There were some pretty heated comments flying around so I thought that it’d be best to let things calm down slightly before attempting to pen a response. With that in mind,
I’d like to do three things today:
- Talk about what went wrong.
- Clarify the content of the post, and the reasons for writing it.
- Clarify our editorial policy and talk about the future.
What Went Wrong
We’ve read every single comment, every blog post, every Facebook thread, and every tweet. I think it’s fair to say that Godwin’s Law was pretty well fulfilled.
That’s all I’ll say in the context of “we” – the rest is all me:
The subject in question is one that I know and care about. A few years ago I started out in one of the UK’s largest SEO companies, and it was there that I developed a disgust with most things to do with SEO. It was at this agency, you see, that I discovered the entire business model of SEO was to create spam blogs with fake content and paid links – then bill clients thousands of pounds per day for services rendered. The very idea that this was a professional service at all made me pretty sick.
I developed a passionate hatred for cluttering the internet with bogus content and links. Leading people completely astray, purely for the sake of commercial gain. I parted ways with the agency after 6 months. It should have been sooner.
So if the post came across as preachy (and I am reliably informed that it did) then it’s down to my own guilt. I was writing with this in mind, rather than what I should have had in mind: How is this subject relevant to travel bloggers and how can we approach it constructively? It could have and should have been a more professional post as a representative of Travelllll.com.
So what went wrong? Basically, it was rushed – and a post that was all but a draft got published before it was ready.
Travelllll.com has a minimum quota of 3 posts per day in an effort to bring you a constant stream of news and content. Publishing that quantity of content is no mean feat, and after 2 months, we slipped up on scheduling. I was responsible for writing the last post of the day on Thursday and I wrote it out in my standard, outspoken fashion, but without enough consideration. I stand by the core content (and we’ll come back to that in a moment), but the threatening tone and approach of the article was wrong to begin with, and wrong to have slipped through the editorial net before being published.
This was a single opinion piece written by me on the subject of paid links. There are 133 other posts, 8 pages, 5 categories, 15 post types, and 319 tags. This site is not just my views, opinions, and words – it is made up of many people who work very hard.
The Content Itself
First, let’s clarify what paid links were actually being discussed:Undisclosed paid contextual links inside the content of a blog post, with no indication or disclosure that they are sponsored. This is the reason the original article referred several times to “phony content”.
Here’s where the biggest failing on my part came in: My issue with this subject revolves almost entirely around the integrity of the content. I was referring to people who use undisclosed paid contextual links to the extent that the original content was degraded in value. Note, that the original Gawker article referenced was a gentleman suggesting to bloggers that they should hide links from their editors to get the content published on a site. I believe a very small number of travel bloggers actually use paid links to this extent, but we’ve all come across it in some form at some point. Had I articulated this properly, perhaps the responses would have been very different.
When I suggested reporting blogs of this nature – I didn’t mean that all travel bloggers should start reporting each other or turning against each other. I was suggesting that we might clean up the industry by talking about the ones who are damaging it. Where’s the line? I don’t know. That’s certainly a point of discussion. As the old saying goes… News is something that someone doesn’t want printed. Everything else is advertising.
In hindsight – was this a good suggestion? Probably not. Was my reasoning behind it malicious or an attempt to turn bloggers against each other? Also no.
I’m happy to make a commitment to you that while we won’t shy away from talking about the subject or news surrounding it – we won’t be calling anyone out publicly for having paid links on their site.
When the comments started rolling I thought I’d pissed off the few people who were actually abusing paid links. By the time it became clear that everyone thought I was talking about them – it was too late.
I rewrote the most contentious parts in the article immediately after this point, in an attempt to reduce the careless/agressive tone, which brings me to my final point…
Our Editorial Policy
This site, from day one, has had a system in place which *always* makes public any changes to an article after it has been published. Any post that has been edited has a “Post Revisions” link at the bottom. This is, and always has been, clearly outlined in our editorial policy. It allows you to see every revision of the post, what was added, what was taken away, what was changed. It’s the most comprehensive and in depth text version-tracking that you’ll find on any site.
A couple of people have implied that this was hidden or deceptive. The reality is that it’s always been there, and while we clearly haven’t made enough effort to draw people’s attention to it, it isn’t something we’ve been dishonest about in any way.
Based on Friday’s comments, I understand that people feel this isn’t enough – so effective immediately we are adding to our editorial policy that any edits made to a post after publication which significantly alter the tone and/or meaning of the content will additionally be disclosed by a yellow info-box at the end of the post.
Lastly, there was also some confusion about the nature of staff responses to the post. Please note that all Travelllll.com staff comments are clearly labelled with blue staff badges. If there’s no badge, then the commenter’s views are their own.
In Closing
The subject of the integrity of content is an important one, and paid links play a big part in that. It’s a subject that we certainly aren’t going to police you on, but Sheila Scarborough was very much on the money with her comment on the original post. She said:
I’m not sure that the point of Travelllll is to do much squishy-huggy “supporting of the travel blogging community.” Like Tnooz covers and reports on travel tech, this site launched to cover all aspects of travel blogging as a creative outlet and/or a profession…
We’re going to keep on talking about stuff that’s contentious. You’re probably not always going to like it, and you’re definitely not always going to agree with it . But you know what? We’re going to do better at it, we’re going to put a lot more consideration into how we go about it, and we’re going to keep listening to your feedback.
Thanks for holding us, and our annoying domain name, to a higher standard. Sorry – for the way in which this was handled.
Photo by TumbleWeed:-)
Post Revisions:
- 9 December, 2011 @ 10:21 [Current Revision] by John O'Nolan
- 31 October, 2011 @ 22:42 by John O'Nolan
John, I enjoyed the previous post. I think it was quite personal for a lot of bloggers (whatever side of the fence you’re on) but it encouraged some debate which is always good.
I think whether or not you decide to sell links is a very personal choice. I run a few blogs and I don’t sell links (even nofollowed) and I’m not really interested in sponsored/commerical guest posts. Personally, I think it can make a blog look both tacky and can ruin its credibility. But that’s a personal choice. I don’t think anyone wants to sell links (even those that do) but it’s a good way to bring in a reasonable income.
I think these subjects need to be covered, but regardless of your view there’s no need to rat out fellow bloggers. Glad to see the public apology though. Takes a lot to do that!
Agreed with James, it’s not everyday a writer apologizes for such strong opinions. Appreciated!
I’d still dig this site if you only published 1x or 2x/day. To avoid burnout, and avoid this happening again, maybe scale back on your output?
Thanks for explanation.
Hi Kara, thanks for the comment! It wasn’t so much a quality vs quantity thing on this occasion – just explaining how much work is involved :)
I agree with Kara – I’ve generally found your content interesting and useful and will happily take less content to keep it relevant and high-quality.
I suspect I should make an apology (at least a half-apology anyway) for my part in the proceedings too. I wasn’t trying to make any moral judgement on whether selling links – as you meant it and I understood it – was right or wrong. But I did think that it was worth pointing out that many of the angry responses were from people who were selling said links and that their opinion on the article’s merits may be somewhat skewed by being the target of it. And I probably got to the stage where I was enjoying the wind-up too much. So apologies for that and for my own rather bull in a china shop approach to making the point.
However, I have seen other posts written in relation to John’s masterful piece of red-raggery. Travelllll shouldn’t be about mindless, endless support for the self-styled travel blogging community. Heaven knows there’s already enough of that. If it is nice and supportive all the time, it relinquishes the ability to properly report, reflect debate and start discussion. If people want to tell each other how great they are 24 hours a day, they can do so by leaving comments to this effect on each others’ blogs. Oh, hang on…
Just because people are not as harsh as you, and as often, does not mean that the “travel blogging community” is nice and supportive all the time. If you think that then you clearly don’t know the industry perhaps as well as your should.
I do not know a single travel blogger that hasn’t and won’t accept constructive criticism.
Half an apology is pointless, rather like a journalist getting something wrong on the front page and then printing a small, boxed apology on page 18.
You approach does you no favours David and that is a real shame. Knowing you as little as I do, I can see you have a lot of knowledge and that people can learn a lot from you. I enjoyed listening to your thoughtful, insightful and slightly humorous talk at Travel Blog Camp last year.
I personally appreciate your attempt to round up the horses, but to be fair, they shouldn’t have left the barn in the first place.
It’s half an apology because I’ll apologise for the things I’m sorry about, and not the things I’m not sorry about. I think that’s fair enough.
John – Thanks for the clarification and apology.
David – Calling out my website was intentionally hurtful and, in hindsight with clarification of the meaning of the article, untrue. We pay our writers on our site and for the first year we paid writers from our own pockets. Every penny I make goes back into our site and not in my bank account. We have legitimate advertisers like Contiki, CEA Study Abroad, USAC and The Humanity Exchange among others. But I don’t think you knew that since you probably only read through my site for evidence otherwise. In the end, your attempt at an apology is accepted but you certainly didn’t hurt my feelings so please don’t flatter yourself.
Thanks for the voice of reason Oliver.
I thought the article was fine.
The only thing I’d disagree with is the implication that disclosing paid SEO links makes them okay–or a good idea. Whether you sell such links openly or secretly, they’re an attempt to subvert search algorithms and expose users to search spam. And if you’re one of the unlucky bloggers whose site is picked for a manual review by Google or Bing, you won’t escape a penalty just because you disclosed the fact that you’re selling links to spammers.
My issue on the last article was the author doing the changes to the post. They keep referring back to that widget like it’s gold or something. Like they have something that no one else has. I really don’t think anyone cares for the most part about that widget.
Then the official fix for it is: “Based on Friday’s comments, I understand that people feel this isn’t enough – so effective immediately we are adding to our editorial policy that any edits made to a post after publication which significantly alter the tone and/or meaning of the content will additionally be disclosed by a yellow info-box at the end of the post.”
For one, the changes shown are confusing and not easily identifiable with the format you are using with that widget. I find it funny that you put it at the bottom of the article instead of the top. It’s kind of like reading something, then at the end you say “Ahh just kidding, we changed it. So to read it like it was you’ll have to start all over again but then drop down to a really funky-hard to analyze format that we hope will just confuse you enough that you will stop!” Who wants to do that or will?
Overall, why are you guys significantly altering the tone and/or meaning of your content in the first place? I know very well that if 100 people would have commented 100% in favor of the article then you wouldn’t have changed it, in fact you would has pushed it even more, rode the wave in exc exc. You only changed when people started calling you out on it for generalizing and making statements that were unclear. Is it ethical to change the meaning once you realize that people don’t support it?
Seriously this is what got me fired up and is what lost your creditability for most people who read it.
I’d like to see an article bring up the question of “Should You Change The Meaning of An Article After It’s Been Published?” I doubt I’ll ever see that on Travelllllllllll. Yeah, it was the ethics that you did that pissed people off (calling people out for not being ethical then the ethical issue of changing an article after the fact) and I think making an official statement that you’ll keep changing the meanings of an article (for whatever reason) is unwise and shows just how much Travellllllll really isn’t sorry or really didn’t learn much from this at all.
Thanks for your feedback T-roy, I appreciate you taking the time to write all of that up.
Maybe some further clarification is needed based on some of the comments made. I thought John stated it pretty clearly with this statement:
“I was referring to people who use undisclosed paid contextual links to the extent that the original content was degraded in value.”
I’ve sold a few links here and there but not something I do a lot of even though I’ve gotten some requests. I am VERY selective with any links someone wants to put on my site. There are rules that must be followed:
1. I write ALL content for paid links – ALWAYS! NO EXCEPTIONS! I made the mistake of allowing a bad sponsored post once – never again (guest posts from writers I know are allowed but I am not paid for these). My readers are important and I will GUARANTEE quality content whether there is a link (mine or anyone else) or not.
2. I validate all links before accepting them. Most of the links I have used are for flights, hotels, car, etc searches for specific locations or markets. I verify that these links are valid and USEFUL to readers.
3. All links must be relevant to the content. If I write a post on Europe, I am not going to give someone a link on Asia.
4. All links and posts disclosed.
5. Maximum paid link posts a month – 3. So far, I don’t think I’ve done more than 2. However, I write a lot and content is king. I am not being paid to write for others. I write for readers.
So if that criteria makes me a spammy paid link seller so be it. I write content for my readers first and foremost and only share links that I myself am interested in (paid or not). Am I upset at those who disagree with me selling links? No. However, I think it’s good to clarify what paid links looks like to some of us who focus on quality content and aren’t spammy in any way.
“I write content for my readers first and foremost”
I don’t think any of that makes you spammy, Jeremy – in fact it sounds like you have a very good handle on the sort of content that your audience want from you, and how to keep it legitimate.
Well said Jeremy. I go by the same rules.
Agreed Jeremy! We do the same. I dropped the ball once purely from not knowing any better. I learned, I got better, which is all we can ever ask or hope for.
Trust me that one time we stuffed up, we still haven’t heard the end of it as one unforgiving reader won’t stop talking about it all over the web, even after I addressed it to her with apologies and to a silent reply.
Your readers will know and they will drop you in it, so it is best to follow a policy that has their interests at heart.
I go by the same rules. I’ve allowed a couple of paid “guest posts” in the past and was not happy with the results. I even rejected one entirely – only to see it pop up on another site!
If I include a link then it must be relevant and on the extremely rare occasions (ie. once or twice, ever) that I have been paid for it, I’ve disclosed it as a sponsored message. I feel that this disclosure is important to my integrity as a blogger and the service that I give readers. The sad irony is that this disclosure actually leaves me MORE vulnerable to being reported to and penalised by Google. What price ethics?
It would be in my own self interest to hide any commercial arrangements, which I believe is what most bloggers do. I know there is a lot undisclosed link selling going on because when SEO companies pitch me, they often send me links to recent examples. I’m sure it’s because of fear of Google, not because they wish to hide things from their readers.
I first came to this site because I believed it would be a good medium to learn from others, get news on the industry, and info regarding travel blogging in general. It seemed like a good idea and one that I would benefit from. Stories such as “how to”, “good practices” and even “the do’s and don’ts” with an explanation why all are needed. I did not come here to read condescending, we know better than you articles just because someone decided to make themselves the industry guardian. I find it childish and presumptuous to even imply that you will report people to the all mighty Google just because you do not agree with what they are doing. I have never considered reporting someone unless their activities were illegal. Should I time commercials on TV to make sure they are :30 seconds and not :31? Maybe I should report the company since they are scamming the system. It almost reminds me of the old lady that constantly looks out of the window to see what is happening outside so she gossip to the neighbors and call the police because the kids are riding bikes on the sidewalk. I guess I need to look for another community that can give me insight. And before I start getting scolded. I welcome constructive criticism of my site. Please if you see something I can do better or not do at all drop me a line and tell me. I can use all the help I can get. Just don’t gossip to the neighbors and call the police because my bike is on the sidewalk.
I didn’t disagree with the original article, except perhaps on the tone of a few sentences. And even then, I was still in agreement with your point as a whole. Particularly that closing sentence about writing the travel blog I’d want to read. … Still, I think it’s good you clarified your stance and made an apology to those who were so wounded by your words! I hope it does help. I hated to see the division the article was creating when I highly doubt you ever intended that.
Please don’t stop writing. Kara has an excellent point re: perhaps posting less and going live with articles that have been even more vetted than the links article was. But please, don’t stop. I’m excited to see where travelllll goes from here :)
You lost a lot of readers, myself included. I was curious about your apology, but this is the last time I will visit the site. Your audience is 100% made up of the travel blogging community. The fact you deemed it necessary to insult that community, therefore alienating them from your site, reveals a certain lack of maturity, which is alarming. It’s also hard to take travel blogging advice from people who aren’t travel bloggers. IF you have a successful site and want to write an article that can help the community, great. But if you’re just a wonk with an idea, please keep it to yourself.
Hey Matt, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. I’m not sure if you actually read this post or if you just skipped straight to the comment form, but I guess it’s the thought that counts.
Whenever you have a minute, we’d appreciate it if you could answer some of the comments about your own post on Travelllll.com
http://travelllll.com/2011/10/11/bahamas-daytrip-whether-or-not-to-join-a-traditional-press-trip/
Seriously Rich? After all the sh*t, f*ck-ups and everything else you going to be a smart a** with “STAFF” written by your name? I don’t even care about Matt’s comment but have to say it’s childish tag-backs like that which is getting (gotten) Travellllll a name.
It’s like you guys really want to destroy your site from the inside out.
Clearly he read the article. What’s the point of even asking that?
Sorry Matt,
I’m not a travel blogger and I’m sorry to tell you this site is also visited by brands,PRs, etc.
People make mistakes, in fact, we all have the right to make mistakes.It’s not the end of the world, it’s a way of learning.
It seems we all have the right to censor, criticise and point and punish someone because we do not agree with content or tone.
I hope you never make a mistake and get same reaction you are having when apologicing
I’m big on truth in advertising.
Undisclosed paid links are not truthful advertising.
Even if you take your opinion of Google’s SEO rules or current legal technicalities completely out of the discussion, it’s still not truthful advertising – and so, to my nose, it stinks, and is a breach of trust with readers. If that makes you mad, then take your marbles and play far away from me, ’cause I’m not budging an inch/centimeter on this one.
Thanks for the blunt post, John. Y’all did screw up …. I’m sad I can’t say a proper Texas “all y’all” since it was mostly you …. but that’s how we all learn. :)
Thanks for the apology and clarification, John, and David, too.
I read the article and while I thought you were a bit above yourself for suggesting we turn each other in for selling paid links, I actually switched off for another reason. The paid links debate has been done to death all over the internet and in every niche and I am sick of it. There will always be two camps – those that do it and those that think the ones doing it should be sent to hell. I don’t believe Google is god especially when they are facing accusations of manipulating the search results themselves. Their answer to that BTW was “if people don’t like it they can run off to yahoo or Bing”.
While the article was useful to new bloggers, I want to see different subjects being discussed and if you are posting three times a day, maybe you can do this because it does seem like a majority of your readers are travel bloggers. I want to see articles that pull travel bloggers together and get everyone’s ideas into one big pot. Lets discuss how to move the industry forward. Lets discuss how to make the industry of travel blogging profitable and at the same time a respectable one. (note – I say travel blogging and not travel writing!) Your platform is perhaps in a better position to do this than most.
I didn’t leave a comment on the other post, but I did write a response on my own blog. I was annoyed at what you had written and the idea that others were out there reporting bloggers to google peeed me right off. Not because I was worried about being reported but just because how small and wrong that is.
Much of my frustration came about because of other travel blogging groups that exist that have a lot of unsupportive, self-righteous attitudes that tear others and the community down.
That is not the kind of community I want to see as I think we can offer so much as travel bloggers.
I’m jumping out now to say thank you for your clarification and apology. I don’t think it is an easy thing to do. And if I want to see a supportive and encouraging community then we have to offer that when the chips are down and when people have made mistakes as well.
Forgiveness and letting it go are all part of the process. You have been helpful to us before with our blog so I know that you do come from the intention of wanting to help, even though it came out all wrong in your previous post. Hopefully this experience will help each of us to try to be that little bit kinder and more helpful.
Hey Rich, I just responded. But I wonder why the T5 response is so uniformly negative to any criticisms. You guys screwed up a huge opportunity here. That’s not our fault, it’s yours.
Just a small reminder that the people you really insulted with your posts are the members of the white-hat SEO Community.
Painting an entire industry with a broadly insulting generalization after a poor experience that occurred as a result of your own extremely poor judgement is hardly fair.
Offering an apology for your behavior without acknowledging the offensive slight you have made against this industry is only making things worse.
If you honestly believe that your characterization of SEO Agencies is accurate, you need to either stop sharing your opinions in public, or actually do some research first.
You can probably ignore my opinion though.
I won’t be back.
John,
you know I observe in the distance.
Hun, I love you and I admire you have thought about the situation and done your best to clarify.
Keep this clear:
you won’t please everybody
you have the right to make mistakes, we all have, not one, millions.
You are brilliant and talented