sell third party products

Thanks for your feedback - even if we don't agree on the action to be taken it is very good to see SAP reacting and responding so well to feedback from the SCN users (in this case me

Cheers,

Chris