61–70 of 187 posts
There are two issues here: a. The links. b. The disclosure. Item a is very well debated. What about b? Why aren't users notified of it? If it is a recent change, why wasn't it announced? Etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get the affiliate link when copying in Google Chrome on XP.
Ah, so it may only work on specific browsers. Safari seems immune.
Seems to me like some browsers take the URL that gets opened through the click event when you copy the link, but Safari does not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FF makes money off revenue generated when you search and click on google ad. They do not replace links on content that you generate without telling you. Apples/Oranges my friend... Personally I use posterous as my personal site and I don't appreciate this.
You're using their service completely free, so I don't think you are really entitled to any say on the matter. If you were paying for it you might have some reasonable expectation that they leave your content intact, but you're not. It's like complaining about high taxes and then turning around and complaining that the government isn't sending everyone's children to college for free. You can't have it both ways. I th…
If they can't handle it, people shouldn't offer a free service. But don't run a service for "free" and then try to make money with shady business practices.
In other words, you are not entitled to running a service for free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's pretty much the deal. Only URLs that don't yet include affiliate info gets re-written. There are a couple of companies in this space, viglink, skimlinks, etc. They all operate on the basis that they sign up to every affiliate scheme and they become the single publisher with which the merchants have a relationship (or more likely, the merchants use a marketplace that puts all merchants together so that they can…
It's just occurred to me... Posterous could make themselves THE publishing platform by simply sharing the revenue again. All they need do is to act like another viglink or skimlinks and to record the clicks made per publisher using their platform. Then offer the publisher 50% of the revenue. This is then an incentive to use Posterous beyond all of the ease of use. Anything you posted that included a potentially monet…
while it would have been nice to get a heads up, this doesn't bother me in the least. props to posterous for having a revenue model that doesn't interfere with the user experience whatsoever
Absolutely. What's wrong with a business having a revenue model? Better this than advertising or a crippled free version.
It does not follow that because someone thinks a business has chosen a bad revenue model, that person thinks that any business having a revenue model is bad. Please don't write dross such as this.
There are two issues here: a. The links. b. The disclosure. Item a is very well debated. What about b? Why aren't users notified of it? If it is a recent change, why wasn't it announced? Etc.
They should have posted something on their Official Blog. However, there are a lot of things they should have done before releasing this...
"They need to make money somehow" is not an excuse for being sneaky.
The only thing in their favor is that customers should probably expect a catch since the service is "free".
Keep up the good work, guys.