[Source: Andy Beard] quoted: 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 …

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.

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-plays-no-footsies-with-reviewmecom/

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

# 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

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.

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.