1. I don't think that you should (nor should any other search engine). I don't think you should fatten their relevance, but they shouldn't be penalized for having (non-google or non-mahalo or non-yahoo) affiliate links on their sites. This may be a stretch, but this sounds a lot like the argument against net neutrality. Why should sites be penalized for having paid links on them? People gotta make some cash!

Posted at 5:31PM on Feb 28th 2008 by Shane

2. Is there guidelines anywhere on Mahalo that offers some guidance about what constitutes hidden or misleading? At a glance, it seems pretty clear that most of those links go off to a merchant site.

For example, would a notice about advertising and compensation in an about page be enough? Or does every page have to be labeled? Or every link? What's it take?

Posted at 5:35PM on Feb 28th 2008 by Scott Jangro

3. > Should Mahalo ban all sites that have hidden/undisclosed affiliate links?

Why would you ban them if you considered the content of the site to be worthy of inclusion?

Posted at 5:42PM on Feb 28th 2008 by Shawn Collins

4. But don't the sites linked to here (http://www.mahalo.com/Coupon_Codes) contain undisclosed affiliate links?

I've got to agree with Jangro... there's no clear definition of what acceptable disclosure means on the wider web (sometimes a general "This Site is Monetized with Affiliate Links" in the footer of every page is advised, sometimes you only need a disclaimer on the about page and there are rare instances where every link is asked to be branded with "AFF" or some tag).

What's the disclosure threshold for Mahalo and what would you suggest it should be for Google (Digg, StumbleUpon, YouTube, Flickr, Twitter etc)?

Sam

Posted at 5:52PM on Feb 28th 2008 by Sam Harrelson

5. 1. Maybe.
It depends on the content of the site. If the affiliate links don't contribute to an obvious bias and the site is useful, then it should be OK. On the other hand, it might be easier for the guides to simply ban most sites with hidden/undisclosed affiliate links. So, I think this decision should be up to the people who are currently guides.

2. Yes.
Although, to me, a truly great site would disclose the fact that they use affiliate links.

3. No.
Banning would be too extreme. I wouldn't mind if they lowered the pagerank of sites that have hidden/undisclosed links though. But, it's a touchy subject because unlike Mahalo, Google isn't human powered, and therefore some "great" sites with hidden/undisclosed links could be hurt because of this. And, that wouldn't be wise.

Posted at 5:52PM on Feb 28th 2008 by Rebeca

6. I guess it depends on what you mean by "hidden", and at what point does it cross the line between OK and not OK.

I definitely agree with disclosure that a site contains affiliate links, but there needs to be very clear guidelines one way or the other.

Posted at 5:56PM on Feb 28th 2008 by BD

7. "Should we ban unlabled affiliate links from Mahalo?"

If you are concerned with user experience then you should list the pages which provide the best user experience and information, and not based on whether or not the owner makes a profit from the page.

If something is the best content, it's the best content, end of story.

For instance, If I write the best page ever written in the entire world on Celine Dion (and I might), I spend 4 weeks writing ONE page, and only because I link to her latest cd on amazon with one affiliate link I will be dropped from mahalo?

That's goofy. What is the argument to drop a page with an undisclosed affiliate link? And how do you disclose one?

And why just affilaite links? Shouldn't you also be dropping any page where any financial relationship exists between the author and people they link to, based on your editor's goofy logic?

Posted at 6:55PM on Feb 28th 2008 by 45n5

8. who cares what you do, your traffic is probably a lot like digg traffic, it does not convert to sales because your traffic is mostly calacanis fan boys! What happens to you when the real search engines decide you are no different than payperpost? lol, that will be a fun day!

Posted at 7:17PM on Feb 28th 2008 by fred

9. Since 99%+ of sites with undisclosed affiliate links aren't going to be relevant enough to hand select and put on one of your landing pages, do you need to answer the above?

Is there a site in particular that's really valuable that has undisclosed links you could point at?

These people in your screenshot above were the bane of our existence for the horrid, short period of time we had a Commission Junction account open.

Posted at 7:35PM on Feb 28th 2008 by A. Casalena

10. I would say Mahalo should allow sites with undisclosed affiliate links. If the site is useful what is the difference if there are affiliate links or not?

One site that I run has been around for about 3 years. Its a site that has lots of good content and users love it (I often see people I don't know recommending it in forums). About a year ago I started making some of the links affiliate links. This has not changed the content at all, and it is still as useful as it ever was. Most users probably don't know the difference.

What is the reasoning behind not allowing undisclosed links? How do these make sites less useful?

Posted at 8:25PM on Feb 28th 2008 by Toivo Lainevool

11. First off, the labeling of affiliate links is a non-issue in the affiliate community.

The goal of a search engine is to deliver the most relevant results for any given search, period. Regardless of affiliate links/labels etc.

Now up in the corner, I see you're on the board of ThisNext. They have affiliate links, they're not labeled. Are you going to remove the site from Mahalo? Also on a side note when I type in social shopping into Mahalo it's the only social shopping site showing up. There are others out there.

Posted at 9:50PM on Feb 28th 2008 by Jonathan (Trust)

12. I guess it depends on what your goal is for Mahalo:

1. Is the goal to provide the most relevant information

or...

2. Is the goal to provide the most relevant information that isn't monetized.

Posted at 10:23PM on Feb 28th 2008 by Tamara

13. I think people make too much of a big deal about undisclosed aff links. I think if someone has great content it shouldn't matter that they want to monetize it to a reader, no one has to click those links if they don't want to. Now on the other hand, is all you got was a lame aff page, or one of those spammy blogs, please get rid of it.

Posted at 10:23AM on Feb 29th 2008 by Bruce Prokopets

14. I totally understand the pseudo-dilemma ... but ...

I don't think they should be banned. One of the great things about the human aspect of Mahalo is that you can delineate in a way which sites are spammish and which sites have quality content. I can't imagine not including a great content site because they link to some Amazon or CJ affiliate products directly related to their content - whether labeled (aff) or not. Your average older non-techie user of Mahalo that you are aiming for isn't gonna know what (aff) or even (affiliate link) means anyways. Why punish those sites that are using affiliate links in a highly relevant and tasteful manner?

The other point is does that mean we need to come up with some sort of standard for DISCLOSING affiliate links? Oh geez ... just what we need. Then that means I have to go back over 3 years of original content and add a disclosure to the various books or musical instruments that I have linked to through my affiliate programs when the content of the article warranted it?

Dear God I hope not.

Posted at 10:36AM on Feb 29th 2008 by Don M

15. ... and if I remember correctly from the CalacanisCast episode with the smackdown of the PayPerPost dude, Jason is of the impression that undisclosed affiliate links are about as bad as paid blog posts ... so I am guessing he thinks they SHOULD be penalized. -dm

Posted at 10:38AM on Feb 29th 2008 by Don M

16. @Don M: If that's the case, shouldn't this extend beyond websites and into social platforms? Should undisclosed del.icio.us bookmarking for profit be banned? I mean, if you look at Jason's del.icio.us bookmarks up in the sidebar, they all point back to Mahalo.

I've been an avid and devoted del.icio.us user for years and view this sort of thing as web pollution since there's no disclosure of Jason's connection to Mahalo on his profile page (http://del.icio.us/jdawg).

Posted at 10:51AM on Feb 29th 2008 by Sam Harrelson

17. I think the first step is to get you to realize that affiliate marketing is just as ligitimate as non-converting banner ads, and Adsense links on a site. Many affiliate sites actually provide a great user experience, and consumers (read YOUR WEB SEARCHERS) love them.

If the site is a good quality site, with a good user experience, that just happens to have figured out that affiliate links are a great way to monitize the traffic, no skin of your back, or that of your web searchers, or don't pay more for going throuh an affilite link than they do going through a non-monitized link.

Wake up man!

Adam Viener
wiseaff.com

Posted at 10:54AM on Feb 29th 2008 by Adam Viener

18. Sam Harrelson: I'm fairly up front with my social news site bookmarking. Delicious doesn't have a way to indicate "I'm affiliated with this site" when you bookmark it... if it did I would certainly check that off. Also, I've moved my bookmarks over to accounts like jasonmcalacanis on digg from my old jdawg handle so folks know exactly who it is (which is sad, cause I liked my old handle!). I haven't gotten around to changing my sidebar on the blog, but will at some point. However, you're taking the typical deceptive marketer approach: I'm not going to answer the question about my deception, let me start by point to other things that might be deceptive in the world (i.e. product placement).

Posted at 11:30AM on Feb 29th 2008 by Jason

19. Hey Jason,

I just sent you an email about my site. From the snapshot above, I see my website is the one in question. Here are my 2 cents: If a site adds value for your users then it should be added. Isn't that the point, to create value for the user. In the example of coupon sites, if it is just a link farm with dynamically generated coupon banners, then no way. But if the site exceeds customer's expectations, creates useful information beyond coupons, and does not hide behind a veil of anonymity then it should be considered. If you do a flat ban against sites with undisclosed affiliate links you would be losing many, many quality websites.

Posted at 11:33AM on Feb 29th 2008 by Kyle James

20. I think Tamara has offered the best advice. It depends on your goals. If you are honestly concerned about the user experience then relevance and quality should be the only concern. Paid links (disclosed or not) is a moot point.

Posted at 2:01PM on Feb 29th 2008 by Ryan Roberts