Disqus - Latest Comments for jodejong

Re: Sidewiki: The Great Wall of Google

jodejong — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:04:48 -0000

Lots of Brownie points to you, Ryan, for stepping up to the plate on this. Too few people are willing to risk potential wrath from Google by speaking out against this indescribably horrible intrusion that Sidewiki certainly is.

Re: I See Dumb People!

jodejong — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:04:44 -0000

You didn't go far enough, Ryan! Twitter and its 140 characters is nothing compared to their other hangout--Ezine Articles with several hundred words to mutilate.

Re: The Google Sidewiki Controversy

jodejong — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:43:42 -0000

Artemus Maximus in his comments below (and thought, actually) is certainly proving your point(s), Sylvie. He sounds like exactly what Google had in mind when they developed Sidewiki. <g>

Re: The Google Sidewiki Controversy

jodejong — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:24:26 -0000

If I'm stooping to Google's level, then so be it, but I think it's time to pull out that ugliest, but unfailingly effective, of all weapons--RIDICULE.

A second weapon that could be effective is to put a sticky post on your homepage that states clearly that the Sidewiki is not your doing but Google's, was put there against your will but that you have no power to remove it, and state that if you are a decent person you will ignore it but that if you post to it all the world will know that you aren't a decent person.

It's saddening that so few of the 'big guys' that have a lot to lose are risking Google's wrath by speaking out. You two, Paul Myers, and Steven Wagenheim are the only ones I can think of at the moment. I won't have any trouble remembering those who don't speak out, though. :(

Re: Disclosure Policy of The Michel Fortin Blog

jodejong — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:04:03 -0000

That's a fine disclosure, IMO, but will it make the FTC happy? It should, but I fear they aren't interested in making it easy nor allowing an explanation to suffice.

Re: Is This The End of Affiliate Marketing?

jodejong — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:47:26 -0000

Thank you for this update; I haven't kept up to date on my own and suspect I'm not alone. :)

As an American living in New Zealand, I'm up to my ears in socialist BS, so the first thing that jumped out at me is that this allows the consumer to abdicate responsibility for his own actions. Furthermore, it's pretty rare to see a product offered by an affiliate that doesn't carry a money back guarantee, which I think is consumer protection enough.

Affiliate marketing is nothing more than advertising; I wonder if advertising companies (which I don't believe are compelled to divulge the identities of their clients) are held responsible for the products of their clients. If I buy a car that's a lemon, it would never occur to me to mention it to the manufacturer's advertising agency.