gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (02/20/85)
I have sent the letter below to sol1!john in hopes of reaching some agreement on the AA-Personal-in-net.jobs matter. I thought others might be interested in the dialog. To: ihnp4!akgua!sol1!john Subject: Re: THE SOLUTION response to Headhunter flames References: <256@sol1.UUCP> John, > 1) Net.jobs is FOR posting jobs. This is what she is doing. So far, no problem. > 2) Only job openings are posted. (No candidates seeking jobs). Again, no problem. (in fact job seekers are encouraged to use net.jobs, too). > 3) Susan's fees are 100% client company paid. There are NO fees to the > people responding to Sue's postings. Fine. However: > She is basicaly providing a free service for the benefit of people on the net. > She does not court client companies by using Usenet. I am hard-pressed to > find rational for the opinion that providing job opprotunities for people > on the net, free of cost, is in anyway taking advantage of Usenet or those > people. The rational explanation is that this is advertising on a commercial level. I get tons of junk mail (via USNail) every week. ALL FREE! 100% client-paid. But its still advertising. A policy of Usenet is to avoid commercial advertising. Here is a compromise, however: if you really want to provide the net with a service and not generate the conventional ads that have been produced by AA so far, why not just list the job positions and geographic locations -- without all the fanfare? People will know to write to sol1!sue if they want more info. My concern is that -- while it is not a serious problem now -- permitting advertising of the sort we are now seeing from sol1 will be interpreted as "open season" for ads, and the network will drown in them. I am also not happy to support this sort of advertising, as I'm sure AA can afford to pay for real ads in commericial media. I am interested in your comments on this matter. Gordon A. Moffett -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam