The links I included in my post are to the same site/domain (although a different city), as the following threads which are active on this board:
Chicago - by StudFX, 10/17/2015 8:00:35 PM Tonya in AZ - by bradinaz, 10/16/2015 5:29:39 PM Ad says her pics are 200 percent real.... - by LATSDog, 10/11/2015 1:45:11 PM So, I am still confused as to why links to the site referenced in these posts are allowable, and posts with links to the same site and similar ad content are being ruled "not allowed". Again, not ranting. Just looking for clarity on the rules. Thanks much - PJBoard Admins... what gives?
This is not a rant. I am just looking to understand why a thread I attempted to start this week was not allowed for the following reason:
"Reason: You posts contains a reference to and/or a link to a website that has been banned on TER or is a "review" site. "
My message contained links to two different provider ads on a site that *is* allowed [note: I've edited this post to remove reference to the almost universally used site I originally mentioned in an attempt to get it approved and onto the board. This posting was not allowed for the same reason noted above]. Further, neither ad linked to any sites (let alone a "banned" site). My message contained no other links.
I see plenty of other posts here that include links to ads on the site in question.
So... what am I missing? Is [oft-referenced site name redacted] actually an un-allowable site on TER?
Again, not a rant. Just trying to understand.
-- Modified on 10/20/2015 7:53:52 PM
eom
The links I included in my post are to the same site/domain (although a different city), as the following threads which are active on this board:
Chicago - by StudFX, 10/17/2015 8:00:35 PM
Tonya in AZ - by bradinaz, 10/16/2015 5:29:39 PM
Ad says her pics are 200 percent real.... - by LATSDog, 10/11/2015 1:45:11 PM
So, I am still confused as to why links to the site referenced in these posts are allowable, and posts with links to the same site and similar ad content are being ruled "not allowed".
Again, not ranting. Just looking for clarity on the rules. Thanks much - PJ
The enforcement seems a bit random. I suppose I should have said that the post *may* be disallowed...
Again, thanks, timotl. The enforcement does seem inconsistent.
And I am still feeling totally lost re: why the site in question (first word rhymes with "slack", second word with "rage") would fall into one of the categories for dis-allowing a post:
"Contains Escort Reviews (EX: Redbook, BigDoggie)" - the site in question does not.
"Has Pop-Ups (EX: Porn cam sites)" - the site in question does not.
"Requires login (registration) for viewing the contents of the site (EX: MySpace)" - the site in question does not.
"Is absolutely irrelevant to the subject" - the site in question is entirely relevant to the post.
"belongs to a private business which offers specialty services." - Is this vaguely worded clause the reason???
Whiskey Tango...
Ok, I'm done venting. Still confused, but done. Thanks - P
You're not alone in finding it baffling. I think most of us find it strange that a review site would disallow the 2 largest ad sites....
Many of the providers out there advertise on The Site That Must Not Be Named, and by prohibiting links to those ads, TER is destroying the ability to talk about these providers... the very reason why TER is here in the first place! (I think the same policy applies to ad links in reviews, too, which is equally stupid for the exact same reason.) Yet another example of TER cutting off its nose to spite its face. 
I agree! Sounds like someone is a little scared of a little competition. Cutting off the nose to spite the face is perfect. A review site is no longer a review site if it does not allow reviews?? I'm going to let my VIP membership expire!