Referral Links

[CrazyLemurs]

Hey all who might be interested!
Before, I've posted links to websites but used my referral code/link in order to receive extra benefits for whatever it is I'm advertising.
And I've had 2 links removed now, on the grounds of "Please do not post referral links!"
I don't really understand why; if the only thing that can come of using a referral link is a benefit, then is there a downside?
And if there isn't really a good reason, I propose we change it to allow referral links

[Chris]

The rule itself does actually explain why they aren't currently allowed:

A11. Please do not post links to Internet Marketing which you involves your gain at the expense of our members ~ Referral marketing is a method of internet marketing that relies on gaining new customers by referrals, usually through word of mouth. Referrals can be an annoyance for members, and therefore they are not allowed, they are also not allowed in signatures. This rule also covers sites which pay you per click on certain links.

[CrazyLemurs]

I understand that the rule stops people from posting links that cause other people to get viruses etc or just have to go through a survey for no benefit.
But for some sites, the referral link involves no expense for that person, simply they might be clicking to a site they willingly want to and the referral link is a way for a second person to benefit.
I've got a good example with this site I'm telling everyone to sign up to on MSN
By them signing up, the work they produce still earns them the same amount of money (at the best of times, around $2 an hour) but by signing up using a referral link, their referrer gets an extra 10%, at the expense of the site rather than the other user.
So for $2 work, the site pays out $2.20; $2 to the worker and $0.2 to his/her referrer.
Is that banned, and if so which part of the rule does it come under?
For some sites, a referral link actually is easier for the user (as they dont have to google the site they're joining to find it) and doesn't come with a cost to the referred member.
I understand some people might find them annoying, but how much worse is it than linking the normal site itself, which I believe is within rules.
www.google.co.uk isn't that much nicer to look at than www.google.co.uk/abc123

[mrwoooooooo]

Keep them banned please

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[Empired]

Keep them banned please

Absolutely agree with this. Alex stop being greedy. You don't need this money ;l

[Kardan]

Theoretically could you not create a loophole by having an image in your signature with the web address on? That wouldn't be posting a link

I've never had a problem with these, never even knew the rule existed.

[xxMATTGxx]

Pretty sure they were banned in the first place due to users being annoyed by threads and posts with such links in. I would rather see them remain banned.

[hamheyelliot]

If we look at them in a slightly different way, referral links can potentially bias the way people recommend websites on the forum. Let's say someone wants a Graphics Card for their PC on a budget, Site A is more expensive than Site B, but Site A offers a referral program - if people are going to link to Site A to make a few pennies, the whole community nature of the forum is going to be put at risk.

[Chippiewill]

There was some referrals service at one point and EVERYONE had them in their signatures and were spamming threads over the matter. Within a week all referral links were banned because people such as myself campaigned hard to have them banned.

[CrazyLemurs]

Elliott, that's part that comes under the "expense of other users". If we make an amendment so that only referral links that cause expense can be removed (some genuinely offer no negative side to referring) then a problem like that wouldn't happen


I'm currently on my iPhone if you are seeing this message! I cannot participate in spam wars xx