Bogus hotlinks infecting PhotoNet posts!

Brian, thanks for the response. I'm not sure though that one of the important points for me and perhaps others is summarized in your analysis. Let me try. As the creator of information that is posted on your site, it is my intention to share content. It is not my intention that this information that I have created be converted into an advertising vehicle, particularly one in which I have no control, and to advertisers I may not endorse. If that is the case, I would think very hard about sharing the content, because I do not want to help create advertising links over which I have no control, for content not intended to serve that purpose.

 

Your analogy of editorial versus advertising space in a newspaper is perhaps the most apt one, except that I would be in the position not of reader, but of writer, at least of a letter to the editor.

So now photo.net is trying to generate ad revenue derived directly from my words. I would expect my cut of say revenue. Instead of selling member's photo for profit, photo.net is attempting to sell member's words for profit, without prior consent. Very interesting....there must be prior case law regarding this issue.

Brian,

I'd like to restate that my main objections were readability related more than the violation of my "intellectual property". Secondly, the few links that I did mouse over were in my opinion poorly related to the text. As an example the word "Canon" linked to batteries and "camera" linked to Dell. In my mind, that's pretty far out of context and defeats the idea. I don't know how these links pay the site, but if it's about "click through" I don't think we'd be getting much bang for our buck.

 

Just another $.02

There's a simple solution. Those who feel their words and views are their property and are

concerned about how they are used, should simply not post.

Brad, that's great, any other lose-lose scenarios we can construct?

Obviously, the whole point/benefit to this type of advertising is that it's "stealth" in nature, i.e. people will click the link not really knowing what it is. The guys who create this kind of stuff lick their lips in eager anticipation of being able to sell it to advertisers under the pretext that "they won't even know what hit them."

 

That's just sad, and I hope the people continue to express their outrage at this travesty.

 

That being said, the free/trial accounts MUST end! There's tons of people who use this site "everyday" and don't pay--I say cut them off. No other mainstream photo site allows trial memberships beyond 30 days, nor should Photo.net.

 

Drop the sleazy/trickery ads, let the dust settle a bit, and announce that trial memberships will now end after 30 days. Watch the money roll in.

 

Of course, it IS entirely possible that the reason paid memberships haven't been pushed is because the owners can generate MORE money from advertising based upon the number of "hits" they can generate, than if they had fewer members via a paid subscriber base. If that's the case, if the long-term plan is to continue the free trials so as to inflate the hit count just to be used as a pitch to generate more ad revenue via these sleazy/trick ads, then it will likely be the ruin of Pnet.

<I>Brad, that's great, any other lose-lose scenarios we can construct?

</I><P>

 

That's funny. As an ending sentence on my above post I had put down, "Everybody wins." but

took it out at the last moment. Should have left it in there.

Thanks Brad for the reply. Someone once told me, "Where you stand depends upon where you sit." From here, I'd rather not stop participating in the forums, so that's why it would be a "lose" for me if I did.

Brian -- perhaps you can address this speculation by B Diamond? --

 

"Of course, it IS entirely possible that the reason paid memberships haven't been pushed is because the owners can generate MORE money from advertising based upon the number of "hits" they can generate, than if they had fewer members via a paid subscriber base. If that's the case, if the long-term plan is to continue the free trials so as to inflate the hit count just to be used as a pitch to generate more ad revenue via these sleazy/trick ads, then it will likely be the ruin of Pnet."

Brian, the problem I have with links in a text I wrote is the lack of controll I have over the links.

 

If I write something about a way to keep digtial things for a long time (sorry, I have to avoid certain terms here) and it is linked to related products it may not be the products providing my pay check.

 

And although I can prove somebody else proveded the links I'll have a hard time explaining why I felt a need to write about it knowing I may support a competitor.

 

That I write under my real name doesn't make it easyer, a less internet savy customer who kows PNet might ask why I put links to a competing product in my posts on photo.net.

 

On the other hand, I post too much anyways :-)

Brian, I also have a problem with this advertising method, mainly for reasons above, specifically:

<ul>

<li>I don't agree that it is obvious that the links were not inserted by the poster, especially to an inexperienced web user. To an experienced web user, the green double underline just looks weird.

<li>While I understand your interpretation of the TOC, I think most people would interpret them to mean that you are only likely to remove inappropriate material. I also think posts edited by moderators should be marked as such, as they no longer reflect the posters intent.

<li>This is not normal behaviour for forums, and AFAIK is unique. I think users should therefore be warned in a more explicit way than an interpretation of the TOC that their words may be used for advertising purposes.

<li>On a technical level, the pattern matching is bound to be problematic; as per the example in Jay's original post where PC cable linked to a personal computer manufacturer - same would apply if discussing PC (perspective control) lenses.

<li>Although you haven't had complaints about the articles, could this be because few of the authors or posters have visited them since this was implemented? I would imagine most of the traffic to the "Learn" section, for example, is from newer readers rather than forum regulars.

<li>The idea of linking to definitions is far more useful; one example that I saw in the learn section linked "Wide Angle Lenses" to a generic shopping site. Surely more useful to link to a definition of what a wide angle lens actually is?

</ul>

<P>

Since this is no longer implemented in the forums, I can only assume that this discussion has given you pause for thought; can you at least sympathise with the views expressed here?

Brian, I think that your argument on this issue, and I must say on many others as well, assumes a certain level of knowledge and sophistication about the subject involved by most if not all users. I would assume the opposite. In this case, that every person who is exposed to these green roll over links would assume what I did and what Laurie did . . . . .

 

 

Laurie Meehan-Elmer Photo.net Patron, aug 01, 2005; 04:56 p.m.

 

"While I have no issue with the standard fare of adverts, I'm not too keen on this either. I just ran across a few in a thread I was reading. I thought the link was included by the person posting a question. Basically, I was tricked into clicking on the link."

 

As a writer, I am certain that some readers will continue to make that assumption even as others learn to ignore it. It's simply not acceptable, and Brad's comment shows a complete lack of understanding about the extent to which the value of this site is based on writers like Ben.

 

I'm not a complete web neophyte. Why have I never seen this anywhere? I can only assume its because the host of the sites I've visited and the articles and posts I've read would never put up with it.

I'm not very smart, so someone please help me understand this.

 

Photo.net offers limited free trials based upon an honor system. At this moment, approx. 3,000 people are paying, happy with their trial's perceived conclusion. (That is, when their mailed check gets cashed - sometimes, they don't <anyone tracking that statistic?>).

 

This system, however, becomes so taken advantage of by freeloaders that the site must use creative advertising to finance server upgrades, maintenance, and staff to keep it running with the ever-increasing bandwidth. . . .in the eventual hope that the site's investors can be paid off (through what means, exactly?).

 

Some freeloaders, numbering in the hundreds of thousands - perhaps even over a million - having used the site for years without paying, start complaining about the new advertising. . .while thousands (even millions, did you say, Brian?) of others choose to use the site as image storage, and some even like KodakGallery.com or Shutterfly, posting pics and slapping each other on the back all day for what a fine shot of the cat or duck it is.

 

Have I got this straight? Granted my Masters' wasn't in business administration, so I may be confused.

 

Ben, you're even-tempered... help me out here. Help me understand this. Did the site's own generosity bite it in the butt? Is the expanding traffic forcing methods of income that would be easily settled if more stingent rules on sign-up were involved? Is charging more to overseas customers in Europe so outrageous, if it's justified in overhead? Is the "blessed" paid subscribers' voices of matter, or is the non-subscribing millions they stand facing more powerful a lobby, as their traffic generates so much advertising income? Is there any irony in all of this?

<I>Brad's comment shows a complete lack of understanding about the extent to which the

value of this site is based on writers like Ben.</I><P>

 

No it doesn't. There are a lot of contributors here. Everyone needs to make a choice with

respect to posting in light of the ads and how they might be construed. I'm simply offering

an opposing view, and think the worry about how someone outside of pnet might

misinterpret endorsement of products via the ads is way off-base. <P>

 

But even more importantly, those that stomp their feet, feign moral outrage with loaded

words, and who make threatening demands should simply be shown the door.

Hi Chris. Even tempered, hah! But the answers to your questions rely on the site's long term goals. I don't know what they are, do you? Anyone see anything about the site's long term goals?

 

I think only someone like Brian can address them, if that person chooses to do so.

Carl:

 

I'm no dope on the internet but I'd never seen ads like this before, either.

Conni

Ben, it just seems to me like Photo.net has proved itself to the masses with traffic like that. It's survived years (though I've seen statments that it had bumps). Think about it - there are a lot of other sites out there...one such "contest" site has paid-only participation; while I don't know their financials, seems to me that it does show that people will pay for all sorts of reasons. Ergo,

 

a) This site is a gold mine. Above it's stated - and it's obvious that it's so for thousands - it's a daily visit. It's worth its salt, and then some. I'd agree. Love it, and what it offers. The knowledge base alone is worth it. It's like having a store full of friendly, knowledgeable salespeople who want you to improve, and don't want to be paid for the advice.

 

b) There's obviously a debate, or should be. That debate is thus: More profitability how? Non-enforcement of grace periods, heightening traffic, which in turn heightens ad revenue. . .versus ENFORCEMENT of grace periods, reducing site traffic, but gaining subscription payments.

 

In "b," there must have been some math performed. Right? So, either that math isn't stable in its forecast, hasn't been done, or HAS been done, and you're seeing its latest conclusion in the ad links.

 

People who pay get piece of mind that they contributed, an email address, more critique options, and a lot of space on the server for uploads.

 

People who do NOT pay get pretty much the same, sans the email address and a few less frequent critique options (I'll suggest that server space is on an "as enforced" basis, as there are some mighty huge portfolios out there by unpaid members). Oh - and I saw it here that paid members get less pop-ups, too.

 

Again, I'm not that smart, so perhaps my logic is flawed. And, of course, I'm near-wildly speculating, as we're not often privvy to such insights.

chris, whether to increase revenues via advertising or subscription or both is based not only on results so far, but what the site's owners' long term plans are. A subscribere once compared the site to AM radio. Well, an AM radio station isn't going to attempt to become National Public Radio and vica versa for numerous reasons, even if each finds the other's revenue generation methods compelling. Okay, if you want to dialogue more, email me, don't want to take up this thread anymore with my musings and speculations.

Ben and Chris, your input seems very much on topic.

At present, subscriptions represent about a third of our revenue, and advertising the rest. We need both, and we need to increase the revenue some more, among other reasons so that I can take a vacation from time to time, and have some time off. The people who loaned the site money over many years might also like to start getting repayments at some point, I dare say.

 

Increasing revenue is a balancing act. It is a community site and a fair bit of the content comes from people who steadfastly refuse to subscribe. They don't think they should have to subscribe. Information wants to be free. They are paying for their participation with their extremely valuable content, etc, etc.

 

People tend to inflate the value of their own posts, and I think there are very, very few non-subscribers who are so helpful and informative that they should be relieved of the duty of subscribing. (Most of the ones that I can think of off the top of my head, are already subscribers anyway. Funny how that works.) But taken as a whole, the posts of all the non-subscribers are important to the site, and it would be a big impact if all of these contributions suddenly disappeared.

 

If I start forcing people to subscribe, then subscriptions will go up, at least initially, but the traffic will go down. The immediate effect would be less revenue from advertising, which is directly correlated with traffic. The quantity of content would also decline. As far as content quality is concerned, I suppose the average quality would go up, but many quality posts would still be lost. All this might result in a downward spiral of less and less traffic chasing less and less content, so that eventually subscribers abandon the site also, resulting in fewer subscriptions than I started with, as well as less advertising revenue. End result: the site collapses.

 

On the other hand, if I increase the advertising, then some people will see all the ads and either be aggravated or suppose that with "all the advertising", the site must be rolling in dough and not need their subscription. People don't need much of an excuse to withhold a subscription, and few people have much of an idea of what it costs to run a site like this or how little money the advertising brings in - especially the sort of discrete, inobtrusive, advertising that people insist upon on this site. For example, with nearly 600,000 page impressions per day in the Gallery section, we make about $14.00 per day from the Google ads in that section. An increase in advertising eventually will drive away visitors and lower traffic. One cannot keep increasing advertising without limit. There must be a reasonable ratio of advertising to content -- unless, as on Popular Photography and a lot of other print magazines, the advertising *is* effectively the content.) If increasing the advertising drives content contributors away then eventually the traffic will decline too. Increasing advertising beyond a certain point is self-defeating.

 

Regarding these IntelliTXT links, they are more widespread than you think on the Web. I hadn't noticed them much either before we put them up on this site, but since then I've noticed them all over the place. (It is like brands of cars. You never notice how many people have a particular brand, until you are driving that kind of car yourself.) I should keep a list of sites where I've noticed them. They are very inobtrusive, even more so than the Google ads, which is why I thought they would be a fit for this site. It never occurred to me that people would consider that their forum posts were sacred texts that couldn't be sullied by advertising links inserted by the site, but given how people feel about advertising, I should have foreseen that.

 

One consequence of this episode is that I've clarified the Terms of User to leave no question that the site can modify posts. I didn't think it was unclear before. The plain text was that the site reserves the right to modify posts, but the adjacency of this sentence to others about abusive posts has apparently lead people to believe that only abusive posts may be modified. That isn't what it stated before, and I've made it more clear now.

 

This does not mean that we will be inserting advertising links in forum posts, necessarily, although I don't rule that out. But I do want it to be clear that some of the other scenarios, such as links to other articles on photo.net or glossary terms, etc, could happen.

Thanks very much for the response, Brian. I empathize greatly with your struggles, and use that term deliberately because I am sure this site takes enormous effort and strain. The genius of it to me is its extraordinary interactivity among its many users, but it also brings its share of dilemmas; you walk in uncharted waters where few sites have gone before. I do not always agree with your experiments, but applaud you for attempting them in your efforts to keep the site going.

 

Putting aside whether or not to REQURE subscriptions -- what about doing more to ENCOURAGE them? I don't think periodic PBS style (in this case entirely visual) subscription drives, specific fundraising drives, and sliding scale subscription fee charts would put people off the way REQUIRING subscriptions might.

 

Regardless, thanks for taking the time to give your candid thoughts in this thread. It helps a lot to understand your frame of mind.

Brian,

 

Perhaps more subscriptions would be encouraged, without a significant drop in participation, if the "trial" accounts didn't have so darn many privileges that eat up so much bandwidth.

 

I suggest the following privileges for non-subscribers:

 

1. Unlimited access to forums, including the privilege to initiate a post and ask questions. This allows new users to post questions and get to know the community. If they like it, and want to increase their participation in the galleries or such, then perhaps they will pony up the subscription fee for an enriched experience. It also allows non-paying members to contribute to the knowledge base. I know several non-subscribers who contribute significant and valuable content, and share their knowledge freely.

 

2. Restricted access to classifieds. You can post responses to ads, but you can not initiate a FS or WTB post. If you want to advertise your goods, you pay for the privilege, just like everywhere else (eBay, newspapers, others sites). A quick peek at the classifieds tonight shows that of the first ten (10) ads, only ONE (1) was posted by a subscriber.

 

3. Maximum of 1 (One) MB of photo storage, images automatically deleted after thirty days. Allows access to the photo critique process for learning and feedback, but discourages the user from using the site as a free photo hosting site. If you want permanent photo storage, you pay for it. Plain and simple.

 

Just some suggestions. Part the reason I think so many "freeloaders" are reluctant to subscribe is because they get TOO MUCH access for free. Why should they bother?

Of course for the above to work at all, you really do need to find a workable solution (for all) to the overseas payment process. Western Union Money Transfer perhaps (212,000 Western Union Agent locations in over 195 countries worldwide)? Can't be any more a pain in the a** than processing personal cheques.

First Brian, thanks for reconsidering turning contributor's posts into ads. I hope you and

photo.net can find a way to continue to refrain from turning our words into ads for third

parties. I'm not against ads per se, in fact this is the first post (i think) where I've ever had

anything negative to say about them, but I really think you cross the line when you change

text under a persons byline into an ad--but this has been discussed enough today.

 

You've gone on to say:

"It is a community site and a fair bit of the content comes from people who steadfastly

refuse to subscribe. They don't think they should have to subscribe."

 

I was a subscriber once, but you are right--I don't think I HAVE to subscribe. I'm really

sorry and do empathize with photo.net's struggle, but when photo.net was transfered

from the Greenspun/ArsDigita nest into the real world it choose to become a FOR-PROFIT

corporation. I have no problem with that, but I don't feel any obligation to donate money

to a for-profit corporation. A for-profit corporation needs to offer something that is

valuable to me that isn't available freely and if they don't, they shouldn't blame me for not

parting with my dollar, they should reconsider the services they are offering and the way

they are offering them. I give to NPR and PBS and would give substantially more than $25

to photo.net if they had made the choice to become a non-profit, but I'm still waiting for

photo.net to compel the $25 from my pocket by a method other than guilt.

 

You have a large user-base of potential subscribers who are also potential advertising

targets. When I became a subscriber it felt like the attitude here was "what can we offer

people to get them to subscribe." Some efforts were made such as an email address and

webpage, and I had hope that you would continue to find creative ways to offer something

to separate the services offered to subscribers from the free services. I was actually a little

excited to see what you would come up with. In the course of that year the ads started

showing up, there was an enormous energy expended in the photo rating system which

made me and others delete our image and never want to upload another, and there was a

shift in attitude in the direction of "how much can we use the visitors here without turning

people off." And now in threads like this you wonder why you can't have it both ways. You

have a choice to treat your visitors like customers (and potential customers) or treat them

like sheep. In this latest intelliTXT debacle you have made a wide step in the direction of

the later.

I agree 110% with Mike's post above, particularly:

 

"Just some suggestions. Part the reason I think so many "freeloaders" are reluctant to subscribe is because they get TOO MUCH access for free. Why should they bother?"

 

Personally, I'd let the dust settle a bit on the more agressive ads that people have been complaining about recently--I know I would not have paid my membership fees if I thought I was going to be barraged with rather obnoxious pop-ups and now these new "stealth links." Fence-sitters will use that as justification for NOT paying, and I don't blame them.

 

"Of course for the above to work at all, you really do need to find a workable solution (for all) to the overseas payment process. Western Union Money Transfer perhaps (212,000 Western Union Agent locations in over 195 countries worldwide)? Can't be any more a pain in the a** than processing personal cheques."

 

Why not Paypal? I sell excess inventory from my business every day all over the world using Paypal--credit cards do all the currency conversions. Yes, there's probably a very small minority of people who don't have a credit card, but there are other online payment options (online checks, direct deposit, wire transfers, etc.)

 

If the porn sites can get it set up to take a variety of payments from a worlwide customer base (and I'm sure they do....lol) then Pnet could too........And wouldn't that be a refreshing problem: "how are we going to handle all this money people want to send us??"