Workshop Reviews

[rtune]

If i built a workshop review website, hosted offshore, advertising free, would I allowed to include the URL to it in my .sig here?

Would I be allowed to post about it, soliciting feedback?

[Beer Baron]

link in your sig is fine. posts soliciting feedback I need to think about. not sure what kind of forum that would be suitable in. we generally don't allow people making posts to solicit participation in other forums/websites etc.

[rtune]

link in your sig is fine. posts soliciting feedback I need to think about. not sure what kind of forum that would be suitable in. we generally don't allow people making posts to solicit participation in other forums/websites etc.

I understand that. particularly a site that is out to make a profit..

but it seems for legal reasons SAU is definitely not willing to host any tuner/workshop feedback that is negative

so this is why I'd be interested in providing this service, and hopefully members would use it and find it useful.

I wonder if SAU would accept paid advertising for it, as a worst case scenario (for me).

[DAS KAMU]

this is what enthusiasts need

but needs a very well set out fill in the box style like a survey and a box with a 5000 word limit so you can put it into words

[rtune]

this is what enthusiasts need

but needs a very well set out fill in the box style like a survey and a box with a 5000 word limit so you can put it into words

absolutely. Like gumtree: no need to take membership to add a review, but verify by email before

publishing. A way to upload supporting evidence (pictures, dyno charts, whatever). A way to contact

the reviewer privately without giving away email addresses. A way to challenge or comment on a

review, promote well written ones and suppress doubtful or obvious hit jobs.

and, apparently, offshore hosting and ownership so that the allegedly terrifying libel laws here are

less of a liability (although I don't really believe tuners and workshops would be systematically out

to abuse the law in order to protect bad business practices).

honestly it is overdue that the better tuners/shops/dealers are easier to find than word of mouth

and the bad ones can only be whispered about in hushed tones.

[DAS KAMU]

it sadening to for me to see young players getting ass raped by workshops with bannana fingers

[R31Nismoid]

SAU's stance is clear.

In my view - if you even go as far as to link it in your sig - it'll be removed.

Least of all starting a thread about feedback - absolutely not going to happen.

Ye it sounds like im being a prick, ye i am & furthermore i do not care.

The rules here are clear, and simple. You agree to them when you sign up.

SAU will be in NO WAY responsible or seen to be associated with a website of the nature that allows people to make false and misleading claims about a workshops work.

Just because you dont agree with the rules, you think we are going to allow it to go on in a 'round-a-bout' way? Oh please.

End of story as far as i see it.

[rtune]

SAU's stance is clear.

In my view - if you even go as far as to link it in your sig - it'll be removed.

Least of all starting a thread about feedback - absolutely not going to happen.

Ye it sounds like im being a prick, ye i am & furthermore i do not care.

The rules here are clear, and simple. You agree to them when you sign up.

SAU will be in NO WAY responsible or seen to be associated with a website of the nature that allows people to make false and misleading claims about a workshops work.

Just because you dont agree with the rules, you think we are going to allow it to go on in a 'round-a-bout' way? Oh please.

End of story as far as i see it.

Sounds like an aggressive stand, yes. And to be honest, the stance of SAU is clear,

they won't host this content. Beyond that, though, the stance isn't clear which is why I asked.

It is a bit of a stretch to assume, before such a site exists, that such a place

"would allow people to make false and misleading claims". Unless your interpretation

is that any end-user written report is by definition false and misleading?

In that case, then SAU is guilty of allowing people to make false and misleading claims

about nismo, OS Giken, Garrett, HKS and a host of other companies, every single day.

Because we frequently post that such and such a product or company is or is not good, and

nobody from SAU investigates to make sure the claim isn't false or misleading, or made

by a bozo.

My reasoning for suggesting the service goes like this: 1. the expressed (by the site owner)

reason for this rule is simply legal liability.

2. I think many people would find such a place EXCEEDINGLY useful. They aren't children,

just because someone posted, say, Croydon sucks, that doesn't mean that viewers would

destroy their business.

If there was a site that offered a place to index experiences with

workshops the same way we exhaustively compare turbos or brake companies, then

the legal liability risk is removed, and everyone would be happy (except the worst

workshop). And if this was my project, I'm not sure why it would be ban worthy for me to

have it included in my .sig.

Edited January 11, 2009 by r34nur

[R31Nismoid]

I didnt say ban worthy - i said it would not be removed. Please ensure you are clear about what i said, as its as clear as it can be.

There are two sides to every story, and having been around for many years, often the two sides are vastly different.

If you are going to allow people to 'review' a workshop and bag them out, how do you even know thats the truth? You dont.

Ive made the point clear, do not attempt to promote it here. Thats twice ive said it now, i wont be informing you a 3rd time.

[R33GTRKid]

may I ask why he is not allowed to have a link in his sig to another website? Anything on that website cannot be considered to be a publication by SAU? Why is it any different from someone having a link to their facebook page or whatever?

[R31Nismoid]

Its promoting what could easily be called slander/defamatory remarks.

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/boardrules.html