Suggestions

I believe that some clarification is required.

I have been following with interest the posts made on Facebook and on the GR site regarding the recent spate of removal of posts and threads.

From what is being reported by various GR members there appears to be a certain amount of inconsistency in the responses being received from GR when members query why their post/thread has been removed.

One of the responses received from GR by a member states that his post was removed because "It mentioned a company other than ours".

Whilst I accept that GR has every right to object to its members using its message boards for commercial purposes to advertise other companies/websites, does this restriction mean that no mention (Either by name or web address) is permitted of any company/website other than those owned or operated by Brightsolid Online Publishing Ltd?

Clarification would I'm sure be appreciated by all your members.

I agree, Jonesey. There were many questions asked on the previous thread as to what was allowed and what not allowed. None of these questions have been answered leaving us in the dark.

http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards.page/board/suggestions/thread/1289147

Both clarification and consistency would be appreciated.

It would most definitely be appreciated!

The t's and c's are reasonably clear on the subject.

"You also agree not to advertise or promote third parties' or your own goods or services including by way of the distribution of "spam" email. In particular, you agree not to use the Genes Reunited Service to provide links to third party websites. We do not guarantee or endorse any content posted on the Genes Reunited Service by members."

The problem with all this is where to draw the line. Is it a case that sites which complement GR are ok but those that might be considered to be in competition are not?

Also bear in mind that threads and postings are only removed when another member reports them, otherwise GR usually tend to leave them be.

So I wonder who is doing it in the middle of the night then?

I am not that bothered about why my post was removed for something that has been said 100s of times

I want to know why I have a warning, when there is someone using these boards that has had many posts removed for abuse to other members and she is still here

As long as I behave I wont give them the chance to delete my account as I will not be renewing when my subs are up in 2 weeks

I think there will be a lot of people not renewing jax. I'm afraid I missed all the trouble the other day so not sure what it was all about but if Genes are saying we cannot mention other websites then there will be no point in trying to do look-ups for anyone and the message boards will not be worth visiting.

The nature of family history and the discrepancies in transcriptions on different sites means that more than one site is needed to build a credible tree.

I agree with Jonesey that Genes needs to clarify just what can and can't be posted.

Kath. x

I don't understand!
Part of the t's & c's reads:

"you agree not to use the Genes Reunited Service to provide links to third party websites. "

Surely this is done constantly? Genes have even made it easier to provide the link so that you just have to click on it to go directly to the website. I often direct people to FreeBMD, Rootsweb, Ellis Island, Automated Genealogy etc. Am I breaking the rules?

There appears to be double standards at work here.

We have one statement:
"We do not encourage other websites names to be mentioned on the Genes Reunited message boards""
..............but NOT a don't do it.

We have the fact that Genes have stickied a post that actively encourages new researchers to join a rival company.

....... Then there are the terms and conditions they can hide behind if things tend to get a bit hot.

I think Genes need to sort out their communication links as there is clearly little coordination in the replies members have been given so far.
What they have said has been very slowly teased out. A bit like getting blood out of a stone

They also need to revise their Terms and Conditions to reflect how the Message Boards actually function

And they need to draw a line under this whole messup by issuing apologies to ALL those recently affected.

And if I were Genes, then I think Jax is deserving aof a Free Years membership as well in view of that nasty threat made to her. :-D

Incidentally, why has Mr Smiley still got his Christnas hat???? :-S

Don't forget that I reported the other day receiving a message from GR that basically said there had been multiple reporting of posts on Monday night


and they "HAD TO BE SEEN TO BE DOING SOMETHING"



My questions would be:-


a) did anyone read those RR'd posts to see if they were deservedly reported, or did "multiple reports" just result in automatic removal, without checking?

b) when a post is RR'd, the post is immediately removed for review, and a GR message to that effect is posted. Is it still possible to RR even though one cannot read the original post?

c) If it is possible to RR after a post has been removed ....... how can a report be valid if no-one can read the post? is there no check to see if all reports are valid, ie, sent while a post was visible and readable?




sylvia

Clarification would be appreciated.

GR staff currently seem to be either unwilling or unable to respond to members who post queries of this and similar nature.

Knowing that a post made on the Facebook/Genesreunited page sometimes receives a more prompt response than one made on the GR message boards I posted a virtually identical request to this threads original post on the facebook/GR page on 5/1/2012. That also remains unanswered by anyone from GR.

Come on GR, this post is not being critical of your site or your operating procedures, it is merely requesting clarification of what is or is not permitted related to the mentioning of other websites on your message boards.

Please have the decency to reply.

Jonesey,
I cannot see it on facebook (but am hopeless at using that site).
Is it still there?

The Team seem to have abandoned this board and to some extent this site.

Really not a way to treat its paying members. :-(

"Jonesey,
I cannot see it on facebook"

-
In response to:
Hi everyone, thank you for all your feedback and comments about our message boards and our request review system. We have responded to a thread on the Suggestions board and addressed all the points that have been raised. We have now deleted all of the posts on here as there was a lot of repetition. If you would like a more personal reply then please contact our support team - [email protected].
4 January at 15:05 ·

Patchem + Joy

Here is a copy of the post that I made on Facebook on 5/1/2012, it is still there:

GR, I believe that some clarification is required.

I have been following with interest the posts made here on Facebook and on the GR site regarding the recent spate of removal of posts and threads.

From what is being reported by various GR members there appears to be a certain amount of inconsistency in the responses being received from GR when members query why their post/thread has been removed.

One of the latest responses received by a member states that his post was removed because "It mentioned a company other than ours".

Whilst I accept that GR has every right to object to its members using its message boards for commercial purposes to advertise other websites, does this restriction mean that no mention (Either by name or web address) of any website other than those operated by Brightsolid Online Publishing Ltd is permitted?

Clarification would I'm sure be appreciated by all your members.
Like · · 5 January at 14:19 ·

Joy ......................


that message you quoted was in response to a posting of mine on FB re the Monday night affair of (almost) 2 weeks ago.

It was my posting and subsequent comments that they deleted from FB




sylvia

GR any response might be better than none :-|

Something needs to be done as two threads have been requested for review during tonight and there was nothing wrong with them

Updated
In fact 3 tonight so far

yep, phantom reviewer is about yet again!


think I'll try another Careful thread :-D