Hi Darren (Barefoot) Here are 2 quotes from the comments you made on Trish's site
Notably, I didn't use rel="nofollow" when I originally wrote about ReviewMe.com, because it was something I was interested in regardless. That is, I was motivated to post primarily out of interest, not cash.
This suggests to me that this current review your primary motivation was cash.
There may be future items which I would have blogged about anyway, but I'd rather not have to apply my discretion to that. So, I'll just apply nofollow to all future ReviewMe advertiser links.
And this is suggesting that if it wasn't for the cash, you wouldn't have blogged about the product.
I don't think I am misrepresenting what you said, but maybe you misrepresented your own selection process.
There does however seem to be a very clear difference between what you wrote, and the guidelines Darren Rouse was suggesting (he doesn't do paid posts himself)
AndyBeard
· 3 years ago
Hi Darren (Barefoot) Here are 2 quotes from the comments you made on Trish's site
Notably, I didn't use rel="nofollow" when I originally wrote about ReviewMe.com, because it was something I was interested in regardless. That is, I was motivated to post primarily out of interest, not cash.
This suggests to me that this current review your primary motivation was cash.
There may be future items which I would have blogged about anyway, but I'd rather not have to apply my discretion to that. So, I'll just apply nofollow to all future ReviewMe advertiser links.
And this is suggesting that if it wasn't for the cash, you wouldn't have blogged about the product.
I don't think I am misrepresenting what you said, but maybe you misrepresented your own selection process.
There does however seem to be a very clear difference between what you wrote, and the guidelines Darren Rouse was suggesting (he doesn't do paid posts himself)
Dane's Blogging Tips
· 3 years ago
Hey Andy,
I'm still not sure I'm real interested in disclosure policies. I don't do any PPP, but I do promote affiliate programs from my blogs. I've thought about it to some extent, and I'm not sure I feel obligated to disclose which link is going to a program I make money for, and which I don't. Since I wouldn't post about a product just for the money, there is really no difference between the two to me. I post about what I want to post about, and check to see if there's an affiliate program before I make the post.
That said, if I did feel the need to do disclosure, wouldn't the easiest way be to have a disclosure page that stated a general policy at the top and allowed for specific relationships to be inserted below.
Dane's Blogging Tips
· 3 years ago
Hey Andy,
I'm still not sure I'm real interested in disclosure policies. I don't do any PPP, but I do promote affiliate programs from my blogs. I've thought about it to some extent, and I'm not sure I feel obligated to disclose which link is going to a program I make money for, and which I don't. Since I wouldn't post about a product just for the money, there is really no difference between the two to me. I post about what I want to post about, and check to see if there's an affiliate program before I make the post.
That said, if I did feel the need to do disclosure, wouldn't the easiest way be to have a disclosure page that stated a general policy at the top and allowed for specific relationships to be inserted below.
AndyBeard
· 3 years ago
I do relate to your perspective on this quite strongly, as I think most people in affiliate marketing would, unless they have so much unaware traffic that it doesn't really make a difference.
A disclosure statement on a blog is certainly one possible alternative, and this is the direction PayPerPost encouraged when they launched DisclosurePolicy.org
That might be looked on by most as a good way to disclose financial relationships, but the information doesn't really travel with the content in your RSS feeds.
Also blog traffic is such that it is quite hard to encourage multiple page views.
The plugin can also be used to add keyword based advertising at the end of posts, nicely wrapped in CSS
AndyBeard
· 3 years ago
I do relate to your perspective on this quite strongly, as I think most people in affiliate marketing would, unless they have so much unaware traffic that it doesn't really make a difference.
A disclosure statement on a blog is certainly one possible alternative, and this is the direction PayPerPost encouraged when they launched DisclosurePolicy.org
That might be looked on by most as a good way to disclose financial relationships, but the information doesn't really travel with the content in your RSS feeds.
Also blog traffic is such that it is quite hard to encourage multiple page views.
The plugin can also be used to add keyword based advertising at the end of posts, nicely wrapped in CSS
AndyBeard
· 3 years ago
For me it is very clear
Your primary motivation for posting about the product was cash.
Someone following Darren Rouse's guidelines, the primary motivation is that the product or service would be of interest to their readership, and the cash is more of a bonus.
I am not saying that one kind of motivation is necessarily better than the other.
I quite often include affiliate links in various of my sites in different ways. I am experimenting in different kinds of disclosure depending on the emphasis I have made regarding the product. Sometimes it is just contextual or keyword advertising links, other times it is a product review or some other insight about a product if I haven't actually purchased it myself.
I don't think I have ever crossed the line of writing about something just because I can earn money from it.
AndyBeard
· 3 years ago
For me it is very clear
Your primary motivation for posting about the product was cash.
Someone following Darren Rouse's guidelines, the primary motivation is that the product or service would be of interest to their readership, and the cash is more of a bonus.
I am not saying that one kind of motivation is necessarily better than the other.
I quite often include affiliate links in various of my sites in different ways. I am experimenting in different kinds of disclosure depending on the emphasis I have made regarding the product. Sometimes it is just contextual or keyword advertising links, other times it is a product review or some other insight about a product if I haven't actually purchased it myself.
I don't think I have ever crossed the line of writing about something just because I can earn money from it.
AndyBeard
· 3 years ago
It is not to do with contravention of a guideline. Darren Rouse's opinion is still just his opinion, your opinion is yours, and my opinion is my own. Everyone will have a different opinion about what they read, both what was written, and what wasn't written.
Here is a quote from your Reviewme review.
In fact, as a launch project, ReviewMe.com is inviting reviewing bloggers to review their own site. For cash. So, this entry could make me US $125. That’s pretty good money for a post I might write anyway.
The motivation was distinctly different in your second review.
Clearly if one joins ReviewMe.com, their primary motivation is cash.
I am a member of over 500 affiliate programs and email mailing lists I have maybe 200 blogs in my feed reader I have access to 10,000 products to write about in the Clickbank database I have access to thousands of retailers through Commission Junction, Linkshare and ShareaSale
My motivation is to have a way to monetize what I write about, however I don't think I have ever written about a product I don't like, simply because they are willing to pay me to do it.
I have written multiple posts and articles about how to use products I do like.
I think, and this is my personal opinion, if your primary reason to write a post is because you are being paid to write it, you can potentially cross into the same realm as "made for adsense" and "thin affiliate" websites. There is nothing illegal in such sites, although Google often claim they are weeding them out.
Who knows, maybe you are also testing how many negative reviews you can write before people stop asking you to review their offerings.
As an example of how I use monetization, my Disclosure Policy Plugin site will be monetized with affiliate links for services I think people will appreciate. I will also include dedicated pages with reasons why I selected that particular product on the site in the form of reviews.
Many plugin developers include a donation button.
I don't like donations all that much, because it might be looked on as some kind of obligation to continue development on a project that isn't very financially successful.
I would much prefer to give options that are not direct payments for a single product, but provide me encouragement to continue development in certain directions.
I still don't think I was misrepresenting anything. Your primary motivation was the cash, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as that is clearly stated. Maybe you could have stated that clearer.
Your disclosure does say you are being paid, and it won't affect your opinion, which is cool. It doesn't state your primary motivation.
In my mind (and maybe in that of others) there is a subtle difference between monetization of content and creating content just to get paid for it.
AndyBeard
· 3 years ago
It is not to do with contravention of a guideline. Darren Rouse's opinion is still just his opinion, your opinion is yours, and my opinion is my own. Everyone will have a different opinion about what they read, both what was written, and what wasn't written.
Here is a quote from your Reviewme review.
In fact, as a launch project, ReviewMe.com is inviting reviewing bloggers to review their own site. For cash. So, this entry could make me US $125. That’s pretty good money for a post I might write anyway.
The motivation was distinctly different in your second review.
Clearly if one joins ReviewMe.com, their primary motivation is cash.
I am a member of over 500 affiliate programs and email mailing lists I have maybe 200 blogs in my feed reader I have access to 10,000 products to write about in the Clickbank database I have access to thousands of retailers through Commission Junction, Linkshare and ShareaSale
My motivation is to have a way to monetize what I write about, however I don't think I have ever written about a product I don't like, simply because they are willing to pay me to do it.
I have written multiple posts and articles about how to use products I do like.
I think, and this is my personal opinion, if your primary reason to write a post is because you are being paid to write it, you can potentially cross into the same realm as "made for adsense" and "thin affiliate" websites. There is nothing illegal in such sites, although Google often claim they are weeding them out.
Who knows, maybe you are also testing how many negative reviews you can write before people stop asking you to review their offerings.
As an example of how I use monetization, my Disclosure Policy Plugin site will be monetized with affiliate links for services I think people will appreciate. I will also include dedicated pages with reasons why I selected that particular product on the site in the form of reviews.
Many plugin developers include a donation button.
I don't like donations all that much, because it might be looked on as some kind of obligation to continue development on a project that isn't very financially successful.
I would much prefer to give options that are not direct payments for a single product, but provide me encouragement to continue development in certain directions.
I still don't think I was misrepresenting anything. Your primary motivation was the cash, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as that is clearly stated. Maybe you could have stated that clearer.
Your disclosure does say you are being paid, and it won't affect your opinion, which is cool. It doesn't state your primary motivation.
In my mind (and maybe in that of others) there is a subtle difference between monetization of content and creating content just to get paid for it.
AndyBeard
· 3 years ago
It is all about motivations
Maybe a litmus test will help you grasp this
If you were not being paid, would you have written the post?
AndyBeard
· 3 years ago
It is all about motivations
Maybe a litmus test will help you grasp this
If you were not being paid, would you have written the post?
AndyBeard
· 3 years ago
You are not oh-for-two
I have been writing about motivations and that is the fundamental issue
The litmus test: You can only answer "maybe" and someone working to Darren Rouses list would probably be able to answer "yes" every time.
AndyBeard
· 3 years ago
You are not oh-for-two
I have been writing about motivations and that is the fundamental issue
The litmus test: You can only answer "maybe" and someone working to Darren Rouses list would probably be able to answer "yes" every time.
AndyBeard
· 3 years ago
Relevance based upon how I read your statements seems to be of secondary importance to cash.
Your disclosure mentions you are being paid for the review, but it does not emphasise that that is your primary motivation.
You can judge for yourself if this compromises me–it’s a question I’m eager to explore.
Different people are going to judge what you write in different ways.
If you had put a declaration along the lines of
I wouldn't have written about this product without the monetary compensation
or
I am only writing about this product because they are paying me
Would your readers think anything less of you?
I have read your post and comments multiple times, and it still suggests the same to me.
Maybe my view of this is different because I have so many options to write about products I actually like and use on a daily basis that can also earn me money that the idea of writing about something for primarily a financial reason is alien to me.
AndyBeard
· 3 years ago
Relevance based upon how I read your statements seems to be of secondary importance to cash.
Your disclosure mentions you are being paid for the review, but it does not emphasise that that is your primary motivation.
You can judge for yourself if this compromises me–it’s a question I’m eager to explore.
Different people are going to judge what you write in different ways.
If you had put a declaration along the lines of
I wouldn't have written about this product without the monetary compensation
or
I am only writing about this product because they are paying me
Would your readers think anything less of you?
I have read your post and comments multiple times, and it still suggests the same to me.
Maybe my view of this is different because I have so many options to write about products I actually like and use on a daily basis that can also earn me money that the idea of writing about something for primarily a financial reason is alien to me.
Darren
· 3 years ago
Do I need to disclose my primary motivation on every post? And do I actually have to use the phrase 'primary motivation'? As I've mentioned, my reasons for posting are manifold.
The fact is that you've drawn these conclusions about my posting ethics based on speculation and assumption. Despite my best efforts to clarify your misrepresentation, you've refused to accept anything that doesn't jibe with your initial inaccurate impressions.
When you wrote the initial post, instead of speculating on what I thought, you should have just asked me.
Your implication was (and continues to be) that I'm unwilling or unable to be discriminating when cash is waved in front of my face. That's both offensive and inaccurate.
It also suggests, curiously, that the entire publishing world is corrupt, as they take advertising dollars from the same companies they write about.
And let me ask again, which of Darren Rowse’s guidelines would I reply ‘maybe’ to, exactly? After all, you indicated that there was a “a very clear difference" between what I wrote, and the guidelines Darren Rowse suggested. If the difference is so striking, then it ought to be a simple matter to point out.
Darren
· 3 years ago
Do I need to disclose my primary motivation on every post? And do I actually have to use the phrase 'primary motivation'? As I've mentioned, my reasons for posting are manifold.
The fact is that you've drawn these conclusions about my posting ethics based on speculation and assumption. Despite my best efforts to clarify your misrepresentation, you've refused to accept anything that doesn't jibe with your initial inaccurate impressions.
When you wrote the initial post, instead of speculating on what I thought, you should have just asked me.
Your implication was (and continues to be) that I'm unwilling or unable to be discriminating when cash is waved in front of my face. That's both offensive and inaccurate.
It also suggests, curiously, that the entire publishing world is corrupt, as they take advertising dollars from the same companies they write about.
And let me ask again, which of Darren Rowse’s guidelines would I reply ‘maybe’ to, exactly? After all, you indicated that there was a “a very clear difference" between what I wrote, and the guidelines Darren Rowse suggested. If the difference is so striking, then it ought to be a simple matter to point out.
Darren
· 3 years ago
(I replied, but I believe my reponse got spam-blocked).
Darren
· 3 years ago
(I replied, but I believe my reponse got spam-blocked).
AndyBeard
· 3 years ago
I just did the following
Noticed you had 2 posts in my SK logs, so I whitelisted them
Came back to the blog, and noticed that all your other comments had disappeared.
I went into SK, and noticed it had blacklisted your domain name earlier.
I whitelisted the domain name, came back to the blog and still no comments.
Then I noticed it had also blacklisted your IP address.
So I whitelisted your IP address.
Still no comments
So I went rooting around in phpmyadmin, and the database records have been nuked
I do have a backup of the whole conversation in CoComments
I happened to end up at the post Tris made a little later.
This is because I have a Google alert setup based upon discussion regarding nofollow. I have plans to build a community site for people who don't use nofollow
Your whole complaint about my original post effectively comes down to one word.
# propose: make a proposal, declare a plan for something # imply as a possibility; "The evidence suggests a need for more clarification" # hint: drop a hint; intimate by a hint # indicate: suggest the necessity of an intervention; in medicine; "Tetracycline is indicated in such cases" # call to mind; "this remark evoked sadness"
You are taking "Suggest" to mean "Propose"
I used "Suggest" as "imply as a possibility"
To clear up that misconception, I am willing to change the wording from "suggests" to either "suggests to me" or "implies as a possibility" (state your preference), both of which are saying exactly the same as I originally intended, although it doesn't rule out that the same words might suggest the same thing to other people.
It wasn't speculation and assumption, and I even mentioned here in the comments
I don’t think I am misrepresenting what you said, but maybe you misrepresented your own selection process.
That was an nice easy open door, but you didn't take it.
Your comments here have continued to imply the possibility that your primary motivation was the money. In fact you stated that:-
Just because my primary motivation to write that review was cash, that doesn't mean there aren't other considerations such as relevancy.
That is your choice
you’ve refused to accept anything that doesn’t jibe with your initial inaccurate impressions.
Lets look at my initial impressions closely
He does however suggest that he will be posting sometimes about sites that may not fit his readership, or that he is effectively only posting because he is being paid to do it.
Now if we use suggest in the way I was using it
He does however imply as a possibility that he will be posting sometimes about sites that may not fit his readership, or that he is effectively only posting because he is being paid to do it.
The second half of that you have made abundantly clear is true.
It is my belief that a blogger has a social contract with their readership to always have a primary motivation on content. That can still be achieved even if you are trying to encourage your readers to buy a product which you feel would be highly useful for them.
In that situation Relevance > Cash
As soon as Cash > Relevance you introduce the possibility that the content will be less relevant.
If content becomes less relevant, it doesn't "fit your readership" as much.
Your implication was (and continues to be) that I’m unwilling or unable to be discriminating when cash is waved in front of my face. That’s both offensive and inaccurate.
If you place Cash > Relevance you have crossed a line much harder to differentiate than whether you should use a link condom or not, and yet you set a specific policy so you didn't have to make that linking decision on a case by case basis. Note: you should use a proper dynamic link and not nofollow if you want the link to be truly worthless for search engines..
Nothing you have said so far has managed to convince me to change my personal opinion. In many ways you have reinforced my opinion, and are highlighting the dangers of placing cash > relevance.
You personally asked to be judged, and wanted to explore this topic.
It is my belief that placing relevance first is correct "Discrimination"
If you place cash first, yes I would question your ability to "discriminate"
So maybe you are still misrepresenting yourself? Maybe you were still placing relevance first?
That’s both offensive and inaccurate.
I don't think I have been inaccurate at all as per above.
I also don't think I have been offensive in any way. I think I am actually being helpful in explaining how one kind of reader can come to the conclusions I have.
It seems to me your priority is to try to get me to change my opinions. Unfortunately if you placed cash > relevance, there is no way I am ever going to change my opinion.
If cash > relevance there is always something more relevant that you could/should have written about instead that would be "highly relevant" rather than just relevant.
But as I have said already, maybe you were putting relevance first, proper discretion, but that isn't what you have stated up until now.
It also suggests, curiously, that the entire publishing world is corrupt, as they take advertising dollars from the same companies they write about.
Some of it is certainly corrupt, but there are levels and balances. Adversing sales is most of the time a separate department. Advertising budget can influence coverage, but it is very hard to not class that as some level of corruption. A 5 page review with a demo inclusion in the computer games industry of a game that was a little lacklustre with a 65% review can certainly help that game compete with another product that only had 1/2 a page and 85%.
Fortunately for the games industry they can justify it, because it is highly relevant for a magazine to write extensively about all the bad things in a product too.
And that would be perfect justification for your review, but you have stated that cash > relevance
In none of these comments have you stated that relevance > cash. That is the only way I am going to change my opinion.
And let me ask again, which of Darren Rowse’s guidelines would I reply ‘maybe’ to, exactly?
"Maybe" was only in reference to the litmus test, you never said "maybe" about any of Darren's guidelines.
Here is what I said:-
The litmus test: You can only answer “maybe†and someone working to Darren Rouses list would probably be able to answer “yes†every time.
Note:- "would probably"
Whilst I was writing it, I actually added that in, because it is possible for anyone to weave themselves around a list of guidelines, believe they are following them when they are not, or even follow them "to the letter" but not "spirit".
cash > relevance is the root of all evils.
There is absolutely no need to disclaim your primary motivation for every post, as long as relevance > cash
AndyBeard
· 3 years ago
I just did the following
Noticed you had 2 posts in my SK logs, so I whitelisted them
Came back to the blog, and noticed that all your other comments had disappeared.
I went into SK, and noticed it had blacklisted your domain name earlier.
I whitelisted the domain name, came back to the blog and still no comments.
Then I noticed it had also blacklisted your IP address.
So I whitelisted your IP address.
Still no comments
So I went rooting around in phpmyadmin, and the database records have been nuked
I do have a backup of the whole conversation in CoComments
I happened to end up at the post Tris made a little later.
This is because I have a Google alert setup based upon discussion regarding nofollow. I have plans to build a community site for people who don't use nofollow
Your whole complaint about my original post effectively comes down to one word.
# propose: make a proposal, declare a plan for something # imply as a possibility; "The evidence suggests a need for more clarification" # hint: drop a hint; intimate by a hint # indicate: suggest the necessity of an intervention; in medicine; "Tetracycline is indicated in such cases" # call to mind; "this remark evoked sadness"
You are taking "Suggest" to mean "Propose"
I used "Suggest" as "imply as a possibility"
To clear up that misconception, I am willing to change the wording from "suggests" to either "suggests to me" or "implies as a possibility" (state your preference), both of which are saying exactly the same as I originally intended, although it doesn't rule out that the same words might suggest the same thing to other people.
It wasn't speculation and assumption, and I even mentioned here in the comments
I don’t think I am misrepresenting what you said, but maybe you misrepresented your own selection process.
That was an nice easy open door, but you didn't take it.
Your comments here have continued to imply the possibility that your primary motivation was the money. In fact you stated that:-
Just because my primary motivation to write that review was cash, that doesn't mean there aren't other considerations such as relevancy.
That is your choice
you’ve refused to accept anything that doesn’t jibe with your initial inaccurate impressions.
Lets look at my initial impressions closely
He does however suggest that he will be posting sometimes about sites that may not fit his readership, or that he is effectively only posting because he is being paid to do it.
Now if we use suggest in the way I was using it
He does however imply as a possibility that he will be posting sometimes about sites that may not fit his readership, or that he is effectively only posting because he is being paid to do it.
The second half of that you have made abundantly clear is true.
It is my belief that a blogger has a social contract with their readership to always have a primary motivation on content. That can still be achieved even if you are trying to encourage your readers to buy a product which you feel would be highly useful for them.
In that situation Relevance > Cash
As soon as Cash > Relevance you introduce the possibility that the content will be less relevant.
If content becomes less relevant, it doesn't "fit your readership" as much.
Your implication was (and continues to be) that I’m unwilling or unable to be discriminating when cash is waved in front of my face. That’s both offensive and inaccurate.
If you place Cash > Relevance you have crossed a line much harder to differentiate than whether you should use a link condom or not, and yet you set a specific policy so you didn't have to make that linking decision on a case by case basis. Note: you should use a proper dynamic link and not nofollow if you want the link to be truly worthless for search engines..
Nothing you have said so far has managed to convince me to change my personal opinion. In many ways you have reinforced my opinion, and are highlighting the dangers of placing cash > relevance.
You personally asked to be judged, and wanted to explore this topic.
It is my belief that placing relevance first is correct "Discrimination"
If you place cash first, yes I would question your ability to "discriminate"
So maybe you are still misrepresenting yourself? Maybe you were still placing relevance first?
That’s both offensive and inaccurate.
I don't think I have been inaccurate at all as per above.
I also don't think I have been offensive in any way. I think I am actually being helpful in explaining how one kind of reader can come to the conclusions I have.
It seems to me your priority is to try to get me to change my opinions. Unfortunately if you placed cash > relevance, there is no way I am ever going to change my opinion.
If cash > relevance there is always something more relevant that you could/should have written about instead that would be "highly relevant" rather than just relevant.
But as I have said already, maybe you were putting relevance first, proper discretion, but that isn't what you have stated up until now.
It also suggests, curiously, that the entire publishing world is corrupt, as they take advertising dollars from the same companies they write about.
Some of it is certainly corrupt, but there are levels and balances. Adversing sales is most of the time a separate department. Advertising budget can influence coverage, but it is very hard to not class that as some level of corruption. A 5 page review with a demo inclusion in the computer games industry of a game that was a little lacklustre with a 65% review can certainly help that game compete with another product that only had 1/2 a page and 85%.
Fortunately for the games industry they can justify it, because it is highly relevant for a magazine to write extensively about all the bad things in a product too.
And that would be perfect justification for your review, but you have stated that cash > relevance
In none of these comments have you stated that relevance > cash. That is the only way I am going to change my opinion.
And let me ask again, which of Darren Rowse’s guidelines would I reply ‘maybe’ to, exactly?
"Maybe" was only in reference to the litmus test, you never said "maybe" about any of Darren's guidelines.
Here is what I said:-
The litmus test: You can only answer “maybe†and someone working to Darren Rouses list would probably be able to answer “yes†every time.
Note:- "would probably"
Whilst I was writing it, I actually added that in, because it is possible for anyone to weave themselves around a list of guidelines, believe they are following them when they are not, or even follow them "to the letter" but not "spirit".
cash > relevance is the root of all evils.
There is absolutely no need to disclaim your primary motivation for every post, as long as relevance > cash
Darren
· 3 years ago
We've both spent too much time on this nerd fight, so in light of your esclating length, let me declare a truce.
We're not going to change each other's minds. I think you've misrepresented my approach, you don't. I think you're seeing a nuanced question in black and white. You don't, or are comfortable with that perspective. Fair enough on all fronts.
As with most nerd fights, the topic of this conversation is largely moot. I've done far more ethically dubious things on my blog, plugging all sorts of groups and organizations for all sorts of motivations, with disclosure, and my readership has only grown. It's clear to me that the occasional (and it may be very occasional) ReviewMe.com review isn't going to send my readers away in droves.
Thanks for the debate.
Darren
· 3 years ago
We've both spent too much time on this nerd fight, so in light of your esclating length, let me declare a truce.
We're not going to change each other's minds. I think you've misrepresented my approach, you don't. I think you're seeing a nuanced question in black and white. You don't, or are comfortable with that perspective. Fair enough on all fronts.
As with most nerd fights, the topic of this conversation is largely moot. I've done far more ethically dubious things on my blog, plugging all sorts of groups and organizations for all sorts of motivations, with disclosure, and my readership has only grown. It's clear to me that the occasional (and it may be very occasional) ReviewMe.com review isn't going to send my readers away in droves.
All Comments
Here are 2 quotes from the comments you made on Trish's site
This suggests to me that this current review your primary motivation was cash.
And this is suggesting that if it wasn't for the cash, you wouldn't have blogged about the product.
I don't think I am misrepresenting what you said, but maybe you misrepresented your own selection process.
There does however seem to be a very clear difference between what you wrote, and the guidelines Darren Rouse was suggesting (he doesn't do paid posts himself)
Here are 2 quotes from the comments you made on Trish's site
This suggests to me that this current review your primary motivation was cash.
And this is suggesting that if it wasn't for the cash, you wouldn't have blogged about the product.
I don't think I am misrepresenting what you said, but maybe you misrepresented your own selection process.
There does however seem to be a very clear difference between what you wrote, and the guidelines Darren Rouse was suggesting (he doesn't do paid posts himself)
I'm still not sure I'm real interested in disclosure policies. I don't do any PPP, but I do promote affiliate programs from my blogs. I've thought about it to some extent, and I'm not sure I feel obligated to disclose which link is going to a program I make money for, and which I don't. Since I wouldn't post about a product just for the money, there is really no difference between the two to me. I post about what I want to post about, and check to see if there's an affiliate program before I make the post.
That said, if I did feel the need to do disclosure, wouldn't the easiest way be to have a disclosure page that stated a general policy at the top and allowed for specific relationships to be inserted below.
I'm still not sure I'm real interested in disclosure policies. I don't do any PPP, but I do promote affiliate programs from my blogs. I've thought about it to some extent, and I'm not sure I feel obligated to disclose which link is going to a program I make money for, and which I don't. Since I wouldn't post about a product just for the money, there is really no difference between the two to me. I post about what I want to post about, and check to see if there's an affiliate program before I make the post.
That said, if I did feel the need to do disclosure, wouldn't the easiest way be to have a disclosure page that stated a general policy at the top and allowed for specific relationships to be inserted below.
A disclosure statement on a blog is certainly one possible alternative, and this is the direction PayPerPost encouraged when they launched DisclosurePolicy.org
That might be looked on by most as a good way to disclose financial relationships, but the information doesn't really travel with the content in your RSS feeds.
Also blog traffic is such that it is quite hard to encourage multiple page views.
The plugin can also be used to add keyword based advertising at the end of posts, nicely wrapped in CSS
A disclosure statement on a blog is certainly one possible alternative, and this is the direction PayPerPost encouraged when they launched DisclosurePolicy.org
That might be looked on by most as a good way to disclose financial relationships, but the information doesn't really travel with the content in your RSS feeds.
Also blog traffic is such that it is quite hard to encourage multiple page views.
The plugin can also be used to add keyword based advertising at the end of posts, nicely wrapped in CSS
Your primary motivation for posting about the product was cash.
Someone following Darren Rouse's guidelines, the primary motivation is that the product or service would be of interest to their readership, and the cash is more of a bonus.
I am not saying that one kind of motivation is necessarily better than the other.
I quite often include affiliate links in various of my sites in different ways. I am experimenting in different kinds of disclosure depending on the emphasis I have made regarding the product. Sometimes it is just contextual or keyword advertising links, other times it is a product review or some other insight about a product if I haven't actually purchased it myself.
I don't think I have ever crossed the line of writing about something just because I can earn money from it.
Your primary motivation for posting about the product was cash.
Someone following Darren Rouse's guidelines, the primary motivation is that the product or service would be of interest to their readership, and the cash is more of a bonus.
I am not saying that one kind of motivation is necessarily better than the other.
I quite often include affiliate links in various of my sites in different ways. I am experimenting in different kinds of disclosure depending on the emphasis I have made regarding the product. Sometimes it is just contextual or keyword advertising links, other times it is a product review or some other insight about a product if I haven't actually purchased it myself.
I don't think I have ever crossed the line of writing about something just because I can earn money from it.
Everyone will have a different opinion about what they read, both what was written, and what wasn't written.
Here is a quote from your Reviewme review.
The motivation was distinctly different in your second review.
I am a member of over 500 affiliate programs and email mailing lists
I have maybe 200 blogs in my feed reader
I have access to 10,000 products to write about in the Clickbank database
I have access to thousands of retailers through Commission Junction, Linkshare and ShareaSale
My motivation is to have a way to monetize what I write about, however I don't think I have ever written about a product I don't like, simply because they are willing to pay me to do it.
I have written multiple posts and articles about how to use products I do like.
I think, and this is my personal opinion, if your primary reason to write a post is because you are being paid to write it, you can potentially cross into the same realm as "made for adsense" and "thin affiliate" websites.
There is nothing illegal in such sites, although Google often claim they are weeding them out.
Who knows, maybe you are also testing how many negative reviews you can write before people stop asking you to review their offerings.
As an example of how I use monetization, my Disclosure Policy Plugin site will be monetized with affiliate links for services I think people will appreciate. I will also include dedicated pages with reasons why I selected that particular product on the site in the form of reviews.
Many plugin developers include a donation button.
I don't like donations all that much, because it might be looked on as some kind of obligation to continue development on a project that isn't very financially successful.
I would much prefer to give options that are not direct payments for a single product, but provide me encouragement to continue development in certain directions.
I still don't think I was misrepresenting anything. Your primary motivation was the cash, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as that is clearly stated. Maybe you could have stated that clearer.
Your disclosure does say you are being paid, and it won't affect your opinion, which is cool. It doesn't state your primary motivation.
In my mind (and maybe in that of others) there is a subtle difference between monetization of content and creating content just to get paid for it.
Everyone will have a different opinion about what they read, both what was written, and what wasn't written.
Here is a quote from your Reviewme review.
The motivation was distinctly different in your second review.
I am a member of over 500 affiliate programs and email mailing lists
I have maybe 200 blogs in my feed reader
I have access to 10,000 products to write about in the Clickbank database
I have access to thousands of retailers through Commission Junction, Linkshare and ShareaSale
My motivation is to have a way to monetize what I write about, however I don't think I have ever written about a product I don't like, simply because they are willing to pay me to do it.
I have written multiple posts and articles about how to use products I do like.
I think, and this is my personal opinion, if your primary reason to write a post is because you are being paid to write it, you can potentially cross into the same realm as "made for adsense" and "thin affiliate" websites.
There is nothing illegal in such sites, although Google often claim they are weeding them out.
Who knows, maybe you are also testing how many negative reviews you can write before people stop asking you to review their offerings.
As an example of how I use monetization, my Disclosure Policy Plugin site will be monetized with affiliate links for services I think people will appreciate. I will also include dedicated pages with reasons why I selected that particular product on the site in the form of reviews.
Many plugin developers include a donation button.
I don't like donations all that much, because it might be looked on as some kind of obligation to continue development on a project that isn't very financially successful.
I would much prefer to give options that are not direct payments for a single product, but provide me encouragement to continue development in certain directions.
I still don't think I was misrepresenting anything. Your primary motivation was the cash, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as that is clearly stated. Maybe you could have stated that clearer.
Your disclosure does say you are being paid, and it won't affect your opinion, which is cool. It doesn't state your primary motivation.
In my mind (and maybe in that of others) there is a subtle difference between monetization of content and creating content just to get paid for it.
Maybe a litmus test will help you grasp this
If you were not being paid, would you have written the post?
Maybe a litmus test will help you grasp this
If you were not being paid, would you have written the post?
I have been writing about motivations and that is the fundamental issue
The litmus test: You can only answer "maybe" and someone working to Darren Rouses list would probably be able to answer "yes" every time.
I have been writing about motivations and that is the fundamental issue
The litmus test: You can only answer "maybe" and someone working to Darren Rouses list would probably be able to answer "yes" every time.
Your disclosure mentions you are being paid for the review, but it does not emphasise that that is your primary motivation.
Different people are going to judge what you write in different ways.
If you had put a declaration along the lines of
or
Would your readers think anything less of you?
I have read your post and comments multiple times, and it still suggests the same to me.
Maybe my view of this is different because I have so many options to write about products I actually like and use on a daily basis that can also earn me money that the idea of writing about something for primarily a financial reason is alien to me.
Your disclosure mentions you are being paid for the review, but it does not emphasise that that is your primary motivation.
Different people are going to judge what you write in different ways.
If you had put a declaration along the lines of
or
Would your readers think anything less of you?
I have read your post and comments multiple times, and it still suggests the same to me.
Maybe my view of this is different because I have so many options to write about products I actually like and use on a daily basis that can also earn me money that the idea of writing about something for primarily a financial reason is alien to me.
The fact is that you've drawn these conclusions about my posting ethics based on speculation and assumption. Despite my best efforts to clarify your misrepresentation, you've refused to accept anything that doesn't jibe with your initial inaccurate impressions.
When you wrote the initial post, instead of speculating on what I thought, you should have just asked me.
Your implication was (and continues to be) that I'm unwilling or unable to be discriminating when cash is waved in front of my face. That's both offensive and inaccurate.
It also suggests, curiously, that the entire publishing world is corrupt, as they take advertising dollars from the same companies they write about.
And let me ask again, which of Darren Rowse’s guidelines would I reply ‘maybe’ to, exactly? After all, you indicated that there was a “a very clear difference" between what I wrote, and the guidelines Darren Rowse suggested. If the difference is so striking, then it ought to be a simple matter to point out.
The fact is that you've drawn these conclusions about my posting ethics based on speculation and assumption. Despite my best efforts to clarify your misrepresentation, you've refused to accept anything that doesn't jibe with your initial inaccurate impressions.
When you wrote the initial post, instead of speculating on what I thought, you should have just asked me.
Your implication was (and continues to be) that I'm unwilling or unable to be discriminating when cash is waved in front of my face. That's both offensive and inaccurate.
It also suggests, curiously, that the entire publishing world is corrupt, as they take advertising dollars from the same companies they write about.
And let me ask again, which of Darren Rowse’s guidelines would I reply ‘maybe’ to, exactly? After all, you indicated that there was a “a very clear difference" between what I wrote, and the guidelines Darren Rowse suggested. If the difference is so striking, then it ought to be a simple matter to point out.
Noticed you had 2 posts in my SK logs, so I whitelisted them
Came back to the blog, and noticed that all your other comments had disappeared.
I went into SK, and noticed it had blacklisted your domain name earlier.
I whitelisted the domain name, came back to the blog and still no comments.
Then I noticed it had also blacklisted your IP address.
So I whitelisted your IP address.
Still no comments
So I went rooting around in phpmyadmin, and the database records have been nuked
I do have a backup of the whole conversation in CoComments
http://www.cocomment.com/comments/andybeard
Over the next few days I am going to work out how I can restore those comments to the database.
I drew my conclusion based upon what I read, there was certainly no preconceived notion.
As an example of that, take a look at the first comment I wrote over on Jim's blog (I have been a subscriber there for a couple of months)
http://www.onebyonemedia.com/wordpress/barefoot...
I happened to end up at the post Tris made a little later.
This is because I have a Google alert setup based upon discussion regarding nofollow. I have plans to build a community site for people who don't use nofollow
Your whole complaint about my original post effectively comes down to one word.
Define: Suggest on Google
You are taking "Suggest" to mean "Propose"
I used "Suggest" as "imply as a possibility"
To clear up that misconception, I am willing to change the wording from "suggests" to either "suggests to me" or "implies as a possibility" (state your preference), both of which are saying exactly the same as I originally intended, although it doesn't rule out that the same words might suggest the same thing to other people.
It wasn't speculation and assumption, and I even mentioned here in the comments
That was an nice easy open door, but you didn't take it.
Your comments here have continued to imply the possibility that your primary motivation was the money. In fact you stated that:-
That is your choice
Lets look at my initial impressions closely
Now if we use suggest in the way I was using it
The second half of that you have made abundantly clear is true.
It is my belief that a blogger has a social contract with their readership to always have a primary motivation on content. That can still be achieved even if you are trying to encourage your readers to buy a product which you feel would be highly useful for them.
In that situation Relevance > Cash
As soon as Cash > Relevance you introduce the possibility that the content will be less relevant.
If content becomes less relevant, it doesn't "fit your readership" as much.
If you place Cash > Relevance you have crossed a line much harder to differentiate than whether you should use a link condom or not, and yet you set a specific policy so you didn't have to make that linking decision on a case by case basis.
Note: you should use a proper dynamic link and not nofollow if you want the link to be truly worthless for search engines..
Nothing you have said so far has managed to convince me to change my personal opinion.
In many ways you have reinforced my opinion, and are highlighting the dangers of placing cash > relevance.
You personally asked to be judged, and wanted to explore this topic.
It is my belief that placing relevance first is correct "Discrimination"
If you place cash first, yes I would question your ability to "discriminate"
So maybe you are still misrepresenting yourself? Maybe you were still placing relevance first?
I don't think I have been inaccurate at all as per above.
I also don't think I have been offensive in any way. I think I am actually being helpful in explaining how one kind of reader can come to the conclusions I have.
It seems to me your priority is to try to get me to change my opinions.
Unfortunately if you placed cash > relevance, there is no way I am ever going to change my opinion.
If cash > relevance there is always something more relevant that you could/should have written about instead that would be "highly relevant" rather than just relevant.
But as I have said already, maybe you were putting relevance first, proper discretion, but that isn't what you have stated up until now.
Some of it is certainly corrupt, but there are levels and balances. Adversing sales is most of the time a separate department.
Advertising budget can influence coverage, but it is very hard to not class that as some level of corruption.
A 5 page review with a demo inclusion in the computer games industry of a game that was a little lacklustre with a 65% review can certainly help that game compete with another product that only had 1/2 a page and 85%.
Fortunately for the games industry they can justify it, because it is highly relevant for a magazine to write extensively about all the bad things in a product too.
And that would be perfect justification for your review, but you have stated that cash > relevance
In none of these comments have you stated that relevance > cash. That is the only way I am going to change my opinion.
"Maybe" was only in reference to the litmus test, you never said "maybe" about any of Darren's guidelines.
Here is what I said:-
Note:- "would probably"
Whilst I was writing it, I actually added that in, because it is possible for anyone to weave themselves around a list of guidelines, believe they are following them when they are not, or even follow them "to the letter" but not "spirit".
cash > relevance is the root of all evils.
There is absolutely no need to disclaim your primary motivation for every post, as long as relevance > cash
Noticed you had 2 posts in my SK logs, so I whitelisted them
Came back to the blog, and noticed that all your other comments had disappeared.
I went into SK, and noticed it had blacklisted your domain name earlier.
I whitelisted the domain name, came back to the blog and still no comments.
Then I noticed it had also blacklisted your IP address.
So I whitelisted your IP address.
Still no comments
So I went rooting around in phpmyadmin, and the database records have been nuked
I do have a backup of the whole conversation in CoComments
http://www.cocomment.com/comments/andybeard
Over the next few days I am going to work out how I can restore those comments to the database.
I drew my conclusion based upon what I read, there was certainly no preconceived notion.
As an example of that, take a look at the first comment I wrote over on Jim's blog (I have been a subscriber there for a couple of months)
http://www.onebyonemedia.com/wordpress/barefoot...
I happened to end up at the post Tris made a little later.
This is because I have a Google alert setup based upon discussion regarding nofollow. I have plans to build a community site for people who don't use nofollow
Your whole complaint about my original post effectively comes down to one word.
Define: Suggest on Google
You are taking "Suggest" to mean "Propose"
I used "Suggest" as "imply as a possibility"
To clear up that misconception, I am willing to change the wording from "suggests" to either "suggests to me" or "implies as a possibility" (state your preference), both of which are saying exactly the same as I originally intended, although it doesn't rule out that the same words might suggest the same thing to other people.
It wasn't speculation and assumption, and I even mentioned here in the comments
That was an nice easy open door, but you didn't take it.
Your comments here have continued to imply the possibility that your primary motivation was the money. In fact you stated that:-
That is your choice
Lets look at my initial impressions closely
Now if we use suggest in the way I was using it
The second half of that you have made abundantly clear is true.
It is my belief that a blogger has a social contract with their readership to always have a primary motivation on content. That can still be achieved even if you are trying to encourage your readers to buy a product which you feel would be highly useful for them.
In that situation Relevance > Cash
As soon as Cash > Relevance you introduce the possibility that the content will be less relevant.
If content becomes less relevant, it doesn't "fit your readership" as much.
If you place Cash > Relevance you have crossed a line much harder to differentiate than whether you should use a link condom or not, and yet you set a specific policy so you didn't have to make that linking decision on a case by case basis.
Note: you should use a proper dynamic link and not nofollow if you want the link to be truly worthless for search engines..
Nothing you have said so far has managed to convince me to change my personal opinion.
In many ways you have reinforced my opinion, and are highlighting the dangers of placing cash > relevance.
You personally asked to be judged, and wanted to explore this topic.
It is my belief that placing relevance first is correct "Discrimination"
If you place cash first, yes I would question your ability to "discriminate"
So maybe you are still misrepresenting yourself? Maybe you were still placing relevance first?
I don't think I have been inaccurate at all as per above.
I also don't think I have been offensive in any way. I think I am actually being helpful in explaining how one kind of reader can come to the conclusions I have.
It seems to me your priority is to try to get me to change my opinions.
Unfortunately if you placed cash > relevance, there is no way I am ever going to change my opinion.
If cash > relevance there is always something more relevant that you could/should have written about instead that would be "highly relevant" rather than just relevant.
But as I have said already, maybe you were putting relevance first, proper discretion, but that isn't what you have stated up until now.
Some of it is certainly corrupt, but there are levels and balances. Adversing sales is most of the time a separate department.
Advertising budget can influence coverage, but it is very hard to not class that as some level of corruption.
A 5 page review with a demo inclusion in the computer games industry of a game that was a little lacklustre with a 65% review can certainly help that game compete with another product that only had 1/2 a page and 85%.
Fortunately for the games industry they can justify it, because it is highly relevant for a magazine to write extensively about all the bad things in a product too.
And that would be perfect justification for your review, but you have stated that cash > relevance
In none of these comments have you stated that relevance > cash. That is the only way I am going to change my opinion.
"Maybe" was only in reference to the litmus test, you never said "maybe" about any of Darren's guidelines.
Here is what I said:-
Note:- "would probably"
Whilst I was writing it, I actually added that in, because it is possible for anyone to weave themselves around a list of guidelines, believe they are following them when they are not, or even follow them "to the letter" but not "spirit".
cash > relevance is the root of all evils.
There is absolutely no need to disclaim your primary motivation for every post, as long as relevance > cash
We're not going to change each other's minds. I think you've misrepresented my approach, you don't. I think you're seeing a nuanced question in black and white. You don't, or are comfortable with that perspective. Fair enough on all fronts.
As with most nerd fights, the topic of this conversation is largely moot. I've done far more ethically dubious things on my blog, plugging all sorts of groups and organizations for all sorts of motivations, with disclosure, and my readership has only grown. It's clear to me that the occasional (and it may be very occasional) ReviewMe.com review isn't going to send my readers away in droves.
Thanks for the debate.
We're not going to change each other's minds. I think you've misrepresented my approach, you don't. I think you're seeing a nuanced question in black and white. You don't, or are comfortable with that perspective. Fair enough on all fronts.
As with most nerd fights, the topic of this conversation is largely moot. I've done far more ethically dubious things on my blog, plugging all sorts of groups and organizations for all sorts of motivations, with disclosure, and my readership has only grown. It's clear to me that the occasional (and it may be very occasional) ReviewMe.com review isn't going to send my readers away in droves.
Thanks for the debate.