Suggestion Box

[dooBdoo]

---

LipstickDiva wrote:

---

TY1 wrote:

Been there too. A couple of my shoe posts I mention where I bought the shoes or the website/s that I was looking at those shoes to purchase and poof goes the thread. I was accused of linking to their sites because I mentioned them.

Ironic as QVC used to carry one of the brands I mention but no longer does.

The other brand is one that is sold on the southern channel, the brand is named after a shoe magnate that died last year and his brand only appears on QVC during FFANY shoes on sale.

---

Yep. But again, someone is allowed to start weekly posts about upcoming HSN shows complete with photos of everything that will be offered.  It makes no sense to me but I guess it doesn't have to.

My thinking is, if I don't like it, I can move on.

---

          @TYand @Lipstickdiva,  From what I've seen the difference is whether there's a clickable hyperlink included in a post.   We can share the name of a site or product, and we can also post things like "websitename dot com."

          Also, some posters don't realize some of the copy-and-paste images contain an actual link the site...  you can click/tap on some images, and you're instantly redirected to the source.     @TY, as an example, I saw a recent thread you started about shoes and while there was no obvious hyperlink the image itself contained a hot link to the retail website.    That's probably what caused the thread to tank, but I'm just guessing since the thread was gone when I came back.    I like the fact that the moderators provide a reason for removal, but I wish they'd be a wee bit more specific so we would know what to do next time around.

          It seems to me the standards need to be updated, too, to be more precise so the customers can better understand what the expectations are.   The forums are replete with threads and posts with text or images promoting other sites, other merchandise -- some of which is direct competition to QVC -- and those are allowed as long as there's no obvious, or embedded, hyperlink.  

[wildlifewitch]

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

I understand that moderators can poof a thread at their individual discretion - I'm not complaining about that or disputing that. It is what it is.

But it does sort of invalidate the rationale a bit when the reason given didn't happen. Case in point - a reason given as "argumentative" when the thread was not at all argumentative, i.e. there weren't any actually hostile posts between posters or serious or rude disagreements between posters.  "Inappropriate"? Okay, that's strictly at the discretion of the moderator and again, it is what it is. No point in disputing that sort of judgment call. But maybe reserve "argumentative" as a reason for those threads that actually are argumentative, and try not to use it for a reason when no part of the thread was argumentative (heated words between individual posters who forcefully and oftentimes rudely disagree is my personal definition). Just a thought.

---

If you're refering to the recent LR thread, it was getting ugly. But also entertaining. Mods can be a buzz kill.

[happygolfcartrider]

I reserve the right to argue whent I know I am right 

[CalminHeart]

---

@mosky wrote:

What ever happened to free speach????

---

Freedom of speech means the government can't come after you for what you say.  It doesn't mean you can say anything anywhere.  It doesn't mean there not any consequences for what you say....such as by friends, other people, employers, police if criminal, etc.  

[wildcat fan]

---

@dooBdoo wrote:

---

@Lipstickdiva wrote:

---

@TY wrote:

Been there too. A couple of my shoe posts I mention where I bought the shoes or the website/s that I was looking at those shoes to purchase and poof goes the thread. I was accused of linking to their sites because I mentioned them.

Ironic as QVC used to carry one of the brands I mention but no longer does.

The other brand is one that is sold on the southern channel, the brand is named after a shoe magnate that died last year and his brand only appears on QVC during FFANY shoes on sale.

---

Yep. But again, someone is allowed to start weekly posts about upcoming HSN shows complete with photos of everything that will be offered.  It makes no sense to me but I guess it doesn't have to.

My thinking is, if I don't like it, I can move on.

---

          @TYand @Lipstickdiva,  From what I've seen the difference is whether there's a clickable hyperlink included in a post.   We can share the name of a site or product, and we can also post things like "websitename dot com."

          Also, some posters don't realize some of the copy-and-paste images contain an actual link the site...  you can click/tap on some images, and you're instantly redirected to the source.     @TY, as an example, I saw a recent thread you started about shoes and while there was no obvious hyperlink the image itself contained a hot link to the retail website.    That's probably what caused the thread to tank, but I'm just guessing since the thread was gone when I came back.    I like the fact that the moderators provide a reason for removal, but I wish they'd be a wee bit more specific so we would know what to do next time around.

          It seems to me the standards need to be updated, too, to be more precise so the customers can better understand what the expectations are.   The forums are replete with threads and posts with text or images promoting other sites, other merchandise -- some of which is direct competition to QVC -- and those are allowed as long as there's no obvious, or embedded, hyperlink.  

---

I agree that the standards need to be updated and consistency is key.  This week I've seen the same comment from the same member deleted in one thread yet left alone in another thread.  (thought we weren't supposed to have multiple threads of the same topic anyway)

I came across this reason for deletion in a fashion thread.  If they're deleting one post because it contained a photo from another retailer's catalog, then dozens of posts in that forum are also in violation.  Why single out this yet leave the others?

[MacDUFF]

@Beth-QVC

I'm assuming it was unintentional, but I LOL'd!!