Re: Proposed new policy for Training events
От | Dave Page |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Proposed new policy for Training events |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 937d27e10906300059x1116c87aj5f3cbc702ea7c28@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Proposed new policy for Training events (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Proposed new policy for Training events
|
Список | pgsql-www |
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Josh Berkus<josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > All, > > We're getting some abuse on the training event front, and I'd like to pass a > new policy: > > Frequency: no company may list more than three training events per quarter. > If the company has more training than that, they are encouraged to post > links to their own web page schedule. That really doesn't work as the listings are supposed to in a calendar of sorts. Besides, whilst the latest posts are most certainly taking the mickey, most other companies will post more than 3 events per quarter, quite legitimately. I feel it's important for our events listings to show the breadth and frequency of the training available. > Content: Training events will include *one paragraph* of descriptive > content, describing in a factual way what the contents of the training is. I see no reason for this restriction. Look back at past submissions from companies other than the one that triggered this. Most will have more than one paragraph of text, and most is useful information. > Hyperbole, competitive messaging, and offers of free gifts are prohibited. No objections. > Currently xxxx is spamming us with more than 20 training events > offering a free iPod and containing ALL CAPS and many exclamations!!!!!! as > well as about 2 pages of text each. Meh. I should read the whole of your message before going out of my way not to mention the name of the company involved. The fact is, we *only* seem to get complaints about this particular company, who operate right on the border of what most of us seem to consider acceptable, and most of those third party complaints seem to be un-verifiable which has previously meant we've not taken any action against them. I think we should take all these past complaints and problems into account, make the assumption that there isn't a continuous stream of smoke without an actual fire and stop accepting postings from them in the future. /D
В списке pgsql-www по дате отправления: