Alternative Technology Assn Forums

1. 

   LanceTurner
   Key Master

   Hi everyone, seems we need to remind a few posters about the forum rules, and in particular, the posting of commercial advertising on the forums. This is simply not allowed, we have ReNew, Sanctuary and website adverts available for this.

   Note that all threads that are started by advertisers posting adverts on the forum will be deleted, regardless of the subsequent posts. We ask that forum regulars please not encourage advertisers when they do this, thanks. After all, we don't want every second post to be an advert like some forums have.

   Forum rules are available at http://www.ata.org.au/forums/rules.html and all posters are required to abide by these rules, thanks.

   Posted Thursday 17 Jun 2010 @ 1:30:19 am from IP #
2. 

   Spectrum Sustainability
   Member

   My Apologies Lance, I actually just posted it again as I thought it had been removed because of perhaps a conflict of interest..please remove and Apologies again

   Thomas McAlister
   0411 438 226

   Posted Sunday 11 Jul 2010 @ 3:59:53 am from IP #
3. 

   Gruen
   Member

   Hi Lance, What about job ads? Someone sent me a Technical Advice Specialist position description that I suspect would appeal to some forum members. I've no direct interest in the organisation advertising the job, but your post made me pause before I posted. Also, I couldn't find the web-ad sections you referred to for ReNew and Sanctuary. Would you be so kind as to post the links? thanks

   Posted Monday 12 Jul 2010 @ 10:07:11 am from IP #
4. 

   LanceTurner
   Key Master

   Hi Gruen, the website adverts are visible ont he ReNew and Sanctuary websites (www.renew.org.au and http://www.sanctuarymagazine.org.au). Re the job, you could place a simple post saying this is what was available and where, but not a full job advert...

   Posted Tuesday 13 Jul 2010 @ 1:50:02 am from IP #
5. 

   tintac
   Member

   Hi Lance,
   I'm a regular lurker and occasional poster.
   I like seeing recommendations... you've made some yourself. However I question the kind of post that comes from a supplier or manufacturer that simply says "try me" without backup info.

   Can I suggest that these are moved to an area that is designed for this sort of thing? Subsequent posts could refer to that dedicated forum. Maybe there could be a shelf life for the "advert" along with an offer to the company to buy space in the magazines (and web site).

   I've found it hard to source independent and comparative information about alternative products and would appreciate a central place for that sort of debate.

   Posted Monday 19 Jul 2010 @ 7:36:35 am from IP #
6. 

   Frateco
   Member

   I think if any person wants to promote a material or product, they need to be upfront about what they are. I have probably been at fault myself because I see people looking for solutions that my product, hempcrete or Tradical hemcrete, could possibly provide. I am usually upfront about who I am and what I am doing. I also try to give them references to allow them to investigate. If I have transgressed, my apologies.

   Posted Monday 19 Jul 2010 @ 11:26:40 pm from IP #
7. 

   munter
   Member

   Has anyone else noticed the presence of forum bots that seem to post topic specific information that is mild enough to get past the spam filter in order to get their username link in front of people? See the last post in this thread for an example:
   http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/led-track-lighting
   or
   http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/purchase-of-solar-system
   (last and third last posts)

   Is this some kind of automated response or is my bot radar malfunctioning?

   Posted Tuesday 20 Jul 2010 @ 2:42:00 am from IP #
8. 

   Frateco
   Member

   I hear X Files music right now ... does look a bit iffy.

   Posted Tuesday 20 Jul 2010 @ 7:48:55 am from IP #
9. 

   Buzzman
   Member

   I've noted a few of that poster's "comments" look like they were generated by a web translator.....dodgy as.....or indeference to the ABC's blue kiwi whale cartoon..dodgy az, ay bro'?

   Posted Thursday 22 Jul 2010 @ 7:12:53 am from IP #
10. 

    Ecobowser
    Member

    So the conundrum for me is....

    Do I spend 10 minutes replying to a question with free knowledge and detailed advice, (I am a leader in greywater irrigation technologies and design, here and in the US (I am regularly requested to speak at symposiums), but I want to put up a link to one of my pages,

    Or I dont contribute, and your readers miss out on free professional advice?

    Paul James
    Just Water Savers Pty Ltd, and Just Water Savers USA Inc.

    Posted Thursday 5 Aug 2010 @ 1:47:42 am from IP #
11. 

    munter
    Member

    You seem to have resolved it with plenty of links!

    How about good advice with a subtle link in your username?

    Posted Thursday 5 Aug 2010 @ 8:53:29 am from IP #
12. 

    Eco
    Member

    I for one disagree with the blanket application of this rule to every post that is put in by a supplier / manufacturer. I do agree that if a thread is started by a company in what is clearly a blatant advertisement or a post is completely unrelated to the thread and again is a blatant advertisement, these should be deleted. However if a supplier responds to someone else's post, is upfront that they are from a commercial company but still supplies useful information for the discussion I can't see any harm in this. And what about the situation where a supplier responds to what they see as incorrect, or not complimentary, information / opinion about their product in an earlier post. ATA must surely allow them to provide their side of the arguement - again provided they are upfront about it. These types of post I do not consider to be advertisements.

    There have been situations in the past on this forum where manufacturers / suppliers have provided good input to a discussion. I can't find examples of this from old threads from a quick search but it has occurred (I hope they haven't been deleted because they contravene this rule, the interpretation of which is suspect).

    If there is some doubt about what type of post constitutes an "advertisement" or for "commercial purposes" then perhaps the members could vote on this - should suppliers input be allowed in certain proscribed forms? Perhaps this vote could occur over this forum or more formally at the Association's annual meeting - after all we are a membership based organisation - so the rules of the website should be subject to review / acceptance by the membership.

    Posted Thursday 5 Aug 2010 @ 10:36:08 am from IP #
13. 

    Diver
    Member

    Ecobowser joined the forum and immediately posted on six threads.

    The first posting at Gater Pro vs. GreyMate was 5 months after the last posting and heavily promoted the product ecobowser which also happened to be the forum user name. Additionally, two websites AND a phone number were posted. A couple of the other threads were effectively 'done and dusted' and the new posts contributed little.

    All six threads, including the thread Forum rules! publicised either the company website or company name.

    It must be remembered that there are a lot of manufacturers out there; including manufacturers AND retailers of grey water systems as in this case. Do they now also get six free ads?

    Manufacturers can have valuable input into a discussion and it can be very difficult when their product offers a solution to a members problem as it is then impossible to not discuss their own product's unique marketplace advantage. Manufacturers and retailers can nevertheless provide a valuable contribution to most threads without the need to publicise their own website or product en mass.

    I for one believe the posts were opportunistic salesmanship and I hope Lance sees them for what they are.

    Posted Thursday 5 Aug 2010 @ 1:21:10 pm from IP #
14. 

    LanceTurner
    Key Master

    Diver has pretty much summed it up, any manufacturer posting will nearly always push their own product, whether it is intentional or not, most can't help it, is what they do on a daily basis after all. They are 'true believers' in their own product over the opposition, so that will always happen.

    Manufacturers/suppliers are welcome to post helpful info in response to other posts without pushing their own stuff in every second sentence.

    We have to place thes limits on posts, we simply can't have the forums as a free for all for everyone to post links to their sites, it's just free advertising for them.

    Posted Friday 6 Aug 2010 @ 12:10:17 am from IP #
15. 

    Ecobowser
    Member

    I believed my posts to contain factual, useful content. It is advice based on thousands of installed systems, and also based on what we are finding in the USA, which is way behind Aus in greywater and rain tank methods, but more advanced in irrigation control.

    I wasnt pushing my products in every second sentence, however much of the knowledge we hold as a company is published on our websites and I am not going to take the time to rewrite in a forum.

    Whether a forum topic is considered closed or not by regular users of ATA doesnt deter web searchers from looking at the 'old' topicc - and I would have thought another viewpoint / updated information would encourage more web users to sign up for the forum.

    Anyway - its just my 2 cents worth. I wont bother spending time here when it appreciated more elsewhere.

    Posted Friday 6 Aug 2010 @ 12:46:23 am from IP #
16. 

    Jeffbloggs
    Member

    Lance
    Just to put my foot in the door here...
    Is the ATA cracking down on suppliers because the ATA isn't profiteering from the so called "free advertising"?
    I think a compromise should be made to make sure the forum participants don't miss out on good products and services. Maybe a unofficial company rating system from forum votes could be setup to help guide potential environmentalists through the minefield of dodgy promotions. That way it could be used to root out all the less useful, self-promoting retailers who "abuse" the forum. After all I think this forum is only attractive if people can discuss solutions and ideas, cutting out all suppliers might make all the difference in helping people to decide if they should go ahead with a project or not.
    My view is that people participate in the forum because they are starving for preferably unbiased, independent information, marginalizing input from actual suppliers could limit that information drastically.

    Posted Friday 6 Aug 2010 @ 1:43:02 am from IP #
17. 

    Buzzman
    Member

    It's a clear case of Catch-22...

    If a manufacturer wants to address a perception of poor design or poor service in their product or by their agents they run the risk of being 'pinged' as free ads?

    I think it has to come down to "Moderator control".

    If it looks odgy, it probably is. If it looks genuine.....well, it might be.

    But if it simply says "here's a link to a product" then how do we know if the poster is a 'genuine member of the public' or is affilitated with the product being linked?

    It's tricky, but I think we should let the Moderators determine what is published, or what remains visible once 'reported'.

    And a button to "Report this post" as whirlpool has would be useful.

    Posted Friday 6 Aug 2010 @ 2:08:39 am from IP #
18. 

    munter
    Member

    It really isn't a black and white issue. I'm speculating but I don't think the need for some kind of moderating policy arises from the ATA's possible concern over losing revenue, I'd guess it has more to do with maintaining an impartial forum which is not hijacked by those with a commercial interest.
    If I were moderating (which, obviously, I'm not), I think Ecobowser's original posts fall on the excessively commercial side though they seem to have been edited back to a level that I think is fair. I'd invite Ecobowser to stay and contribute further but also remind him that given the relatively small community here that it might not do his profile any good to be seen excessively pushing his product/company.

    On a slightly different topic, the placement of links for pure commercial gain with disregard for the forum contents should, however, be frowned upon as it effectively results in the ATA's reputation in the green space being borrowed to satisfy someone else's commercial interest. To me, that wouldn't be consistent with the purpose of the forum or the ATA.* Disclaimer - I sometimes link to my blog, but only because I think the information on there may be pertinent to a reader.

    Posted Friday 6 Aug 2010 @ 2:37:53 am from IP #
19. 

    aussiesue
    Member

    I found the contributions by Micko (Of Apicus)on one of the solar hot water threads to be very valuable in adding new considerations to the decision making re purchasing solar and also in clarifying some of the features of different HWS. This wouldn't have been the case, though, without the discussion, queries, critique offered by others. From my admittedly short experience with ATA forums it seems to me that contributors can spot blatant advertising and are not shy to discipline offenders. Leave the situation/rules as they are.

    Posted Friday 6 Aug 2010 @ 4:50:05 am from IP #
20. 

    Diver
    Member

    I believe the forum moderation is fair and competent.

    The issue of manufacturers/retailers posting unnecessary weblinks goes beyond opportunistic advertising (spamming) issues.

    Once a website is linked, that site becomes part of the post and ATA members then have the right to respond to any issues of concern they may have with the website's content. This may include a product's environmental effect, regulatory compliance and the website's accuracy of claims made.

    If a manufacturer/retailer promotes their products by linking their website(s) from the ATA forum, they will not overly detail negative issues, after all, they are trying to sell their product. In some instances, they may not know of product issues and this is particularly true of retailers who copy manufacturers claims.

    Many non industry ATA members can be swayed by misleading advertising and/or fail to recognise product defects/concerns when the poster is a self proclaimed industry expert. This is where other ATA industry members face a real dilemma; they may have the intimate knowledge but are not always willing to post their concerns about other products within their own industry. This makes the linking of some sites counter productive to the forum's information stream and in fact gives a tacit endorsement of questionable material.

    It appears that Ecobowser has taken his bat and ball and gone home. His linked websites contain a number of issues of concern but herein lies another problem. Opportunistic linked websites often contain products unrelated to the thread, so where does one air ones concerns about posted website content when the content may only vaguely relate to the current discussion or original post?

    There was a recent example of a manufacturer promoting a product and then riding off into the sunset, never to be heard of again, not even bothering to answer an ATA customer's question. Fait accompli.

    The ATA customer has since modified the faulty product to make it work!

    I personally have no problem with industry experts, manufacturers, inventors and members giving advice and posting backup links which substantiate claims or are of benefit or interest to members. Quality postings are evident and if expert posters are the recipient of residual benefits, then I say good luck to them. Many ATA posters do not have commercial affiliations and I can only remain in awe of their depth of knowledge and willingness to share.

    Posted Friday 6 Aug 2010 @ 8:38:04 am from IP #
21. 

    Ecobowser
    Member

    Diver, what are your issues regarding the pages I linked to?

    I share your concerns about questionable products, an example, no names, that is sold by a major hardware co (Australia) that sells a product sold as being fitted by a plumber to the sewer system, yet cant legally be connected to the sewer, anywhere in Australia?

    Posted Saturday 7 Aug 2010 @ 7:57:58 am from IP #
22. 

    Diver
    Member

    Ecobowser,

    I appreciate you publicly asking about specifics regarding my concerns about some content on your linked websites, that takes courage. It also takes courage to have a website warning as you have about another widely available industry product that is not compliant with plumbing regulations as you have also stated above. As long as manufacturers have designers in charge of product development and retailers have buying agents who fail to recognise poor design and/or regulatory non compliance, the public will be presented with inferior products. This will always place manufacturers who have spent the dollars on quality product research and development at a disadvantage when stores offer inferior, cheaper and sometimes non regulatory products in competition.

    The product, no name, that you and your website refer to does have a design flaw in that its design restricts the plumbing pipework. As such, it does not comply with plumbing regulations. I understand your frustration.

    There are many other industry products that are also not always compliant with plumbing and other regulations when fitted, one of which, no name, your website recommends the use of. This other product presents substantial flow restrictions amongst other issues. Recommending the use of other manufacturers products often has little benefit and can harm a company's credibility.

    The recent high fronted gutter debacle is one example of widespread incompetence and regulatory bodies and government departments refusing to acknowledge non compliance.

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/domain/news/new-gutters-bring-down-the-house/2009/02/01/1233423090305.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

    My concerns about website content however did not involve other industry products. My concerns were more basic, on topic and included:

    Wheelie bin fitted with a pump and hose and the posted U.S. site having a page promoting greywater use which also has a photo showing a hand held hose being used. I feel there should be a warning not to use hand held hoses and/or sprinklers for dispersing untreated greywater.

    Figures suggesting that a 4 person household could use up to 12,000 litres of untreated greywater per month on the garden.
    I believe that householders have the right to be informed about greywater usage best practice. The web site does state that low sodium household products should be used but it needs to go further. If, as the page states, it did not rain for 3 months and the block was 700 sq. m. as referred to; one could assume approximately 200 sq. m. of garden. If this was subjected to a total coverage of 36,000 litres of untreated greywater over a dry 3 month period, i.e. 180 litres per square metre, I think this would be excessive and detrimental to the soil's health, even if it were to also rain.

    Reviewing and upgrading website content can be very time consuming but would be worthwhile in this instance given the issues involved. These aside, the website is very good. It is unfortunate that it was overly linked.

    Given the greywater article on pages 69-70 in the current Renew (issue 112), I think the membership would appreciate valuable expert advice on greywater use best practice. Opening a thread and posting such advice would achieve this.

    Posted Saturday 7 Aug 2010 @ 5:34:22 pm from IP #
23. 

    Ecobowser
    Member

    Thanks Diver, I hope you get the feel I am a good guy not a bad one, and apologise for overlinking.

    Please send me an email paul (at) justwatersaversusa.com to let me know which product you have a concern about on our website. I am not aware of the product / issue which you refer to, and I will resolve asap. The products are all installed by us and we know them well, so would like to know what the potential issue is.

    As a side note, the product that I described, sold by a national hardware is particularly irritating, as the importer (a very well known irrigation controller company), and the hardware company both know at management level that the product cannot be fitted as described, but basically couldnt care less.

    re using a hose on the US website, related to greywater, I will make a note to have explanatory text included (Wyoming does permit aerated untreated greywater when not windy).

    re 12,000 litres over 200m2 garden space per month. The correct area (based on 20 centimetres of evapotranspiration per month - about right for melbourne in summer, and assuming no rain) is close enough to 120 square metres, assuming medium water use plants, fully planted. Soil type is irrelevant when determining the optimal irrigation area (it is important during non summer months). If there was 50mm reliable rain each month (not the case in Melbourne) then the area increases to 160 m2 - note this is all using drip irrigation, not by hose.

    Although 150 litre of water over three months per square metre sounds a lot, it is only 5cm irrigation per month. Best practice is to have the plants grow as well as possible and have the excess nutrients / bacteria etc consumed by the plants.

    We generally look for at least 10,000 litres per month grey and/or rainwater for a typical 700 m2 block, to achieve adequate irrigation, excluding lawn areas!.

    This is from an industry accepted formula (worldwide). The formula and a manual calculation is explained at http://www.besthomewatersavers.com/pages/ETo-and-irrigation-efficency-in-depth.html .Apologies for everything being in inches and gallons etc, and hope the link doesnt offend, but its too much detail to put here, we also havent put this level of detail on the Aus site yet.

    The downside of this much water is if it is only sourced from washing machine water, and therefore with a high PH overall, generally averageing over the enitre wash 8.5 - 9.0. In which case we recommend monitoring soil ph levels. None of our customers have had soil ph issues over 5 years of monitoring.

    Overall, the Aus website is in need of a serious overhaul, but have to be honest and say the US website has higher priority now (and for the next 3 months).

    Later in the week I will try to find time to review the article, and look at how I can add to it with a new forum topic.

    Best Regards

    Paul

    Posted Sunday 8 Aug 2010 @ 2:55:25 am from IP #
24. 

    olfella
    Member

    Lance, I think the judgement of balance has to be with you to decide what does & doesn't cross the line & all posters should respect the decision.
    It is not an easy job I know, having been a moderator on another forum sometime ago. Some posters just delight in seeing how far they can push, or excel in trying to derail forum topics. One can set black & white lines, or seek to administer a grey one with common sense, but there will always be those who will complain about the result. Just the way it is Lance; a thankless task.

    In the past I've posted in threads on Evacuated Tube HWS, which I felt I could make an informed contribution to as a buyer & user with an engineering background (retired), especially when a certain type ET system started to be regularly ramped by one supplier in particular. I won't mention who, because I don't want him to get a further leg up. BTW, I am not refering to Micko, who posted a lot of quite reasonable technical comment on ET technology generally, initially in response to users problems, BUT he was up front from the start about who he was. The other bloke didn't. He was straight out selling. Personally, I think the system he's selling to be a recipe for trouble in the longer term too, but that's only my opinion & everyone should make their on on what technology & supplier they choose.

    There was another type of poster in here during the period of changing government policy who I became very wary of too. They being those within certain government owned businesses which I suspected were trying to influence opinion & actions of users, for their company's commercial & political advantage. Spin doctors if you like. More sublte than the blatant salesman, but having an agenda not too dissimilar. They seem to have disappeared as the political imperative died down.

    ATA is a non-profit organisation, which provides those of us with enviromental & sustainability & not a little hip pocket twitch a valuable place to share thoughts, knowledge & experiences. I think it a bloody hide for some salesmen to think they can blatantly use it as a free advertising opportunity. I don't know what the rates are for such firms to bring their products to notice via ATA site & publications, but I'm sure they're not extortionate.

    Whatever the outcome when you're forced to act Lance, is fine with me.

    Posted Sunday 8 Aug 2010 @ 4:07:55 am from IP #
25. 

    dymonite69
    Member

    Some forums have a rule that you need to have x number of generic posts on a subject before you can list a product. If there is a commercial interest then that needs to be in the signature. If there is a demonstrable scientific or technical merit then this can be highlighted but it is of vague, dubious or controversial value then it can't. In other forums the name of the produce is deleted but the rest of the post is retained.

    Posted Sunday 8 Aug 2010 @ 4:17:46 am from IP #
26. 

    Diver
    Member

    Ecobowser,
    Thanks for the reply.

    Non compliant products particularly annoy me when they also belong to categories that are eligible for government rebates. I had the run around a few years back when I was trying to find a government department that could explain why Chinese rainwater tanks not made to Australian standards were eligible for water saver rebates. That has now changed but other products still get by, including the one you refer to and the one I have referred you to.

    Go to Pool, then look at the other manufacturer's product advertised claims on the packaging, internal flow obstructions, the size of the bottom connection diameter to pipework and, if possible, test claimed flow rates. If you like, I can phone you with detailed information.

    Posted Sunday 8 Aug 2010 @ 6:24:38 pm from IP #
27. 

    LanceTurner
    Key Master

    We try to be tolerant of commercial companies placing posts, after all they do have experience in their chosen fields (usually!), but when a company posts in six threads, one after the other, with all posts linking back to their site, then that's spam and an abuse of the forum, there's no other way to see it. The fact is, if a company is pushing their products over others, then that can only be seen as a biased post and it loses value compared to posts from forum users who don't have a vested interest.

    Revenue loss isn't an issue, we have more advertisers than we can run adverts for most of the time, which is why we have opened up the websites to advertising.

    We have to have controls on what we allow to be posted, otherwise the forums will end up like many others out there, full of spam and pretty much useless...

    Posted Monday 9 Aug 2010 @ 12:33:23 am from IP #

28. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    Hello !
    I am also a new member. Would a newcomer be warmly welcome here? Good day you guy !

    __________________
    [url=http://moviesonlinefree.biz]Watch Eat Pray Love Online Free[/url]

    Posted Friday 13 Aug 2010 @ 4:25:54 am from IP #
29. 

    munter
    Member

    Lol - the spambots are everywhere! It's interesting how they obviously have differing abilities to come up with relevant text. The whole "new member" thing is pretty generic - surely you can do better Donna (you gal)?

    Posted Friday 13 Aug 2010 @ 4:35:06 am from IP #
30. 

    termite
    Member

    A request from someone who doesn't live and breathe renewable energy (RE):
    Please keep abbreviations to a minimum, as it can make your posts hard to read for the uninitiated. RE, FIT, TOU, etc: If you use the term more than once, please give the full wording the first time, as in "time of use (TOU)" - especially in its first use within a thread. Or Lance, perhaps a glossary of abbreviations may be required...

    Posted Thursday 30 Sep 2010 @ 2:42:17 am from IP #

RSS feed for this topic