1. Wow, that was sooner than expected. How do they know who is doing a paid post? That would suck for someone who does a post on product XYZ, and then company XYZ pays 50 other bloggers to post too.

Posted at 1:08PM on Dec 11th 2006 by Brian Breslin

2. I just listened to your keynote with Danny at SES Chicago... Excellent! And thanks for helping keep our city clean.


NeO

Posted at 1:27PM on Dec 11th 2006 by NeO

3. If PPP does not require disclosure, how is Google going to know? I guess they could just look at the advertiser list for PPP and flag all of those pieces of content.

Would not be a good thing for a PPP advertiser if that happened. Imagine getting your brand blasted out of the web conversation forever.

Posted at 2:28PM on Dec 11th 2006 by Jim Kukral

4. I've been following the PPP scene for a while and I am very happy to hear that some search engine will be looking into this new spam.

Posted at 4:35PM on Dec 11th 2006 by Ian Robertson

5. Great, so bye bye ReviewMe, Text link ads, blogads and any other paid for link huh? Or is it just PPP because they're evil.

I hate PPP too, but I say if you do away with one you should do away with all...

Posted at 5:14PM on Dec 11th 2006 by Robyn Tippins

6. @ Robyn

There is a huge difference between an advertisement, which carries with it an understanding of bias, and a PPP unlabeled advertorial.

If we want the web to be a great place to find VALID information, then advertising needs to be openly labeled as such. Disclosure makes advertorials more palatable, but what readers want is a pure distinction between a review and an advertisement.

I am interested in listening to TWIT, because I think they are riding a fine line by taking Dell on as an advertiser. Leo does a pretty good job of letting you know when he is plugging, and when he is pontificating, but there is at least a minor conflict going on there.

Posted at 5:42PM on Dec 11th 2006 by bando

7. I agree somewhat with Robyn, but I also wonder whether or not google can really seek out and editor the payperclick listings if they are widespread. As it is now they can't seem to remove link ads in the general search results, which in my opinion hurts their ability to be relevant sometimes. Just do a search for anything and scottrade, such as "hsa with scottrade" (can you tell what I'm researching?) and you'll see the 2nd-5th results aren't relevant because the only references to scottrade on the pages are text ads at the bottom.

How will google find the payperpost postings automatically if they can't find these?

*personal note: I think payperpost is stupid, and don't think it's worth all the fuss even if they got it working...

Posted at 8:30PM on Dec 11th 2006 by Dan Putt

8. When Google cleans up the ones who game their indexes intentionally then they can go after payperpost. There are far worse out there who have nothing to do with PPP. Let's see you take aim and shoot at them with the same velocity you do with PPP.

And congratulations on the new gig, BTW. I may not like the way you write about PPP, but I think you're a brilliant businessman with some visionary ideas, and for that you do get respect.

Karoli

Posted at 11:40PM on Dec 11th 2006 by Karoli

9. Beautiful city? Which city would that be? Or are you referring to the internet as a whole?

Posted at 4:54AM on Dec 12th 2006 by Paul OFlaherty

10. I see a big law suit in the making. After all, how are you or anyone else going to convince a court of law that a PayPerPost.com link is any different than any other link in any other text ad?

I also see the possibility that a lot of Google's advertisers who also pay for links at lots of other places besides PPP may decide it's time to become an "Army of Davids."

Don't be so smug Jason, you're still on the loosing end of this argument.

Posted at 10:49AM on Dec 12th 2006 by Billy The Blogging Poet

11. Thanks for the Information

Posted at 4:19PM on Dec 24th 2007 by Lucy