Should employees be required to disclose their employment with a domain industry company?

[Internet.Domains]

There has been much discussion about a particular company disclosing employees with employee badges. Some seem to appreciate this, others seem to take issue with it.

Should employees be required to disclose their employment with a domain industry company?

Let's discuss!

All members and all employees welcome!

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

I have heard about a couple other forums getting ready to come online, so there will be more edits.

We see new domain communities come online every month or so. They all learn the hard way that this is much harder than expected, and they often come back to NamePros with a new appreciation and respect.

Oh damn Don it's still going on, I did not know that

Learn more:

• https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...r-domain-name-forums-and-communities.1027787/

Note: Additional posts on this secondary topic may be moved to their own thread.

 

[equity78]

We see new domain communities come online every month or so. They all learn the hard way that this is much harder than they realized, and they often come back to NamePros with a new appreciation and respect.

Learn more:

• https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...r-domain-name-forums-and-communities.1027787/

I don't believe these new project founders were ever namepros members, (I know for fact one was not) so probably not coming.

 

[7363824]

I voted yes. When I read something I want to know if there are relationships which might have influenced what was said. I have no problem with honest expressions as long as I know there is the possibility they have been influenced. In most science papers it is now required to disclose all associations, even if fairly slight or in past.

The difficulty is that there are a myriad of potential relationships beyond employee ones. Like I suspect most NamePros members have some sort of affiliate relationships - should those be included? What about people that have blogs or lists that are funded by a variety of companies? Would get messy.

I think it is good practice, if there is any chance of perceived influence, that the person indicate in their post any relationships. Alternatively, simply not post when they feel compromised on a fair view on an issue.

A couple of times over the years I have read a negative opinion on a service, only later to learn that the individual was involved with a competing product, not that being indicated in any way. I don't like that.

Bob

Yes and no. Certainly there are other situations as your mentioned like being an affiliate or reseller. But I think the employee relationship is specifically something that should be disclosed. Similar to a disclaimer on a site that it uses affiliate links. In fact moreso because in most cases the employee relationship I think is more problematic as there is an even greater financial tie between them and the company (usually affiliates are affiliates for multiple products/services). Also for an employee there is more of a sense of ownership in the underlying product or service (at least i would imagine this to be at least generally true). But also employees may be acting in an official capacity for the company, though its also true their position on the forum could be completely in their personal capacity too.

But then there is also the argument that a satisfied customer comes with some of the same biases. Just look at how just an average everyday customer of Godaddy will defend them when someone brings a complaint against them. Or an Epik customer, myself included, when someone criticizes Epik. To some degree we all have biases, such is life. Disclosing each potential bias isn't realistic or potentially even helpful. But I think the one of en employee for an employer is a big enough one that it should not be hidden.

I am not one to advocate for saying employees can't support their employer even when it comes to a poll about the best registrar but I think transparency is needed. And if staff are continued to remain unbadged in the shadows more problems can come of it then good.

I do understand that many not wish to be identified because they don;t want constant at mentions and PMs about issues with their employer. Perhaps a two level system of identifying those here in the official capacity who can be reached out to for issues and those in the private capacity whom members are not allowed to ask for support but are badged for the sole purpose of transparency.

Perhaps each post should come with the disclaimer " I am human, I have my biases."