User talk:Cumbrowski/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cumbrowski. Do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion with this User or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
User:Cumbrowski  -    Current Talk Page  .oOo.      < Archive 5    Archive 6   
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  ... (up to 100)
This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cumbrowski/Archive_6.



Contents

Revenue sharing citation

Hey, thanks for adding a citation to the revenue sharing article. I was about to delete it as wikipedia:link spam but I see you're a reputable editor so as a courtesy I'm just leaving you a note here. The problem with the reference is that it links to an external site that is in business to sell its consulting / informational services, which seems to be highly disfavored on Wikipedia. The danger is that if that's allowed, everybody is going to want to insert a lot of links to their particular business metrics company and try to generate web traffic and revenue dollars from that. Even a very reputable source, say a Nielsen Ratings or a music chart, is best not to link directly. You want to link to an authoritative article that mentions the research. So if you do have a more reliable citation that would be great. Wikidemo 09:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I agree with you to a certain extend. There is a dilemma though when it comes to articles related to the subject of internet marketing. It is not part of traditional research yet, heck universities don't even teach the subject yet (for the most part). They slowly started with it in the recent years, but what exists today can be considered rudimentary IMO. That means that you have to rely on trusted and reliable sources within the industry for reference. The problem with those references is that they are always commercial in nature. I had an editor who did not know anything about affiliate marketing complain about the reference and that it had Ads and affiliate links on its site. Da.. it's what they do of course. I have not met many butchers who are vegan. Just a little comparison hehe. All this does not change the need to check "who is the source" and what are their motivations. What are the possible gains from a statistic that favors certain aspects and neglects others. Etc. Here is an example of a statistic that is not a good reference. It's not the statistic, but a blog post by another blogger about it and me adding a long comment to it. [1]. With regards to AffStat. That is one of the few industry specific statistics that are available and where I also know the process of data collection to know that it is not skewed. I know the guy who publishes it (okay everybody in the affiliate marketing industry knows this guy) and he is so nice and sent me a free copy and also an email with a link to a publication where numbers are made public to be able to reference to that in addition to the inaccessible (commercial) report and actual source. That is my take on this. I hope it makes sense. Let me know what you think. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 17:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That makes sense. I'm wondering if there's a guideline page or something one can refer to on this specific situation, so people can consider what makes a good reference and what doesn't. It must come up all the time. Wikidemo 22:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It is kind of covered by existing guidelines, but they often don't spell things out exactly (which would also not make sense). Multiple guidelines touch on the subject WP:CITE, WP:RELY, WP:V etc. Specifics can be found here, which also refers to Statistical survey, Opinion poll and Misuse of statistics. IMO does this says it all:


What matters is WHO is the source AND also FOR WHAT. Quote: "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" ... and ... "use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view".


This means that a reliable sources is not a source that produces skewed and self serving statistics. It also means (that was a debate a while earlier) that it does not matter, which medium is being used for the publication, a book, a print magazine, a web site, a blog, a piece of toilet paper. This are all things that are irrelevant for the specification, if it is a reliable source within the context it is used for or not. That is how I see it. I hope that makes sense. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 22:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


My translation of it for the average Joe would be:
  1. Who is the guy who wrote it? #Does he have a clue about the subject?
  2. What is the motivation for him to write this? What's in it for him? What does he gain?
  3. Is he fair and thorough in his collection and evaluation of available data? Is he prejudges? Is he sloppy?
The questions seem simple, but to know the right answer is not. You need reliable sources to proof a number of them, which makes the whole thing circular :), the hen and the egg problem. The alternative is that you are so deep involved and know the guy personally in and out to be able to answer the questions without the need of other reliable sources that you as editor at Wikipedia would be a text book example for WP:COI. Tricky, isn't it?! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 22:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Affiliate marketing

Hi Roy — I have placed the article Affiliate marketing on GA hold, to give it a chance to improve the style, please see the suggestions on the talk page. The style is still too informal , and has quite a few grammar errors. GB 02:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi GB, thanks for taking the time to look at the article. Do you have an idea how I could get some other editors who are strong in those areas to have a look at the article and help improving it? English is my second language. I get better at it, but it is not my strength and core competency. If you could point me somewhere or provide some tips, I would appreciate that. Thanks a lot. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 04:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems that you get a lot of spammers adding link, but these people probably have no interest in improving the article. Unfortunately I don't know much about the business topic writing side of Wikipedia. What you may be able to do is find a project that this could belong to. A project will have members interested or knowlegable in a topic. I could fix the grammer and make some rearrangements myself, but I am not a high quality writer, and then I will have to disqualify myself on the GA assessment. I think there is enough good material here to get to a GA with some more improvements. If you have a look at the history of the article you might find more interested writers. GB 04:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


The Category:WikiProject_Business_and_Economics_participants has a big list of names. You could nominate in Collaboration of the Month (Beta version) section of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Business_and_Economics, or list it in the cleanup section of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Business_and_Economics. GB 04:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not know about the Beta for the collaboration of the month. I suggested the article there and made a detailed plea, which will hopefully attract some other editors and encourage them to help. The article saw a lot of changes and expansions over the past 15 months. Unfortunately did most editors that used to work on it with me leave Wikipedia, discouraged. I tried to win them back, but failed so far in my efforts. I invested during the last 1-2 months a significant amount of time for it, after it failed the first and premature nomination for GA back in March and after User:Jehochman was able to get the article to search engine optimization featured, an article I also worked on. That was a strong encouragement, because the subject is a bit touchy and some Wikipedians don't like it at all (to say it mildly). The article to SEO was shown this Monday on the English Wikipedia homepage :). Thanks again for your time and your help. Happy 4th of July. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 15:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
p.s. here is the diff between the version from March when it was first nominated and the currect version of the article. Thought that it might helps you. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 15:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
and here is the diff to the version Insert non-formatted text herefrom February 26, 2006 when I made my first edit in that article. hehe.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 16:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


Cleaning up Affiliate marketing

Hi Roy - thanks for your message requesting my help in copy-editing affiliate marketing. I am away for the weekend, but will take a look at it early next week and do what I can. Fortunately I know something about the subject too. Barnabypage 13:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks a lot.. that will be great. I also talked somebody else "soft" who is not a Wikipedian, but a professional editor (with degree and all). I might be able to turn that someone into a Wikipedian along the way. That would be even better hehe. I only got a little promise though, but I hope that someone keeps also the little ones :) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 05:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Roy, if you're still recruiting editors, I'd be happy to work with you and Barnabypage on editing this article. I don't know much about affiliate marketing, but I'm a writer and editor. I'll take a look at making some of the "easy fixes" mentioned on the talk page first. Flowanda | Talk 23:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be great Flowanda. Thank you. User:Graeme_Bartlett who reviewed the article as part of the good article nomination said that the scope and coverage of the subject seem to be okay. I fixed already a number of other issues. There was a long quote in the article, which was removed and replaced by text written by me that included the important information from within the quote. I also fixed the references formating and image and covered as much spelling and grammar problems as I could. What was left and not fixed satisfactory were the style and grammar problems. Things that are not me strength and were any help is most welcome and appreciated. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 03:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Trying to read your link

Couldn't pull it up through your SEL post. Could you give it to me again?

...und deine Geschichte is sehr interessant. Ich hab' Berlin besucht am ende des Mauerns. Tag! DurovaCharge! 05:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Yeah, I noticed that the link was not working. That happens some times at SEL for whatever reason. I link to the resources from my user page and even from this talk page. Here it is once more... Regarding my past, yeah, I had a very 'interesting' life so far, kind of a roller coaster ride, but then I love roller coasters (especially the big drops), so not a problem to cope with it hehe. It made me more persistent, if I think something is right or wrong. That's why am I also one of the too few internet marketers who were able to stick around here at Wikipedia and did not throw the towel like most. I am completely open about who I am and what I do. I even flagged the articles I edited and WP:COI applies on my user page :). I also wrote about how I ended up here, because I was asked that a couple times :).[2]. You can also find on my user page links to my blog posts that are Wikipedia related, if you are interested. I like especially this one [3] :). See you around. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 05:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I like what I see. Jehochman and I have been brainstorming ideas for some venue - possibly a new WikiProject - to facilitate white hat contributions. For instance, we're used to asking COI editors to post suggested edits to article talk pages. Suppose there were a central location where they could register these requests for review? You might have some good ideas toward that.
Also, since you're on editor review, I'll offer to give you some admin coaching. I'm always looking for extra hands to man WP:SSP and WP:COIN. You'd probably be great in both areas. Cheers, DurovaCharge! 06:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova, my time is limited. Okay, what's new, which entrepreneur isn't, but there are some things that are a bit special in my case. They are related to my very much delayed immigration process (guess what, I wrote about that too hehe [4]). However, I would be interested in the coaching, because I am interested in learning more about how Wikipedia works. It saves me time and headaches, because you can do stuff the hard way or do it the right way. The right way is not always the most obvious one so it is always good to lean about it before you have to decide which way to go.
I hear you loud and clear regarding the COI issue. I remember the ISTIA mess for example. I believe you were also involved (which admin wasn't. It ended pretty "bloody"), a bit later did somebody try to get the article about Superior Art Creations deleted because of COI, even though I did not create the article myself, but fixed and extended it. I always made it clear who I am and what my involvement was. I started also thinking about the general problem of COI. My blog post about how I became a Wikipedian touches that subject as well. I also had some debates here at Wikipedia. See this discussion at my talk page archive, which also points to debates elsewhere.
I don't think a central place for submitting COI content will work, unless something is added to the Mediawiki software for Wikipedia, which contains a reference on every article in the main space. Something like a disclaimer e.g. "If you are directly involved with the subject of this article and therefore likely to be seen as biased or prejudice by other editors of Wikipedia, but believe or know that there are factual errors in the article, please do not edit the article yourself and correct the error, but GO HERE and follow the instruction to get it corrected after your claims were reviewed and validated by another editor who is not personally involved with the subject." You get the idea. It would probably enough to have a visible disclaimer if you press "edit" and not if you just view the article, but if you make it visible to everybody, then it can serve two purposes at the same time. Most people are too afraid to press the "edit" button, so they will go elsewhere and complain and write about it. It also implies to the casual reader that Wikipedia might not be 100% accurate and that errors are being made. Its sad that it is necessary sometimes to remind them to verify information elsewhere via a second or third source before acting on them. Only because it is written somewhere in Wikipedia does not mean that it is always correct. Those are my thoughts. What do you think? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
p.s. I requested the Editor review not because I have the ambition to become a Wikipedia admin (If it happens anyway, then it happens). Funny, my other friend who is also a Wikipedia admin asked me the same thing. I actually requested it, because I honestly want to know, what other editors think about the mess, which I created so far here at Wikipedia and migth provide some suggestions and comments. Comments and suggestions to what I did and do good and where I suck (except from my grammar, I know about that myself hehe). I thought it to be a good idea to learn where I am today in the eyes of others, after over one year of editing hundreds of articles and making a couple thousand edits. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we close the eComXpo report at WP:COIN?

Hello Carsten. There has been no action on your COI report for some time. I proposed a deal, and there was a mixed response. Cerejota has apparently stopped raising the question for the moment. The current form of the article looks OK to me, and the COI tag has been removed. I would like to close the report to free up space on the noticeboard. If you have thoughts, you are welcome to add them there. Thanks, EdJohnston 02:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I thought the item was closed already, because somebody removed the COI template from the article. Btw. If you want to see how your proposed deal would have looked like, check the edit history of the eComXpo article. See the 3 edits before the last ones that were done by me? :( I agree with you that the article looks okay now. The stuff that should be in there, is in there again (was re-added), some stuff was rephrased and some stuff was kept out of it. There is some stuff I would like to see in there, but I understand why someone would not want it in there. It's interesting and helpful, but not entirely encyclopedic. I mentioned it at the articles talk page. It's about reports how different people experienced the virtual event and how they compare it to a real-life one. I think it would be helpful, but I did not re-add it, because of valid objections.
You can close the report if whoever has to make a decision, did it (what I thought happened already). There is obviously no COI as outlined in WP:COI. If I am mistaken and a decision was not made, then the case has to remain open until either a decision is made and/or the WP:COI guideline was adjusted to state clearly that cases like mine are considered COI. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 17:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


COI in Affiliate marketing

I just noticed these: [5] [6] --Ronz 03:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So? What has this to do with COI? Did you also read this? [7] --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't want to give you a Template:Uw-coi because of your long editing experience, but I think this needs to be brought up at WP:COIN. --Ronz 16:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I wrote up a COIN report here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Cumbrowski. --Ronz 18:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I posted a very detailed response at the notice board, which is all I have to say in this matter. Happy reading :) Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 02:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments to me here and on COIN. I was completely unaware of the EComXpo‎ dispute when I started this discussion. I'm not going to include it as an article of concern. Sorry that it has come up again. --Ronz 18:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

cumbrowski.de as a US immigration resource

Hello Carsten. I saw your posting at WP:RS/N about the usefulness of some links to your personal websites you had added. So far, my comment is that http://www.cumbrowski.de/CarstenC/Immigration-Resources.asp doesn't display correctly with the Safari web browser on my Mac Powerbook. The lines shown on each page have about six times the normal spacing between lines. This problem doesn't occur with Firefox on the Mac looking at the same site. Also under Safari the vertical row of buttons under 'Der Familien Navigator' show up as blank (without labels). EdJohnston 03:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Another small problem of a different kind: on User talk:Cumbrowski the bottom comment on the page seems to get hidden behind the banner "This is a Wikipedia user page." For example what I am typing now may not appear until someone adds a new comment below it. EdJohnston 03:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Really? I checked with Safari for Windows and it renders perfectly fine, same with Firefox and Internet Explorer (on Windows). So much for "its the same rendering engine" for developers to be able to test compatebilty without the need of owning a MAC. Could you send me a screen shot of the page how you see it in PNG or JPG format? All my contact information are available at [8], including the option to upload it to sendspace rather than sending it via email. I would like to see the extend of the problem and get some idea what the cause might be. Its messed up that I can't test it anymore and the site I used in the past that was creating snapshots of a URL on a MAC is not up anymore. Thanks for your help. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 00:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I changed the code for the userpage frame. The "this is a wikipedia user page" DIV has now a fixed height. It's positioned absolute at the bottom of the page and the other DIV with the main page content has a bottom padding of the same value as the other div is high. I hope that does the trick here. Let me know. Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that fixes the display of this User talk. Regarding the Safari issue, I sent you an email. I forgot to say that Safari has the same problem throughout your site. EdJohnston 02:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I sent you two responses to your email. Did you get them? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 04:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Carsten. Yes, I got your two emails. Based on your comment, I upgraded to Safari 3 for the Mac and your immigration page now looks OK! EdJohnston 03:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

SyncTERM Article

Just wanted to let you know that your edits and the creation of the page never irritated me or had anything do to with my temper tantrum. Sorry for anything I did that I should be apologizing for. -- Stephen Hurd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.211.11 (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of SyncTERM

SyncTERM, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that SyncTERM satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SyncTERM and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of SyncTERM during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

AfD nomination of ZEDO

An article that you have been involved in editing, ZEDO, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZEDO. Thank you. 69.68.125.6 (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


This User

Codes Fortran Igor Berger (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC) I tried to post a relevent comment on SEJ, but it told me I am Spamming them. Does Searchengineland.com treats commentors as Spammers? Please take a look at my comment and tell me why it is Spam. The comment has a WkiPedia link, PHSDL anti Spam project link, and my Travel in Asia forum link with Adam Lasnik story.

What is Spam in this comment? And the article I was commenting on is about Spam on Google! SEJ Google Spam article story, Igor The Troll Google Spam article story...relevent comments!

Sory to bring this to you, but you on Article about Wikipedia at SearchEngineJournal.com on Jehochman (talk) page asked for comments. Now when a WikiPedian comes to comment on SEJ, you call him a Spammer! Igor Berger (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Igor, No, it does not. Comments are welcome and appreciated, trust me on that one. There are were three comments for the post so far and 1 was spam (advertisement for "Louis Vitton handbag Cherry Bucket" which has nothing to do with the subject). Comments with links in it might be held back for manual review. I did not see any comment that was on hold. I know that the owner of the blog did setup some new additional stuff recently against the flood of spam the blog is exposed to every day (I am only an editor with limited permissions).
He did that as a reaction to a flood of spam that was able to pass the existing spam filters and bombarded everybody who was commenting on those posts with emails that where junk (Search Engine Journal sends out email notifications about new comments to everybody who is engaged in the conversation for a post). I need to check with him, what he installed.
Based on what you are saying does it look like as if he configured the spam blocking tools to be too tight, but there could also be a different reason.
Without having exact details about what he installed, I would guess that the link to travilinasia.net could be the cause of the problem. The site is sharing the IP with over 400 other sites. If SEJ employs a black list kind of filtering, similar to how many email spam filter work, and if the IP is on such black list because one of the 400+ sites on that IP was engaging in spam, your comment would be flagged as spam. I would looking into that. Shared hosting is never good, because your site can get penalized for things that other sites that you share hosting with do.
I would suggest to try to comment again without the link to travelinasia.net. Just mention the thread and may be link to another site (e.g. Google Groups) that contains the link to your thread already. If that comment goes through, then you will now that you have a problem with your hosting and should move your forum site somewhere else. That is my suggestion and worth a test IMO.
btw. SearchEngineLand.com is Danny Sullivans site, SearchEngineJournal.com where I write for is Loren Bakers. You mixed them up in your comment here although you did not in your post at travelinasia.net. Just FYI.
Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 00:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on SEJ Spam Filter. I talked to Loren, and he has fixed it. Take a look the test that I conducted on SEJ here. User_talk:Igorberger#SEJ_Comment_Spam Igor Berger (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiResources

I do not joke, or play games, I perform forensic investigations of SEO. Igor Berger 02:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Next time let me know about your forensic investigations. I used my own user pages for experiments in the past too and that is not a problem, but if you move the experiments somewhere else, tell somebody about it. :) So what is your experiment about and why on my WikiResources page? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 02:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC) ok Igor Berger 03:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

nofollow

roy<sac> Talk! being that you contributed to both articles you should reconsile the differences to make them fluent and Authoritative.

  • Note that the article to nofollow does mention the difference to the Robots exclusion standard via the META Elements. See the paragraph Introduction and support. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nofollow rel="nofollow"

nofollow is a non-standard HTML attribute value used to instruct (Should read rel="nofollow" is a non standard search engine robots exclussion protocol)

  • That is incorrect. See the W3C site for the definition. "rel" did exist as a non-standard HTML attribute before the search engines (Google for the most part) adopted it and introduced a new possible value for the existing attribute, the the value "nofollow". --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

search engines that a hyperlink should not influence the link target's ranking in the search engine's index. It is intended to reduce the effectiveness of certain types of spamdexing, thereby improving the quality of search engine results and preventing spamdexing from occurring in the first place.

Contradictory statement or hyporbolical at least!

  • what do you mean? It reduces effectiveness (links don't count) = spam will not rank high and if spam will not rank anymore, spammers might get discouraged to do it at all. I did not phrase the sentence in the article that way, but that is how I understand it. How are you understanding it? Question on the side. Is English your first language or did you learn it later. For me it is the second language (I am German by birth). We had in another case a debate about how something is phrased and realized that people who's mother tongue is English understood it one way and people who learned English as second language did understand it a different way. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


Meta_element NOFOLLOW

NOFOLLOW tag tells a search engine not to follow the links on a specific page.

The rel="nofollow" statment the way it is authored now, is contary to Googel Quality Guidelines(GQG) serving as a violation to the guidelines, that a Webmaster should not atempt to influence Google Search Ebgine results.

This needs to be examined and reconsiled to make it Authoritative.Igor Berger (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • As stated above. NOFOLLOW is no meta-element. It's a value for a non-standard HTML attibute (rel) for the HTML element (a). If you read the article to NOFOLLOW, you will also notice that it does not mean "not to follow the links on a specific page". Wait, now you are talking about the Meta-Element "robots" and the value "nofollow", right? Sorry, my bad. Your statement would belong into the NOFOLLOW article, which talks about REL=NOFOLLOW. The Meta Element ROBOTS and value NOFOLLOW is part of the appendix of the HTML 4.01 definition. The rel=nofollow is proprietary. If it violates Google's Quality Guidelines is arguable, because the same could be said to the ROBOTS meta element, the robots.txt exclusion protocol, the NOODP and NOYDIR values and Yahoo!'s "Robots-NoContent" class. The original intention to use it for not trusted links that were not editorial reviewed was okay in my opinion. I have a problem with Google's abuse of it for paid links. I bitched about that several times in posts at SEJ and ReveNews. My latest one was this one, which also refers to some of my older posts to the subject. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Roy, can I give you a suggestion to follow the nofollow and Google PR algorithm talk on SeoMoz.org, I think you will find it educational and interesting. Igor Berger (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

are you referring to the post of Rand grandfather or do you have any other discussion in mind. There is a lot of talk about PR lateley due to the recent PR updates in the Google toolbar. I have to admit that I also joined that discussion. Which reminds me that I have a follow up post on my to-do list :). --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 00:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the grandpa post, but I like rand's post better. Read the comments also, very educational. Igor Berger (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Roy, take alook what Andy Beard has to say abot robots.txt, meta tag index, nofollow, and rel="nofollow" He even critisizes Wikipedia nofollow article for having problems. exclussions and page rank by Andy Beard Please examine this. Igor Berger (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I left a comment with the request to elaborate on his statement. Thanks for the info. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 08:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again

Sorry for my disappearance -- I've been so caught up in other areas of the 'pedia I forgot to revisit affiliate marketing and the like. I noticed that the second GA nomination didn't make it, unfortunately. I don't know how much help I could be with finding citations, but I'll do my best to copyedit the prose and possible reorganize some of what you and other editors have written. Hopefully it'll make GA status on the third try. :-)

All the best,

— xDanielx T/C\R 02:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Don't worry about it. We will get there. Did you see the notes from the reviewer? I already addressed a number of the things he noted. Well, there is still more left to do :) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I have a few questions about affiliate marketing. Is advertising considered affiliated marketing if a merchant and publisher arrange an advertising program, but the industries are dissimilar? For example, if a dating service negotiates with an online gaming site to put ads on the game's website? Or perhaps this is a blurry/gray-area issue, like the issue of whether contextual advertising counts as affiliate marketing? Thanks for your help! — xDanielx T/C\R 03:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Daniel. No, advertising is not affiliate marketing. If ads are placed as a result of a link exchange or if you pay for an ad on a CPM (paying for impressions/display of the ad) or flat fee basis it is display advertising or a sponsorship deal. If the compensation would be pay per click, then we move into the gray area of things. The same is true with CPA compensation within display advertising, which will exceed CPC and CPM deals this year.
Contextual advertising causes also debate whether or not it is affiliate marketing. I'd say it is not. I consider it to be a part of display advertising that is also available to smaller publishers (which are for the most part also affiliates). I make the differentiation when it comes to the control the publisher has over the ads and the compensation method used. I'd say if it is not CPA or Revenue Share and if the publisher has not control over which offers/ads will be shown to visitors on his site, it is not affiliate marketing. CPC was used by advertisers in affiliate marketing in the past but became over the years somewhat like a novelty. I have seen only a handful program during the last couple years that pay on a CPC basis.


I probably confused you even more :).


Let’s take a step back here and look at CPM, CPC, CPA and Revenue Share from a different perspective. Each of those methods can be used to compensate a publisher to show an advertisers ad on a publishers website (I exclude search affiliates for the simplicity sake right now).
Who assumes how much of the risk in each cases?
Revenue share and CPA shift the risk almost entirely to the publisher. With revenue share most of time even more than with CPA, if the action that is commissionable is only a generated lead and not a sale. If the publisher shows an ad to 1,000,000 people and many even click on the ad to the advertisers website, does this not mean that the publisher gets anything in return, unless the visitors do something that is wanted by the advertiser. So if the advertiser’s site sucks or simply breaks and is offline, the publisher loses money, while the advertiser does not.
With CPC moves the risk towards the advertiser. In this case the risk is roughly equally shared between the two.
With CPM the risk moves entirely to the advertiser. The publisher gets paid no matter what, as long as he displays an advertisers Ad on his website. It does not matter if the ad sucks and nobody clicks on it or if the ad is not really target well and the people who see it are not the right audience. The advertiser has to worry about that in the case of CPM. For this reason larger sites often switching from affiliate or CPA/Rev share deals to CPC or better CPM deals if possible. CPA and revenue share was pretty much the only deal a small publisher could get.
But there are advantages for the publisher too. A publisher who knows his audience well and has affiliations with merchants that carry items where the publisher’s audience is perfect, CPA and rev share can outperform any CPC and CPM deal the publisher could get. But this does not only sound like work for the publisher, it actually is exactly that. Display advertising has the increase in CPA offers, because their technology improved over the years to allow improved targeting. The methods used raise some eyebrows here and there because of privacy concerns that are more or less warranted. I am not sure if the CPA deal is only between the advertiser and the ad network while the ad network still continues to pay CPM to the publisher. I am not very much involved in display advertising, but that is a good question that just came into my mind. I will investigate that :)
I hope this helps your understanding of the subject matter a bit more. Let me know if something is not clear and requires further clarification. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed explanation, Roy. :-) I think I understand better now. — xDanielx T/C\R 02:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this image and tell me what you think? I used your customer image by the way -- thanks for that. — xDanielx T/C\R 07:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Nice image. I replaced the one in the article with yours :) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I nominate Wikipedia to adopt You follow We follow policy

I nominate Wikipedia to adopt You follow We follow policy.

That is when we link to an authoritative reference and that reference links clean to children, we follow that reference, but if that reference does not link out to a community or uses nofollow to hoard power we link to it with nofolow atribute.

Lots of work for Wiki, but if adopted will preserve the original democratic PR algorithm. This will culminate green piece effect of recycling power. Igor Berger (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Igor! It's funny that you contact me about this.
You will find the answers in all those posts. You will also see a development, a shift in attitude over the time. Enjoy! :) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest at United States Permanent Resident Card

You should not be adding links to your own advertisement-laden commercial site. Please stop doing it. Regardless of whether the US immigration process is "broken" as you say, I don't feel that your personal site meets reliable sources criteria in addition to being a WP:COI violation. I'll be happy to file an WP:RFC if you'd like. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I support Ohnoitsjamie's removal of the links. The argument that Carsten offers in their defence on the article's Talk page is, in my view, way too long and excessively personal. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and links to personal sites are still normally to be avoided. A bad experience with US immigration is not a reason to bend our link policy. Consider seeking publication of your concerns about immigration in other forums. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
See my response to both of your comments here. Thank you. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 18:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you help a new brother out?

Roy, see what you can do for a new WiKiMedia project. Maybe you can do to a plug on SEJ....do an article on fifferent WiKis, I am sure the readors do not know how big and useful our community is. WikiAsianTravel I think I will ask Durova and see what she recommends. These guys are just born and they need GooGoo juice to get of the ground! Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't write about that kind of stuff and it would be inappropriate for SEJ, unless maybe, if it would be part of a travel search related post that I don't see on the horizon for me at the moment. Sorry, but that is my honest answers. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 19:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course, if you do an article about different wikis you can put it in. Or maybe how does a project become a certified WikiMediaFondation project. I mean make a story work, right? Anyway when you have a chance, I would not want you to go out of your way..:)Igor Berger (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Paidonresultsgradient.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Paidonresultsgradient.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:P45x45.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:P45x45.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Roy can you help me build Andy Beard

I have been trying to build Andy Beard but getting no wear. Maybe you can help me make it notable before it is deleted. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Beard. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

See my comments at the discussion, in particular the two links to references at The Guardian and The Age. The other comments are also important though. They contain some tips for you. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
p.s. nobody prevents you from editing the article during the AfD, because it could show the other editors and especially the closing admin that the article is not the same anymore as it was during the beginning of the AfD debate (for the better of course). --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Roy thank you for the resources. If you have time to pitch in in writing the article that would greatly help. You know better than me how to wikify an article. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I would love to, but I have unfortunately not the time to do so. You are lucky that I was checking Wikipedia just now. I was not able to do much over the past few weeks. Keep in mind that you can add the article again, if it was deleted, but make sure that the article is solid, especially regarding reliable sources, which by definition imply notability as well. Make a copy of the article that you don't loose anything and then create a new and clean version in your user space, just in case the AfD is successful (which seems to be very likely at the moment, unless you are able to get the article up to meet Wikipedia standards quickly). I have a few of those articles myself. I also had the AfD go through and will not add a new article unless I make sure that it is able to widthstand any scruteny that will probably follow.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 12:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I think I found a caveat! Jimbo Wales knows Andy. Igor Berger (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Low cost reference

Here's the stats you requested and a link to the reference:

"E-mail returned a whopping $57.25 for every dollar spent on it in 2005, according to the DMA’s Power of Direct economic-impact study released last week. This compares to $7.09 for every dollar spent on print catalogs and $22.52 for every dollar spent on non-e-mail Internet marketing."

http://directmag.com/disciplines/email/email-roi-crushes/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.205.11.2 (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)