Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Hi all,

I've been contacted about the recent posts from an organization rather than an individual and read through the comments on the previous entry about the user. Most seem to be negative.

Before I reach out to the owner of that journal and/or change to rules of this community to exclude such users. I wanted to solicit all feedback.

Are there any people in favor of allowing these types of posts? And if so, provide some ideas as to why.

Should we create a community rule against organization posts? Or should users be able to post once to introduce a potential resource, but not multiple times.

Or do people think that some organizations like this would be fine, but that the resources would need to abide by our guidelines to be considered fair to post?

Any other points of view on this are welcome.



( 12 comments — Leave a comment )
Jan. 10th, 2017 06:02 am (UTC)
Posts about resources can be useful! Frequency of posts, non-responsiveness (especially to critiques), and un-nuanced presentation would (do!) make me look askance. Definitely posts should abide by guidelines! I would hold organizations to a higher standard there than individual users, personally, because I am snotty that way. >_>
Jan. 10th, 2017 11:03 pm (UTC)
All of this, exactly.
Jan. 10th, 2017 06:49 am (UTC)
I don't think the organization in question is posting anything that's really useful. Most of the stuff is generic and easily available through google. The benefit of this group (I think) is personal experiences and the ability to interact with other users.
Jan. 10th, 2017 10:45 am (UTC)
I am cool with other users posting about resources here. That might be useful but I think once is more than enough. I'm not sure I like for profit corporations posting here (especially repeatedly) because this is a community geared towards advice from other individuals first and foremost.
Jan. 10th, 2017 05:57 pm (UTC)
I would vote against organization posts. Many of us direct others to resources when they are relevant to questions raised by another user or our own experience, but I feel like 99% of posts are "our questions" and "our stories" and I'd like to see the group continue in that direction. Most people come here after they've already googled the basics or had questions answered by their doctor in order to hear from real people... not to be directed back to the most basic information.
Jan. 10th, 2017 09:53 pm (UTC)
I personally feel that individual users suggesting resources to others is fine but once is all that is needed.

As for organizations posting - and posting repeatedly with large infographics containing basic information and lots of branding - it makes this community look as if it is part of that organization, or at least promoting it. The first time I saw those posts I actually was a bit confused and thought that maybe this community was rebranding or had a partnership with that organization. The frequency of the posts and the overt branding look more like advertising to me than actual helpful information and I really think it's why those posts feel so "off" to me.

I agree with the previous comments that this is more a place for advice and personal stories and it should stay that way. I would vote against allowing organizations to post here.
Jan. 10th, 2017 11:03 pm (UTC)
Yes, actually, I did wonder about that too - I thought, "Huh, has this company offered sponsorship to the community or something?"
Jan. 10th, 2017 11:02 pm (UTC)
Thanks for having an open consultation!

I'm not absolutely categorically averse to them. But I think they should be limited in frequency, and preferably adding something that isn't already covered by previous users/existing resources. If they post once to make people aware of their site, that's cool. If they're posting all the time each time they make a new infographic or mildly patronising blog entries about the "hard words" for hormones, that is excessive for a commercial user.

My discomfort with the current account is:
1. lack of dialogue
2. their website seems to have no identifying information about where the company is based, who works for it, etc.
3. it's strongly US-centric but doesn't say so - I totally endorse US people having access to all the information, but this account seems oblivious to the fact that many of the users could be from elsewhere
4. it doesn't make it clear on every post that they are a commercial company not a private user, charity, etc.
5. updates with frequency/content that walks a line close to being spam

If some of the above were tackled I'd be OK with them being part of the group still as if people find infographics and whatnot helpful I think people should have access to those resources at their fingertips. Personally, I find the information the account/website in question provides is all too basic, on the other hand, that is me and not someone else!
Jan. 11th, 2017 12:50 am (UTC)
I'm not completely opposed to them per se but I think they're neither necessary or really in the spirit of this comm. They post too often (seems spammy to me) and share a lot of info that's already easily accessible. My biggest annoyance though is their huge infographics. If absolutely nothing else, I wish they would need to put those images behind a cut so I could scroll past.

I like the idea of allowing anyone (even a company/organization/whatever) to post to introduce a potential resource but not to allow continued promotion of their resources.
Jan. 13th, 2017 02:00 am (UTC)
I will update the community guidelines to state that we are a community of people interested in sharing personal experiences and discussions around IUDs. Individual community members are welcome to share resources they find useful. Organizations may post an introduction to their organization and tag it so people can find it in the future. However, frequent informational type posts from the same organization are not in the spirit of the community and may be deleted. Similarly, posts from organizations that fall outside the communities rules will be deleted.

The last part is definitely a discretionary thing; when I saw one of those infographics for the first time, I checked out the parent site because I wanted to make sure it wasn't meant to drive traffic to an anti-IUD site. So in a case like that, I would just delete and ban.
Jan. 14th, 2017 10:57 am (UTC)
Re: Plan
That sounds very reasonable. Thank you!
Jan. 14th, 2017 01:33 am (UTC)

This particular organization also uses a lot of really problematic language (insisting on using gendered terms even when they have frequently been asked not to, the use of "crazy" to describe the effects of hormones as the latest in a tired and damaging line of thought that regards uterine activity as mental illness, etc) and is extremely patronizing about it. For a community that focuses in frank discussions of IUD use, it's pretty off-the-mark to use the same Your First Period Video Tone which many of us specifically frequent this community in order to escape.

( 12 comments — Leave a comment )