Re: 3D Web Ring Rules

[P3D <PTWW@xxxxxxx>]

Jon Gross politely chides us to get on the stick:

>I recently posted on photo-3D a set of PROPOSED standards for the ring,
>solicited comments, and asked that reaction be posted to Photo-3d.
>(snip) So far, there has not been even ONE posting.

(snip)
>I believe that amateur stereographers are concerned about commercial
>vendors controlling the flow of objective information, or flooding the
>system with self-serving information that is primarily designed to make
>a profit as opposed to furthering the art.

Well said!

(snip)
>I (personally) would not like to see these rules relaxed any more:
>1)  Be related to stereoscopy, holography, or virtual reality;
>2)  Have sufficient depth of content;
>3)  Have content and form comprehensible to Photo-3D List members;
>4)  Contain original or properly credited material;
>5)  Contain more than just a product to sell;

I second the notion, but wonder why a commercial vendor bothered to
send you an objection privately.  Rule 5 can hardly be called a
significant restriction, IMO.  "More than just a product to sell?"
A simple sentence or paragraph of a factual informative nature would
meet the letter of the law, if not the spirit.  Should Rule 5 perhaps
be made more specific?

I would have no objection if, in addition to the other standard elements
that each site on the ring is supposed to include, each page also had
a pointer to *one* common "Vendor Links" page.  (Or--forgive my hazy
recollection of the details--but if every page will already have a link
back to Jon's "Mother Node," the link to the vendor page could be from
Jon's site only.)

Thanks for taking the initiative on this, Jon.  It sounds likeit will
be a very useful resource when it is in place.  Sorry for the tardiness.

Paul Talbot


------------------------------