Wizzley Quality Requirements & Restricted Topics List

To be even clearer on what we are looking for in a Wizzley article, and to specify those topics and "publishing" habits we're not crazy about, at all - here is a new page with extensive guidelines:

Wizzley Quality Requirements & Restricted Topics

Thanks for the clarification.  :)  Very clear and easily understood. 

Go, WizzTeam!

There are two things that worry me:

...the author is unable to retrieve their articles. So basically if for some reason we get our account deleted we can't even take our content back. What if we have 400 articles and they aren't backed up? It's our content, we own it, I think we should be able to access it, even if it isn't available on the site.

...Demonstrated anti-social behaviour on Wizzley or other social networking site. So if the moderators feel we're behaving badly on ANOTHER site we can have our account deleted? What if someone is impersonating us or in some way spamming our content links? 

Also, are the wizz-not articles meant to be topics that we never write about? What if we are writing AGAINST something like MLM? How are 'poor repuations' judged in regards to affiliate programs?

wrylilt: 17. Jun 2011, 07:21

---

There are two things that worry me:

...the author is unable to retrieve their articles. So basically if for some reason we get our account deleted we can't even take our content back. What if we have 400 articles and they aren't backed up? It's our content, we own it, I think we should be able to access it, even if it isn't available on the site.

Just my personal view:

Backing up HAS to be the responsibility of the owners of the content, not the owners of the site. Not just because the owners can remove the content at any time, but what if anything happened to destroy servers and their backups? 9/11 comes to mind here when some companies had their IT systems destroyed. And it is because it is our content and we own it, that we should take responsibility in this area, particularly as this is a free to use platform.

However, it does make me think I should look at how I should backup my stuff on here, because I have to admit I have been so busy as to not give it a thought...

wrylilt: 17. Jun 2011, 07:21

---

...Demonstrated anti-social behaviour on Wizzley or other social networking site. So if the moderators feel we're behaving badly on ANOTHER site we can have our account deleted? What if someone is impersonating us or in some way spamming our content links? 

Given the expertise in the Team, I think it would be very easy to distinguish between people who may be impersonating anyone and someone who is innocent .

Some of the behaviour that I have personally witnessed on other sites makes me feel very reassured that the Wizzley team are determined that it wont happen here.

There is a concern here that should be addressed and clarified.  Wrylit is correct, and her questions are based on the behavior of other sites, not this one.  But, a site can start out being open and upfront, then change later, when you no longer agree with their practices. 

In order to protect an author that may then become taboo on this site, I believe that blocking an author from their articles would not be the right choice.  So while you can ban a person from writing, what I suggest as a compromise would be to give a banned author 30 days to backup and remove their work after notification that they have been banned.  Then you can delete their account.

You could leave their work in an unpublished state to take it off search, but still leave it there for them to retrieve.

And while we want to think that could never happen here, it is still reassuring for those of us who have been through this before to know that we could "escape with our work intact" so to speak.

I have to admit, this thought did not cross my mind initially, because of my trust in the powers that be here, but not everyone will have the same working connection with the Wizzley team.  I do commend you all, however, for being upfront with the notion of keeping this site high quality, and above board.

@Wry In the matter of spamming, you are correct to fear this but in this case the team is talking about extreme issues that show up on other sites that would lend themselves to the argument of proof that this person would also be troublesome here.  This is not meant to punish people that have proven themselves to be quality authors here or on other sites. As they said in the end of the article, all cases are to be judged on an individual basis, so if there was a case like what you have mentioned, the team would be able to use their judgement to decide whether something was legit or not.  Not sure if I explained this correctly to assuage your point, but it is more to keep known spammers out, then punish people who get hit by spammers.

In general can be said, our quality guidelines are designed to cover our backs (and yours) as a business, especially in extreme cases of TOS violations, and, as AJ mentioned, after so-called "acts of God".

Additionally, such guidelines can not cover every hypothetical case and far-out possibility.We'd look at an incomprehensible 50,000+ words document.

In response to wrylilt's concerns: 

Why would we delete a trusted user's  400 articles and shoot ourselves in the foot? Whenever we deem it necessary to delete an article, it usually happens right at the beginning of a (hopeful) spammers (doomed) Wizzley career. Even then, deleted articles are still stored in the back end of our system. 

Disruptive behavior usually happens over a certain time period and such a bully can be easily verified. It's not, like, we follow our members around, and if we don't appreciate someone's comment, somewhere out there, we ban them from Wizzley. We have no interest in, and no time for such activities. We're talking about serious TOS violations on other well-known networks, repeated and persistent disregard of the commonly accepted rules of human decency. THAT we don't want on Wizzley.

As to our Wizz-Nots, we state that we reserve the right to accept or reject articles on these topics. We manually review each single article, and, in some cases, if you write a valuable piece of content that offers new insights to the reader, we might accept it.

Consider, however...these topics raise flags in Google, possibly even any "anti" articles. It might not be worth it to even bother with such content. 

It's all about common sense and Google quality standards. None of our existing members have anything to worry about, as long as they keep up their current content quality. 

And if there should ever occur a problem with any of your articles, we always, ALWAYS give plenty of warnings and time for corrections before we delete anything.

Keep doing what you're doing, friends. You're wonderful. Thank you.  

Paula & wrylilt - we now have clarified our quality requirements with regards to "deleted accounts".

Thanks for the reassurances, Chefkeem (and lakeerieartists). Since you're a relatively new site, (and I'm over analytical) I enjoy playing the devil's advocate sometimes! I doubt you'll see me doing anything bannable, but I'm sure there may be occasional complaints from those who've been banned (since on most sites there are always a few members whose opionions differ from the management.) I like the suggestion of 30 days before content is deleted.

AJ, the best way to backup is to download a firefox plugin called Scrapbook. It saves link (up to six levels down) from any page, to your computer. Basically like your own personal cache in your hard drive. Simply download, go into your page list and right click, tell it to copy one level down and wait as it does so. Takes a few minutes but so much easier than other options, and you can save your photos as well!

I was delighted to see the rules written out like that....and equally thrilled to see someone can't act a horses behind on another site, then come here and possibly do the same thing. 

Sounds to me like quality is the main focus and who could argue with that. 

Thank you. This is exactly the information I was looking for when I came to the forum today. 

wrylilt: 17. Jun 2011, 19:19

---

Thanks for the reassurances, Chefkeem (and lakeerieartists). Since you're a relatively new site, (and I'm over analytical) I enjoy playing the devil's advocate sometimes! I doubt you'll see me doing anything bannable, but I'm sure there may be occasional complaints from those who've been banned (since on most sites there are always a few members whose opionions differ from the management.) I like the suggestion of 30 days before content is deleted.

AJ, the best way to backup is to download a firefox plugin called Scrapbook. It saves link (up to six levels down) from any page, to your computer. Basically like your own personal cache in your hard drive. Simply download, go into your page list and right click, tell it to copy one level down and wait as it does so. Takes a few minutes but so much easier than other options, and you can save your photos as well!

Thanks for this backup tip & I am sorry if, in my attempt to be brief, I may have come across as unsympathetic to your concerns in my earlier post, which as Paula put far better than I did, are genuine.

Like Paula I have an advantage of having known The Chef, Anne and Ron online for nearly 3 years, so it is easy for me to know what they are saying, even when it is spelled out briefly

And Kathy "horse's behind" is far more polite than what I would have said

I'd like to add that one of the refreshing things about Wizzley so far is the responsiveness of the crew.  I salute your (ya'll) efforts to accomodate while maintaining high quality, yet having the ablility to listen to feedback. 

This bodes for great things on this site.

Thanks, Paula.  

I have read and re-read the Wizzley Quality Requirements and Restrictions page. I like that this will limit low quality and spam type articles. The rules are well stated and clear.

 One question about weight loss articles: after writing my vitamin D article, I have been considering another about the connection of vitamin D and weight loss. It would contain relatively new information, and not at all promotional for any product other than a small number of amazon links. With the restrictions however; I'm afraid it would be rejected here. Yes? No?

We're also stating in our TOS that we reserve the right to approve articles that may reach into these these taboo areas (borderline)...IF they are truly unique, useful and authoritative.

As you did it so well with your Vit-D article, Theresa - make sure that you back up your claims with professional source material, and never promise any "cures" or sensational "short-cuts", etc.

Ok, will do! Thanks for your speedy reply, Chef Keem.

I read that post, and it is Ok with me. Even though I don't like too many restrictions and rules, the list you published:

• is common sense, 
• it is useful to be stated, and 
• a good guide which give Wizzley the statue of a serious platform.

It is very nice done.

Regards

Michey

These rules look awesome! Thanks for creating and presenting them to make Wizzley become a wonderful place.

I would suggest adding promoting web host affiliate programes because much of that can be spammy