3 ms·

This is really interesting to me, because it could be helpful and useful (I mean, I just bought $900 worth of stuff for my startup so it's not just a random col

by dmor 14y ago

This is really interesting to me, because it could be helpful and useful (I mean, I just bought $900 worth of stuff for my startup so it's not just a random collection of crap) but it comes of as spam. Can you help me understand what it is that sets off the "spam bit"? Also, what does "should know better" mean? If I wrote this as a blog post on Svbtle and it was a story with a bunch of referral links instead would it be different? Is the credibility of it damaged by the fact I could make money if you buy the things I suggested? Or something else... And lastly, is this unique to the HN community and its acceptable methods of communication, or a broader turnoff you would notice even if you hadn't found this link here?

mindslight 14y ago
So is this the part where you engage with criticism, as the worst that will happen is fanning the flames of controversy which just drives more attention? But I'm not saying that your comment isn't in earnest either - you're wishing to figure out how to categorically make spam look like not spam, as your startup is based on making it easy for people to spam their friends and associates, and so is highly vulnerable to the social repercussions of bad first impressions. A simple and easy first step to making your site seem less spammy would be to register a whole bunch of different domains composed of relevant keywords. These can be used to mitigate being banned from link aggregator sites and to delay users noticing the pattern. Markov chain generated text surrounding the links would do wonders on the less savvy users, too. I'm sure there are plenty more of such tips if you hang out in the right forums. What you fail to realize is that credibility has been destroyed by each and every detail of the situation. The earnest blog that has the occasional spammy referral post can be mostly forgiven (although the users that upvote it shouldn't be), as it's clear that the writer has a life purpose besides referral links. I see no such redeeming qualities here. "Should know better" refers to the fact that you present yourself as part of the tech community, while simultaneously disrespecting the general consensus on spam. Although maybe it's just that the shark that was jumped has died of old age. Oh, I just remembered it's Sunday - I've got to go do a bit of sanitation hacking.
- dmor 14y ago
  Yes, creating lot's of domains is precisely what other affiliates do and what I have been trying to avoid - it feels very dishonest to me. I am extremely aware of how this looks, how affiliates are viewed, and how credibility is destroyed at every step. That's why it is so fascinating to me and why I'm trying to understand if there is a problem to solve for affiliates. There is also a good chance that this is just not the right kind of content for this community. How would you feel if Referly much more clearly said "hey, if you decide to buy through my links that is totally up to you - but if you do I am going to earn 6-8% commission. This doesn't change the price of your products, but I hope it will serve as a nice tip to me for organizing all this info in one place for you. If not, no worries"
  - rdl 14y ago
    Personally, I'm a lot more tolerant of referrals the more "credible or responsible" the referrer is. 1) If the author of a book writes a ~10 page article (free) or posts a chapter, and includes a link to "buy my book", I have zero problem. In fact, I'm glad he made it easier for me to buy the book from Amazon, saving me a step. 2) If someone sets up a site (like Box O' Truth, an ammunition/firearms performance test), then includes links to purchase tested products (and potentially discloses that Federal gave him a bunch of Flitecontrol #00, and Benelli loaned him an M1 for testing), I have no problem buying through those links. 3) An author who has a following (say, a known expert in cycling) who throws some links to products he likes and reviews, especially if it's a product he owns already. 4) Someone who is a domain expert and reviews products he doesn't really like, slightly disingenuously. Although in some cases it makes sense for say a skiing expert to review a beginner product that he personally doesn't use; that's closer to 3. A Canon shooter who includes a Nikon body for comparison (without actually reviewing it) is more like a 4 or 4.5. ... 6) Random lists of products, like "top 10 new items for the new year" from publications like Stuff or Wired or whatever, largely selected through vendor promotion and who buys display ads. ... 9) Ubuntu stripping out referrals from some packages and replacing them with their own (some audio package?) 10) Malware which secretly appends an affiliate tag to everything a browser goes to, without a choice. Antipathy starts around 5, and jihad starts around 8. I think Referly in this case is around a 3, and in the worst case is around a 5 or 6.

by dmor 14y ago

mindslight 14y ago

So is this the part where you engage with criticism, as the worst that will happen is fanning the flames of controversy which just drives more attention? But I'm not saying that your comment isn't in earnest either - you're wishing to figure out how to categorically make spam look like not spam, as your startup is based on making it easy for people to spam their friends and associates, and so is highly vulnerable to the social repercussions of bad first impressions. A simple and easy first step to making your site seem less spammy would be to register a whole bunch of different domains composed of relevant keywords. These can be used to mitigate being banned from link aggregator sites and to delay users noticing the pattern. Markov chain generated text surrounding the links would do wonders on the less savvy users, too. I'm sure there are plenty more of such tips if you hang out in the right forums. What you fail to realize is that credibility has been destroyed by each and every detail of the situation. The earnest blog that has the occasional spammy referral post can be mostly forgiven (although the users that upvote it shouldn't be), as it's clear that the writer has a life purpose besides referral links. I see no such redeeming qualities here. "Should know better" refers to the fact that you present yourself as part of the tech community, while simultaneously disrespecting the general consensus on spam. Although maybe it's just that the shark that was jumped has died of old age. Oh, I just remembered it's Sunday - I've got to go do a bit of sanitation hacking.

dmor 14y ago
Yes, creating lot's of domains is precisely what other affiliates do and what I have been trying to avoid - it feels very dishonest to me. I am extremely aware of how this looks, how affiliates are viewed, and how credibility is destroyed at every step. That's why it is so fascinating to me and why I'm trying to understand if there is a problem to solve for affiliates. There is also a good chance that this is just not the right kind of content for this community. How would you feel if Referly much more clearly said "hey, if you decide to buy through my links that is totally up to you - but if you do I am going to earn 6-8% commission. This doesn't change the price of your products, but I hope it will serve as a nice tip to me for organizing all this info in one place for you. If not, no worries"
- rdl 14y ago
  Personally, I'm a lot more tolerant of referrals the more "credible or responsible" the referrer is. 1) If the author of a book writes a ~10 page article (free) or posts a chapter, and includes a link to "buy my book", I have zero problem. In fact, I'm glad he made it easier for me to buy the book from Amazon, saving me a step. 2) If someone sets up a site (like Box O' Truth, an ammunition/firearms performance test), then includes links to purchase tested products (and potentially discloses that Federal gave him a bunch of Flitecontrol #00, and Benelli loaned him an M1 for testing), I have no problem buying through those links. 3) An author who has a following (say, a known expert in cycling) who throws some links to products he likes and reviews, especially if it's a product he owns already. 4) Someone who is a domain expert and reviews products he doesn't really like, slightly disingenuously. Although in some cases it makes sense for say a skiing expert to review a beginner product that he personally doesn't use; that's closer to 3. A Canon shooter who includes a Nikon body for comparison (without actually reviewing it) is more like a 4 or 4.5. ... 6) Random lists of products, like "top 10 new items for the new year" from publications like Stuff or Wired or whatever, largely selected through vendor promotion and who buys display ads. ... 9) Ubuntu stripping out referrals from some packages and replacing them with their own (some audio package?) 10) Malware which secretly appends an affiliate tag to everything a browser goes to, without a choice. Antipathy starts around 5, and jihad starts around 8. I think Referly in this case is around a 3, and in the worst case is around a 5 or 6.