My Rant ABOUT SPAM (Plus Kyle's Official Response)
Disclaimer: I appreciate anyone who has told me they consider what I'm doing to be spam. I prefer you verbalize it than to keep it to yourself and label me internally, so I don't have any anger towards those who have been trying to maintain the standard here. I'm just confused.
I love Wealthy Affiliate from the bottom of my heart.
I understand the intentions behind the spam rule. Many people have the intention to sell and often times, if they're here, they spam in effort to direct people to competing products or services. There's also the people who link to stuff that's unhelpful, or not relevant. Then, you have another group of people who want to feel safe and don't want to have to filter thru promotions.
I get it. I like the safe environment created here too, and I don't want to sacrifice that.
This is My Scenario
On the other hand, you have people (like me) who desire to be transparent and to help everyone achieve success. We've put lots of effort in creating helpful content inside and outside of Wealthy Affiliate, and it's alot to ask for us to recreate everything we've created on the outside specifically for this audience simply because we can't link to it--it's like going around a lake when you can swim thru it. Why make it difficult if the intent is to be helpful and transparent?
I've tried to workaround the spam rule but it's more work that way. I don't like to have to be all "buttoned up" and exclude information when it can be helpful.
The Oxymoron that Keeps Happening with the Spam Rule
I've created many resources that could be seen as "self-promotion" if you wanted to. I've created more than one case study being very transparent about my results on my site and on Youtube and strategies in effort to help others. Based on my experiences there, most people want the transparency--that's my biggest compliment. They don't want someone who says, "my site is getting lots of traffic" and doesn't say how, or someone who says, "something is working for me", and doesn't say what.
I've also created several pieces of content that help navigate personal, mindset, and other relevant issues for those in the industry. If I have relevant content on the outside that could increase the help to others, why not link to it?
What makes matters even worse is if I don't link to it or demonstrate, then people will come and ask questions via inbox or in the comments because my content would be more fragmented and completely different if I leave out details that some would consider "spam".
Added to that, even with the details I've given people still want more, so I get inbox messages for more links, so it makes it seem like, why am I going the long way? On the same piece of content, some people will ask for more links and others will accuse me of spamming for putting any links at all.
We have hearing impaired people here, people who would feel more comfortable with closed captioning, and people who genuinely want to learn from someone whose willing to be transparent with them, and all of these people want the links. Why not put the links out there for everyone? If it can help, so be it, and if they want to ignore, so be it.
Again, these are not links to sales pages, and this is not an intention to earn a direct sale. This is solely for the purpose to help.
Many people who have been here much longer have said what I'm doing is fine and they appreciate it, so it's confusing!
Do you want me to be buttoned up like one of them?
Most scammers leave things out on the outside of here in effort to give the illusion something works by forging results. I don't want to be like that. If I see a recurring mindset issue, technical issue, or other problem, and I know I've overcome it myself, I know someone who has, or I've addressed the problem on my site (for free) or in one of my channels outside, then I add content here that can standalone, but could be improved with the link to another relevant piece I've written, why not? It's not a problem when I link to someone else's content. Only when I link to my own?
Believe me, I Understand the Good Side
I understand many positive contexts of the spam rule, but having to inbox links all the time because I can't put them where they'd be most convenient, or having to feel the need to re-create content that is equally or more helpful than what I've already created is when I really dislike the rule.
By the way, when Kyle says this line in Spam is a no, no, I took it to be equal with what I'm doing:
"If a link is posted out of an act to help someone, not sell something, that is OK."
What are your thoughts?
- Do you want creators to put all of their most helpful and transparent advice outside of here to avoid being called spammers?
- How can we enable transparency and genuine help while maintaining the safety of this environment here?
Leave your thoughts below...I'm open to agreement or disagreement, so don't be afraid to say what's on your mind as long as it's respectful.
Recent Comments
121
You can always link to posts with information you want to share here. These posts can have links to other posts with sells pitches.
It should fit The Spam Rule.
Wish you great success!
Bob
I'm not sure that's the culture here. I think it's acceptable based on Kyle's quote above, but the culture of the spam policing isn't that way.
i feel your pain. I Started doing guest posting with WA members. For a few months now I have spent more time working on writing for other people and doing very little on my own site. I tried talking about what I was writing on other people’s sites and posted the link. Right away I was reported for spam and blocked. Once I was able to edit, I tried changing the posts and following people’s recommendations to be able to post a website link. Blocked again on the same posts I update. After ridiculous back and forth messages with the WA members, i gave up.
I deleted the rest of my answer because I'm sure it would get me blocked again. The entire site is run on making money by having the members do most the work.
Hey, I just don't do links in my blogs, period. My blogs are pretty much personal reflections. If I bring up a subject that requires further exploration, I just point to the source.
I truly get where you're coming from, Tiffany, but I think it's a no-win situation on an individual basis, but the community is protected from a very real threat. The only sure-fire solution I see is to create original content via your blogs and training videos. A lot of extra work, I know, but "the big hosses carry the big crosses."
Hahahaha. You always have great quotes. I see your point. You might be right. I may have to approach things like you're doing also. I'll have to see.
Tiffany, your "blogs" are so deep, they deserve to be training videos. I believe you will reach more of us with them. I can see how your intentions can be misinterpreted. Another option would be to create your original content in such a way that it can be easily edited to satisfy a WA rating. Hey, you'll figure it out.
That's what my Youtube channel and site is all about. Haha. The thing is, I approach things outside of here based on "business", whereas, here, I target the concepts to affiliate marketing, so it'll be relevant here. Did you see Kyle's response?
I've copied it here:
"Yes, definitely the case. If the link is non promotional and it is used to help fulfill the story or example within the training (and not in a slight of hand sort of way), it is fine.
People that are spamming know they are, and as tricky as they are it will be obviously. It is not others job to police content either, if someone has an issue with any content they should bring it to either mine or Carson's attention and we can have a look (and if it is spam we will remove it and deal with it appropriately).
If you have others WRONGLY policing your content too, we would like to know about that as well as that is no appropriate and hinders positive interaction here."
That pretty much sums it up. Thanks. That will definitely help me when I learn enough to share with somebody.
I think he cleared it up for a lot of people with that comment. I'm glad it was helpful for you too.
I like the fact that he pointed out that spammers know they're spamming. If you're wondering if your stuff is spam, it's probably not.
Hahaha. Good point. Ask yourself, "Am I trying to spam?", or "Am I trying to help?". That should be a good self-test.
My approach is to question, why is the link there? Is it because of helpful intentions or to gain something? Helping links have an added value to the blog or question and do nothing for the writer and are of great value to the reader, spam links ask for visitors, likes, followers or attention for their own profit. Just my 2 cents.
I wrote once a blog about this: When you are asking for help, please give the details to save time Even Kyle agreed to it, his reply is in the comments
I'll check it out for sure. I think intention should be a deciding factor, but I know that won't make things easy. I guess this is just a difficult thing to manage: on one side, the author may have to PM or post links over and over. On the other side, the WA community and support staff would have to monitor intentions more. It's tough.
It leaves me wondering, what I should do.
The spam rule is great and stops us being overcome with links. If it wasn't there the site would quickly degenerate into a link fest where no one talks to anyone, no one adds stuff of interest, they are all trying to sell to each other. I have seen this and it doesn't work.
On the other hand freely offering assistance by linking to an outside blog or site should be okay, especially as you can't just duplicate it wholesale on here.
The trouble is the ones who want to spam their links for selling do not see the difference and think it gives them the right to do the same.
Rather a catch 22 situation.
I imagine that from Kyle & Carson's point of view it's easier to say no to the many, however frustrating and annoying it is for the few.
I think you're right Linda. You've nailed the catch 22 for sure. What do you think I should do? Stop sharing as much?
Well.... hard to say. If you've been told by Kyle it's okay and its not to a selling site then you should be clear. I would double check to be on the safe side and once okayed just go ahead.
This is a tough one for me. I watched your transparent video on where you have come and I found it to be the most helpful one I have viewed. But at the same time, I believe that rules are set down for a reason. If a rule is bent just a bit for everyone they are no longer a rule.
Maybe the answer is in how the rules are worded? I imagine these rules were written based on things that have happened and have disrupted the community.
So to sum it up, maybe the rules need to be revisited and revised. Maybe they have already been revised numerous times.
There are so many directions this can go. Wouldn't it be nice if life were cut and dried and lined out without so many options or would it?
Just my thoughts. No answers here. I am not sure there is a good answer that will meet all of the needs of a community this large.
Laura
I agree Laura. I've said, "Maybe I should put this stuff on my site", but I love the people here, and I wanted to put it to help them. Many people are appreciative that I have. My site isn't about affiliate marketing and I try to tailor my content here for that audience.
Either the rules will have to be revisited or I'll have to be more "buttoned up" here which will probably mean less sharing. I keep going back and forth about this, but I want to make a final decision.
Tiffany, I think it's an acceptable workaround to collect email addresses via PM here at WA. even though you can't ask them in a blog for their email addresses as a public broadcast. That will get you banned for a month ;)
It has to be individual and case by case.
For example, You can tell them that if they want more info they can PM you and you can send a link there to join your website or provide their email so you can subscribe them yourself.
I don't see how you have time to deal with duplicating stuff here.
I hope I am understanding you correctly about this issue, and that my suggestion helps. Marc
I haven't tried to get email addresses. I think people would definitely consider that spam. Plus, the PM thing is extra if you leave the links out and tell everyone to PM you, then you have to send several separate messages with the links. It's like compounding the work, and it's very inefficient if there's multiple people who want the info.
I'm referring to a scenario like my case studies or my post from yesterday. In my case studies, it's clear that I'm sharing the results from my site and YouTube channel. I show you my site and my other sites: what I did right and try to explain what I did wrong. That can be interpreted as self-promotion.
Also, yesterday, I wrote a post about Darren Hardy and the compound effect. I put a link to quotes from the book and someone commented that I added a link to my site as if that was questionable.
I just want clarity. It's okay to do a video training explaining all my results, but it's not okay to reference an article with quotes I've written? It's a little confusing.
I see. Well, you are talking about a major change in the way this works here. Generally, from my understanding, links to blogs in WA are okay, but links outside WA in a blog are going to be interpreted as possible affiliate links and may get reported as such. Because Kyle and Carson don't have time to police this stuff individually, enough reports are going to get you banned automatically then you will have to appeal that decision.
Especially if you link to your own site in a blog, that's pretty much a no-no regardless of circumstance. You can put it in your profile and point them there.
I'm no expert on this but I've learned enough not to post links into a blog unless it is absolutely Crystal clear there are no potential affiliate links anywhere involved.
That's why linking to your site is going to get flagged, because even if it's a specific article on your site, somewhere on your site you will have affiliate links, and it will look like you could be marketing to members.
So watch out is all I can say.
Yes. I'm seeing that. This is difficult to do. It makes it seem like you have to do double work to give the value here.
On one hand, I like the rule, and on the other hand, I don't.
Right. From an academic/teaching standpoint, I agree with you. There are limitations as to how far you can go without going crazy. I remember I was going to link to an outside source in a response, then I looked into the rules and found out it's not allowed, even if it is innocuous, innocent and well-meaning.
Since you can only go so far, and you've already gone miles beyond what most do, I guess it falls back to reporting what you do here, and giving general advice, focusing on your real work on the site. If they come to your website in your profile, after they like your advice, that's a good thing.
Which I probably need to do -- find your site on your profile then get mine setup and put on mine :) cheers!
I'm sad about that. I really like sharing here, but I don't want to feel like I'm doing double duty.
We'll see what I do. I wrote Kyle about this earlier today to verify if it's intent that matters or if it's "no links at all regardless". Either way, focusing on our own sites always takes precedence.
I was just thinking about what you do when you want to be extra generous.
Also, I understand the point in the profile links and that people are supposed to go there if they want more information from you, but we all learn about ease of use.
Many people don't go to the profiles for links. Maybe they want it more accessible, I don't know. Instead, they will ask you "what's the link" in the comments section or in your PM because maybe the profile linking isn't as convenient as it's intended to be. My hypothesis.
Could be. Well, because of this limitation, I intend to use WA only to 'test drive' my training materials before putting it on my website or youtube channels. I don't want to duplicate my stuff like that. Good luck with Kyle! :)
I do like the spam rule. It's here to protect us all. If you have something that is very helpful to the community, you can still create a training about it and we shall be grateful for that.
I don’t agree that people should do twice as much work just because they can’t post links at WA. Nadia when you start having a successful business, you’ll know how much energy it takes and that time is money and unlikely you’ll say “you can do (another) training (on the same topic you’ve already done outside of WA)”.
Spam = when you self promote. But helpful links even if it’s on one’s own site = not spam. That’s my take on it.
See more comments
Yes, definitely the case. If the link is non promotional and it is used to help fulfill the story or example within the training (and not in a slight of hand sort of way), it is fine.
People that are spamming know they are, and as tricky as they are it will be obviously. It is not others job to police content either, if someone has an issue with any content they should bring it to either mine or Carson's attention and we can have a look (and if it is spam we will remove it and deal with it appropriately).
If you have others WRONGLY policing your content too, we would like to know about that as well as that is no appropriate and hinders positive interaction here.
I'm so glad you responded to this. I try to stay in unity with what I thought you were doing with the spam rule. My understanding of the intent behind the rule was to keep this a safe learning environment, and to avoid distracting people with content that has sales intent.
Granted, my site is a part of my business and there are links there ( as we're taught), that's never the point in sending people there, and traffic isn't a goal either. The only way the link would drive traffic is if people wanted to see more about what I've written, but "driving traffic" is never the goal. There are more efficient ways of driving traffic than posting long 1000+ articles here, and you teach us those.
Thanks Kyle for clarifying. I'll make sure to spread the awareness, so this policing doesn't continue making innocent people feel like they need to isolate themselves when they're genuinely trying to help.
Also, can you add some examples of helpful link additions vs. spam, so we can be more clear about "go" vs. "no go" scenarios? I think that would be very helpful.
Wow!
A very important lesson here. IF we have any issues with anything in WA, then it should always be brought to the attention of either Kyle or Carson as it definitely is not our job to police others.
Just saying I get what Kyle is saying :).
Mary Ann
I agree with that. Great point.