Truemors
I am a new member on this site. My very first attempt at publishing a story was deleted by a Senior Editor with an e mail note stating that my story link constituted spam. Further correspondence with this editor has not resolved the question of what constituted spam in my particular case. Here are the basic facts:
I published a story and credited the on line journalist that generated the story by direct link.. This on line journalist writes for crooksandliars.com I encouraged readers to read the story for more details than I provided.
When I asked for a more detailed explanation of "link spam" here is what transpired: my e-mail:
Re: "Can Private Insurance Kill You?" marked as Spam
Please help me out here. I fail to see how my linking to a story written by someone on a "commercial external website", constitutes promoting a product or service. Is the writer's opinion a product or service? The fact that the story is on a commercial blog does not mean that I am endorsing this site in general. Merely, that the story was published there.
Respectfully,
Here is the response I received:
Re: "Can Private Insurance Kill You?" marked as Spam
Please find a non-commercial source to reference. This was after waiting for 2 days for a response. My next e-mail and response are as follows:
Re: "Can Private Insurance Kill You?" marked as Spam
I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean by a non commercial source. Does the source have to be a .org? Or is linking directly not permitted? Can I link to the NY Times or Washington Post? And the response:
If the sole purpose of the site is to sell the product or service that your article or the article at that site is selling/promoting/endorsing then it is not an acceptable source. If the source site merely makes money, like the NYTimes, but has no other vested interest in the article topic than it is fine. It feels as if you are deliberately being difficult on this matter. (my bold)An article at an insurance agency site explaining insurance options is very different than an article at a for profit news site outlining the same information. The for profit news site has no vested interest in swaying people to purchase any type of insurance, an agency site does. It is not a hard distinction to understand. As for your linking question, I am afraid I don't understand. If you mean a read more here link or a link to a continuation of your NP post without using highlight that may be flagged as link spam.
Lords knows I can be difficult, but I'm having a hard time seeing how asking for an answer to a reasonable question constitutes being difficult. I still have not received a response to my original question as noted above. The question is and remains: What product or service was being directly promoted by the on line journalist whose story I linked to? Furthermore, what product or service was being directly promoted by crooksandliars?
I want to play by the rules, but the rules need to be objective. If I'm out of line, and can be shown concretely what is wrong with my link, I'll apologize and move on
Please note that I have deliberately removed the name of the editor in question as a matter of privacy and courtesy.
With all due respect,
Nanute
at 10:24 on October 13th, 2009
I can't speak for the editor with whom you are communicating but, honestly, I would probably have marked that piece as spam too. We have a lot of pieces posted to the site that are spam 'dressed up' as stories. For example, a 'news story' about how blueberry supplements are good for your health which includes a link to a site selling blueberry supplements. Most of these stories are posted with the intention of spamming and (in my opinion) in the hope of getting away with it by being a little less obvious. (It doesn't work, for the record.)
It sounds a little like the insurance story you posted may have been interpreted like that, and that was why it was marked as spam. Please note that I am NOT saying that you posted this story with the intention of spamming, as described above, but it may have come across that way.
at 11:44 on October 13th, 2009
Quote from #1: generaldecay at 10:24 on October 13th, 2009
at 11:54 on October 13th, 2009
Quote from #1: generaldecay at 10:24 on October 13th, 2009
Thanks for your comment. While I see your point, I don't see the correlation with regard to my particular link. I wrote a story about private health care and could it kill you. I linked to the online journalist's story that brought the subject to my attention. I don't see where this journalist was selling anything of commercial value. The site in general, may receive revenue from advertising just like any print journalism entity. But, as noted by the editor, there is an "arms length" space between the products being sold and the news stories reported.It is permitted to source traditional print media, which are commercial entities, but online journals or blogs that are "commercial" in nature are not permitted? This smacks of a clear double standard in my opinion. Rules should be consistent and based on clear objectives.
at 13:53 on October 13th, 2009
Perhpas you could try posting it again and we would be able to see what happened and help to see what the problem was, as I have no idea what the original story looked like.
Just make sure if you do want to re-post it, that it is between the hours of 8am and 5pm PST as that is when most of our staff are here and we have more time to look at separate matters.
at 13:06 on October 15th, 2009
Quote from #3: nanute at 11:54 on October 13th, 2009
Thanks for the comment, nanute. I'm afraid in the absence of context, I can't help you further. Amy's suggestion of reposting the piece is a good one and would likely clear up any confusion.
Thanks.
at 13:51 on October 15th, 2009
Quote from #5: generaldecay at 13:06 on October 15th, 2009
Thanks for the response. What context? Is the link that I provided, and particularly,is the on line journalist selling a product or service? It seems like a very simple question to answer. What is the confusion? Or, did I not understand the "context" of the reply I received?
Best,nanute
at 00:06 on October 16th, 2009
Quote from #6: nanute at 13:51 on October 15th, 2009
Your piece, the link, the original piece etc.
at 01:19 on October 16th, 2009
Quote from #7: generaldecay at 00:06 on October 16th, 2009
Thanks for the response. When the original story was removed I lost all ability to access. I re-posted a 2nd edition story with basically the same content. The only difference from the first story what that I did not direct link to the site where the on line journalist's piece brought the subject to my attention. It is still available, and has not been removed.
I hate to beat a dead horse, but I was told that the link I provided was "a commercial source that was promoting a particular product or service." ' I've asked for, and not received an answer to the question of what product or service?
I've heard from one editor, not the one in question, who was very professional and as helpful as possible. This individual used the same logic as your have. If that is the criteria to make a judgment, it won't happen, and I've basically given up and moved on in the spirit of comity.
Again, thanks for the response.
at 01:47 on October 16th, 2009
In reply to #8 nanute at 01:19 on October 16th, 2009
That's fine. Could you possibly tell me where the re-posted story is located so that I can see the link in question? The reason that I personally have not provided you with an answer is because I've not know which link you've been talking about. I didn't realise that it was reposted. I dare say this knowledge would have saved us going around the houses like this and the poor dead horse! :)
at 02:05 on October 16th, 2009
http://my.nowpublic.com/world/can-private-health-insurance-kill-you-2nd-edition
Quote from #9: generaldecay at 01:47 on October 16th, 2009
I love your sense of humor. The problem with the 2nd edition is that the link is not direct. The first story link took you to the page on the site in question. Here it is sited as a source only.