Did Google bitch-slapping my blog for just using the words Pay Per Post, ReviewMe, Payu2Blog and other paid companies?!? Even though a blog hasn’t run a single post from these companies? !!!! ??? !!!!

Of course, it’s not as though I can ask Google to tell me. But, from Ted Murphy’s fingers, I learn this:

We now know from some of our friends inside of Google (thanks “bob”) that they are now looking for phrases such as PPP, PayPerPost,ReviewMe, Payu2blog, etc. in the text of your post. For that reason I would suggest refraining from using any type of this text in the body of your posts, sponsored or not. When you disclose thank the sponsor, not PPP.

Not mention these companies names!?

Of course I also mention these company names constantly. I even joined them all. After all, my niche is creating plugins that help bloggers who monetize do so. Joining the programs is essential to developing appropriate tools for these bloggers and understanding which features are useful.

But if Google’s blog could actually detect followed paid links they realize I have none from these companies!

In fact, if the Google meisters had any brains, they’d figure out one of many of my plugins are of inestimable value to their search engine.

Google meisters might ask, like what?

No Follow Old Spam Links:

You know what this does?

If a paid blogger runs paid a paid link, they can automatically no follow them after the contract period expires. That’s right: the links switch “no follow” after a set number of days. (The blogger can pick. I think I set mine to 60 days).

Sure, I know Google might not be thrilled with temporary follows, but sheesh! Your ‘bot is constantly crawling. Don’t you think it can’s see these things go “off”? The two I posted way, way, way back went off long, long ago. (Like earlier than May or at worst June!)

Guess what Google. Other bloggers use my plugin. Their “nofollows” turn on after a number of days.

So Am I supposed to never say Pay Per Post?!

Now assuming I lost page rank for posing the words Pay Per Post. What the heck amd I supposed to do if I want my rank back?

Andy Beard describes how I can request re-inclusion in Google’s ranking system. Evidently, I’m supposed to figure out what I did wrong (by guessing) and then undo it.

So… is mentioning PPP a violation of the guidelines? Am I supposed to delete thoese evil words, promise never to type PPP, Izea, Social Spark, PayU2Blog, ReviewMe or Loud Launch, ever again, and then ask Google if they’ll consider giving me page rank?!
Seriously?!

Oh, and if I can’t say these words, can others? Like, say the guys at TechCrunch, who seem to be permitted to say “Pay Per Post” with impunity?!

Hey, if Google wants to bitchslap me for posting the words Pay Per Post, Izea, Social Spark, or whatever, I guess they can do so. But … well.. sheesh!

© Lucia for Big Bucks Blogger, 2007. | Visit Post | 77 comments

I just got an email from an advertiser wanting me to remove a post from September 13. 1. What would be the logic behind that? 2. Can I delete posts, and if so, how old do they need to be?

Why ask to remove the link?

Will Posties remove the links?

"*chuckle* . wonder if they would pay you to remove it Wink"

[...] the say they don't want links from blogs anymore. Well...........I'm a tough love bitty, and my post is good and I don't delete content.

A funny/evil thing to do would be to change the links to a competitor!

That would be a smarter choice, because if I was an evil competitor, I would nicely start emailing all the posties to get rid of the post of my competitor Twisted Evil

© Lucia for Big Bucks Blogger, 2007. | Visit Post | 4 comments

Yes. It appears the Pay Per Post and Google may very well agree about something! They may end up using different words, but when it appears they both think that posts written in order to gain a chance at winning a valuable prize are not freely given links.

In the case of Google: The blogger who offers the prize could get a severe Google penalty.

In the case of PPP: A blogger will not be paid for any PPP post flanked by the “contests” post.

So, yep, PPP and Google agree! These posts are kinda-sorta “paid”, “sponsored” or “not freely given” and will be treated as such. Now, for some details!

Pay Per Post’s Reaction to Contest Posts

Recently, PayPerPost rejected a post written by Joanna, of Nanashi-inc.net. The reason? Her PPP sponsored posts was placed next to a post that contained a link to a contest for an IPOD; the link served in place of an entry fee.

The problem? The PPP TOS prohibit posting a PPP post next to any sponsored post and PPP considers these “contests entrace fee” posts sponsored.

Google’s Reaction to Contest Posts

A short while back, Dave Airey decided to run a blog contest. He offered a prize; the entrance fee for the contest was a blog post that linked to Dave’s blog.

Soon after, Dave noticed he’d suffered a severe Google penalty; Matt Cutt’s mentioned the contest when explaining the penalty.

Luckily for Dave, he was able to ask his readers to delete the links. After they did, he regained his Google rank!

Similarities!

Notice the IPOD contest run by It’s Write Now Dave Airey’s contesnt. To enter the contest, both require a blog post with a link back to the contests’ blogs.

So, it would appear that both Google and PPP consider these sorts of “contest entry” blog posts with their links to be motivated by some sort of reward, bribe, or what have you. Of course, each business responds differently.

PPP accepts sponsored posts as an entirely valid option for blogs. However, they prohibit bloggers from placing these sorts of contest posts adjacent to PPP’s clients’ posts. So, PPP’s response is to not pay the blogger for the invalid post.

In contast, Google doesn’t like sponsored posts at all. If they detect the contest, they will apply a Google penalty to the blogger who runs the contest. We don’t entirely know whether they will penalize the bloggers who enter the contest. But since Google seems to see these links as unnatural, it seems there is some risk Google might do so.

The irony

If you read the IPOD contest rules carefully, you’ll notice I just wrote a post that qualifies me to enter the contest! Would PPP consider this post sponsored? Would Google? Hmmmm….

© Lucia for Big Bucks Blogger, 2007. | Visit Post | 4 comments

Google seems to be stomping on the blogs carrying paid posts. I think in many respects they appear to be making mistakes and lowering ranks of posts that searchers find valuable; in that regard, Google may be cutting off its nose to spite its face. After all, if a high Google PR becomes un-correlated with “trustworthiness” from the user’s standpoint, and Google still gives “low PR” sites high ranks for competitive search results, who will believe the toolbar PR tell us anything about worth or trust?

Still, to protect my highly coveted PR of 0, I’d like to tell Google how they can tell my blog is not chockfull of what they consider to be paid links.

So, to help Google out, I’ll list five features that indicate “no paid link” with near certainty; others are just “strong hints”. Here go:

1. Google Adsense in post content: The TOS of most paid posting companies and link selling services generally forbid inserting Adsense in the content of a paid post. Adsense, Adbrite, or obvious banner ads in content means no paid links. (Of course, normal visitor know these are only here to make me money. But whatever.)
2. Kontera Ads appear in content after five days. The TOS of most paid posting companies and link selling services generally forbid inserting contextual ads by Kontera, Intellitext or any other service. If you see these in a post, you can bet dollars to donuts there are no paid links.
3. Links to a several domains in one post. The TOS of most paid posting companies forbid adding links to anyone other than the paying customer. If I link to Sebastian , Sephy, WebGrrrl, Steve Cronin, Untwisted Vortex, Blog-op, Great Video Clips and Re-emergence, I may have linked for no other reason than because they appear in my Bumpzee widget, but you can be sure they didn’t pay me. (Meanwhile, as I write, I noticed Slevi stopped by.)
4. Not an un-ending series of 50 word long posts. The TOS of several companies require 50 words surrounding that dropped link. Others require interim posts with at least 50 words. Loads and loads of 50 word posts often mean lots of paid links. Few generally means no paid posts– though there are exceptions.
5. Few inexplicably link to words having nothing to do with the main topic. Like… for example, “mail boxes”. Ok, I just threw that one in after I intentionally visited a blog that I know works for PayU2Blog. The blogger seems to believe those links “blend”.

   But, I ask you: Who links the word “mail boxes”? Ok, I could see linking it if you’d just finished an arduous day of shopping for mailboxes, and found an online source. But who links it in an article about– hypothetically– taking her daughter to the ER, and having to deal with doctors bills? PayU2Bloggers do, that’s who!

There’s an incomplete list for Google. I’m sure anyone who visits can now see that I don’t run paid links!

As an added benefit, I bet I’ve opened the Google engineers’ eyes and they’ll now get cracking on new algorithms based on my incomplete list.

Oh… you think engineers with Ph. D.s working on this issue might have figured these five signs out already? I have a Ph.D. in engineering too! And guess what? I think except for precious few bloggers, I’m pretty sure Google already knows how to find most paid links using an algorithm.

That’s why I’m wondering why they keep yammering on and on about how we should add “rel=nofollow”. Sorry, but, can’t you tell?!

Could paid links be made non-obvious? Yep. I don’t happen to run them, mostly because my blog launched after the last toolbar Pagerank update which means no one wants to pay me to linke them. But you know what? If the SEO’s go underground, the way Michael Gray suggest they will, Google will have a very hard time finding paid links.

What’s even more true is this: If Google doesn’t figure out how to detect underground paid links algorithmically they will never detect them manually. Cuz’ let’s face it: Ain’t no-one ever gonna “nofollow” those links!

© Lucia for Big Bucks Blogger, 2007. | Visit Post | 12 comments

Recently, Wendy Piersall asked Does Google Page Rank Foster an Attitude of Stinginess? Of course, it very well may foster stinginess particularly on the part of established bloggers.

Today, on my PR0 ranked blog, I want to ask the opposite question: Does Google PR foster a false sense of entitlement on the part of bloggers with brand new, out of the box, PR0 blogs?

Let’s look at the story that moved Wendy, which she summarized as follows:

Lizzie has a brand new blog and wanted to try and monetize it. She turned to PayPerPost as a source of revenue, only to be flatly rejected because of her lack of Google Page Rank. So, in a quest for inbound links, Lizzie found a blogger who did link exchanges :: only to find that same said blogger refused all requests from sites with a Page Rank of less than 3.

Wendy think this is a bit stingy on the part of the blogger who refused the link. Maybe so…or maybe not.

Let’s look at what Lizzie, the blogger who requested the link, really did, and think about what she might reasonably expect.

Let’s fill in the details!

Fewer than 90 days ago, Lizzie started a new blog which appears to fall in the “whatever I feel like blogging about” niche. After fewer than 90 days, and a dozen posts, she applied for PPP, which rejected that particular blog. She tells readers she was rejected because of her PR0.

Lizzy is incorrect: PPP accepts PR0 blogs. They reject blogs less than 90 days old and with excessively long gaps between posts.

However, since her goal is to monetize this brand new blog, she also concludes that she needs inbound links to improve her page rank of zero. She is correct about this — not because it’s required by PPP but because advertisers will pay more for ads and reviews on higher ranked blogs.

So, Lizzie sets out on a link hunt. Where does she go first? Apparently, not to her own three year old blog with linkage!

Lizzie tells us she has such a blog, but doesn’t name the blog. I did run a back link check at iweb tool and glanced at the blogs giving Chipped Polish backlinks. Nne seem to be written by a Lizzy and those that show images clearly don’t match her face in one of her online profiles.

So, while my backlink check isn’t thorough, it appears Lizzie may not link her own PR0 blog from her own, well established higher PR blog!

Instead, Lizzie surfs the “make money blogging” corner, and finds a blog that evidently provides instructions for being added to the blog roll. Lizzy reads the content, and concludes, to use Lizzy’s words ‘it was a little “meh”’ and proceeds to request a reciprocal sidebar link exchange from:

1. A blogger whose blog Lizzie only read because she was on a link hunt.
2. A blogger whose content Lizzie thinks is “meh”.
3. A blogger who has almost certainly never read or visited Lizzie’s blog.
4. A blogger with a vastly higher PR than Lizzie.
5. A blogger who is entirely unfamiliar with Lizzie herself and
6. A blogger who is publicly advertising her willingness to do reciprocal links exchanges for no other reason than to juice rank,
7. A blogger who, after reading Lizzie’s blog, may have visited it and decreed the content “meh”.

So, in this context, why would Lizzie expect a to get a link? Why should the PR5 blogger give her a link? At least, vis-a-vis Lizzie, the entire reason for the proposed link exchange is to juice Lizzie’s PR rank.

What Lizzie proposes is, quite frankly, an entirely economic exchange. Presumably, under these circumstances, the only reason the PR5 blogger would give Lizzie a link is if the PR5 blogger got something in exchange.

And what, precisely, would that be? A link on the sidebar of a PR0 blog of a blogger with 12 posts in the “whatever” niche who thinks your content is “meh”? That link has little current value as link juice. It probably has little ability to drive traffic. Moreover, if the PR5 blogger is engaged in loads of reciprocal link exchanges done to gain link juice only, there is the possiblity that this particular link exchange would look suspicious to Google.

Still, I guess a case could be made that a link Lizzie’s blog sidebar has future value and so should be granted.

But does it? Lizzie thinks the PR5 blog is “meh”. She is establishing a “made to monetize” blog. Space on sidebars is space where one can advertise. Will Lizzie keep the PR5 bloggers link in place should Lizzie no longer desperately needs the link juice?

We can’t know. The PR5 Blogger can’t know. So, there is little value for the PR5 blogger here.

Does Lizzie recognize the problem and up the ante and offer the PR5 blogger a link to her “meh” blog on Lizzy’s established blog with PR? It appears makes no such offer.

So, unless we think bloggers PR0 Bloggers are entitled to any and all sidebar links they request, why would we conclude the PR5 blogger is ’stingy’?

Why not conclude Lizzie has a false sense of entitlement?

© Lucia for Big Bucks Blogger, 2007. | Visit Post | 10 comments

Look what I found in the Akismet bin “Big Bucks Blogger”:

Pips | pipsnet@freenet.de | pipsnet-technology.com | IP: 78.51.114.143
This is an interesting blog. I´m here for the second time and find every day new interesting details.

I also found it in in Akismet for “The Knitting Fiend”:

Pips | pipsnet@freenet.de | pipsnet-technology.com | IP: 78.51.114.143
This is an interesting blog. I´m here for the second time and find every day new interesting details.

Pips sure is an interesting name for a spammer who visits blogs twice.

When I searched “This is an interesting blog.” “time and find every day new interesting details”, I discovered that Pips has hit lots of interesting blogs.

If you’ve been hit, you may want to delete any comments left by “Pip” of “pipsnet-technology.com”. Or at least make them nofollow. Lucia’s Linky Love would would let you follow most your links, while nofollowing Pips. After all, he never visits three times.

© Lucia for Big Bucks Blogger, 2007. | Visit Post | 9 comments

Regular readers may remember I’m working on a plugin to create a little text box containing text links ads. The ads could be affiliate links, my own resources or anything I like. I’m

Right now, the plugin:

1. Fishes out ‘Amazon.com‘, ‘Clickbank‘ and ‘general’ links from the ‘aLinks’ database at random, and turns them into a little text link box similar to the one you see to the right.
2. Redirects the “Clickbank” and “general” links. This turns them into “nofollow” links so you can sell without transferring your page rank to the product page. (Maurice of They Cayman Host suggested this.
3. I can insert the box outside post content; outside the content. When I place the box outside content, I can adjust the color and size of the box. You can see one of these in the sidebar.
4. Permits the user to insert ads inside a post by placing &lt!–injectad–> anywhere they like. I placed that code in the DIV box to right justify the box. However, inside content, I don’t yet permit customization of the ads. The box is outlined in grey, five ads appear, and you can’t adjust the width.
5. Piggy-backs off “aLinks” a WordPress plugin that will auto-link words in a blog content. This lets me defer writing certain parts of the user interface until I identify the full functionality I want from my plugin.

For my purposes, the functionality is already pretty nice. Hoever, I find I discover what I want to change as I actually use it. So, for now, I plan to slap one of these ad in the sidebar and then hunt down some decent affiliate programs that permit me to just run text. Over the next week or two, I’ll also be adding whichever features I feel I need most and which I can figure out how to do easily.

In the short term, I’ll be adding functionality to let people customize the box width and colors when this is used inside posts, and to change the ‘Ad’ message in the lower corner.

This plugin isn’t available yet, and it doesn’t have a name, but you’ll be seeing the ads in various locations from time to time.

© Lucia for Big Bucks Blogger, 2007. | Visit Post | 2 comments

It’s pretty sad when you hate someone or something so much that you seem to create “facts” to bolster your negative opinion of them. It appears Mike Arrington did that in his recent screed entitled: PayPerPost Abuses Declining Job Candidate.

Relying on information contained in Arrington’s story, posts at the PPP board, and the “candidates” clarification in comments it appears the truth is:

1. PPP didn’t abuse anyone.
    
2. The supposedly abused “declining job candidate” was not only never offered a job by PPP, he was never a job candidate.
    
3. To make it appear PPP “abused” a “job candidate”, Arrington reports false “facts” surrounding the story. If left uncorrected, these “facts” could unfairly besmirch the professional reputation of the innocent third party who had the misfortune to deal with the sois-dissant “job candidate.”
    

Pretty bad reporting. Arrington’s story isn’t just an opinion I disagree with. It isn’t just biased reporting of things that actually happened. It is an attempted hatchet job on PPP that relies on manufactured, entirely false “facts”, which could be uncovered easily.

Can I demonstrate Arrington’s “facts” are just flat out wrong?

You betcha’! Let’s look at the numerous specific details that Arrington got wrong:

1. In the character assassination category: Arrington said a head hunter, Lori Friend-Smiles (of Stratus Technology Services, LLC,) “forwarded Salberg’s email to PayPerPost VP Software Development Peter Wright”.

   Nope, this didn’t happen. Lori Friend-Smiles did not forward a Salberg’s email to anyone.

   This may seem a trivial error on Arrington’s part, but remember: Many consider a head hunter forwarding private email to a third party professional malpractice. So, to “break” this story, Arrington unfairly, and falsely besmirched Lori Smiles’s professional reputation.

   How did I unearth the truth?

   Lawrence Salberg volunteered this information in a comment posted at Techcrunch, saying “As far as I know, Lori (referred to as the ‘headhunter’ by many here) did not forward the email to PPP. I copied PPP (to their general email info box) in my response.”

   Presumably, if Mike Arrington had asked Lawrence how Peter Wright obtained the email, Mike would have “uncovered” this tid-bit of information! (But as we shall see, that would have dramatically changed Arrignton’s later accusations!)

   In any case, given the nature of most company general email info boxes, Salberg the “job candidate” basically sent an a abusive email to the general inbox at PPP, where its remarkable contents, containing personal attacks on every employee must have circulated quickly.

2. In the gross mis-characterization category: Arrington tells us Peter Wright sent an “unsolicited” email to Salberg, and that Peter’s “unsolicited” email is part of an “ongoing email string”.

   This is false in two regards. First, Peter Wright responded to an email sent by Salberg to PPP. No one considers responding email sending “unsolicited email”

   In fact, when I send email to a company’s general contact box, I hope to get an answer!

   Second… “on going email exchange”? That sure makes it sound like Peter Wright is holed up in his office, neglecting important PPP work and wasting time exchanging email with Salberg, right? That would fit right in with Mike’s constant talking claim that PPP management wastes time on silly things.

   In fact, the exchange of email was not “on going” at the time Mike published. Peter appears to have responded to Salbergs first email to PPP. Salberg then sent Peter another vitrolic email where Salberg further argues his position with prose consisting of statements like “Blah, blah, blah….” (That’s really a quote, which prefaces a rather snide paragraph.).

   Peter appears to have ignored the second email by Salberg and is continuing to ignore the man.

   When Peter did not answer, it appears that Lawrence Salberg, may have wished to find some means to continue the conversation. After all, somehow, Mr. Salberg’s email managed to come to the attention of Mike Arrington. (Though Arrington, relying on passive voice, avoids telling us who sent him the email. )

   So, the truth: The only “on going” aspect of the email exchange was that “someone” not associated with PPP was forwarding the email to Arrington!

   (Update 9/25/00: In comments, Salberg says he did not wait until Peter Wright failed to respond to his email response. He pro-actively blindcopied Arrington on his response to Peter Wright, so Arrington received it at the same time as Peter, the timestamp indicated in the PDF is 1:57 PM PDT; the meta data indicates Arrington’s post was published at 10:14 pm. )

3. Also in the gross mis-characterization category: Arrington tells us Peter Wright went “on the attack”. Oh?

   Well, I guess whether or not a response is an attack is a matter of opinion. But let’s examine the exchange, a portion of which is available here:

   In the letter Salberg zinged off to PPP, Salberg said this:

   Quite frankly, who WOULD want to work in a place like that? Only kids with no brains, no education, no self-confidence and who want to write letters home to mommy and daddy telling them about their great job (read: paycheck) at some “cool” web company”.

   And

   However, you didn’t say there [sic] were a modern day cotton-picking farm and that employees are to be viewed as the “negros” out pickin in the fields.

   Salberg’s entirely unsolicited email to PPP contains additional barbs which many would consider inflammatory.

   Peter Wright responds by defending his staff, saying:

   .. I take offense at that. We have an incredibly talented team of people here, programmers w ho have developed stunning technology the likes of which you have never seent before. You’ll see them when we release Argus in August in November. We have ex-military programmers, specialists in data forensics, published authors and speakers, highly popular open source tools authors - the list goes on and on. Smart people. Brilliant people.

   This, dear readers, is the sort of conversation Mike Arrington characterizes as Peter, of PayPerPost, “attacking” Lawrence the “engineer”.

4. In “the trying to bolster his case by elevating the credentials of the party he supports” category: Arrington characterizes Salberg as a “declining candidate”. This makes it sound as if PPP was upset because someone they evaluated and admired turned them down.

   This appears to be far from the truth.

   To be a “declining candidate”, a candidate must have an offer. The reality is: PPP never extended an offer to Salberg. But it gets better. After all: To be a “job candidate” the company must at least consider you for a position.

   Did PPP ever consider Salberg? Did they even know he existed? It appears not.

   In discussion at the Postie board, Peter Wright (aka Froogle) reveals:
   

   Also we never interviewed him, or phone screened him. He was merely pointed at the sites by a recruiter to see if he wanted them to push him here for interview. First I heard of the guy was when I got his email.

   Peter’s assessment is consistent with what we read in the email exchanges Arrington supplied with his post. In those, we read Lori Smalls, asking Salberg:
   

   “Please take a good look at a few episodes of “www.rockstartup.com” and then let me know if you would like to move forward with Pay Per Post.

   Salberg was “a candidate” in the sense that Lori, a busy, but friendly, recruiter, read PPP’s job posting, read Salberg’s resume and thought she might be able to get PPP to consider him as a candidate.

   I’m sorry, Mike, but that means Salberg was not a PPP job candidate!

5. Once more, in the the “elevating the credentials of the party he supports” category: Arrington closes by referring to Salberg as “a smart engineer” who is evidently, still in the market. He also recommends that other would do well to hire Salberg.

   Well, Salberg is not an engineer; in comments at Techcrunch, he describes himself this way: “I’m not an engineer. Just a web developer / designer very normal average guy.” At his blog, he describes himself as “The Small Business Expert”; his most recent is “Sticky Notes Finally Good for Something”.

   Of course, Mike Arrington may have this bit right: Salberg is likely still on the job market.

Lessons Mike Should Learn

Mike: It’s never professional to run a controversial story without checking the facts. It’s never professional to smear a third party professional reputation without checking the facts. It’s never professional to appear to be trying your darndest to be carrying out a hatchet job on a company that compete for your revenue stream: that is, advertising dollars.

And, if you really think Lawrence Salberg is a smart engineer, maybe you should hire him. Because after this, I doubt anyone is going to take your staffing recommendations seriously!

© Lucia for Big Bucks Blogger, 2007. | Visit Post | 5 comments

People are discovering AdBlocker Plus, so I figure it’s time to make it easier to insert ads that don’t get blocked into a Wordpress blog. I looked for a Wordpress Ad Plugin that let me create and insert a banner of simple text-link type affiliate ads into my blog, but couldn’t find what I wanted. Then, I realized I could write a “proto-plugin” in 30 minutes, so I did.

My current “proto-plugin” fishes out the affiliate ad key phrases out of the database used by aLinks and display them as text ads on each post. If you look to the bottom of this post, you’ll see my ads inside an orange box.

I figure this little plugin will help me promote these various products and display them on both my knitting blog and here. Currently, all the plugin does is: a) create a box, b) pull two ads from my database and c) displays them after the post content.

I’m planning to make this niftier (if only for myself). But, before I do, I was looking for suggestions. Any and all suggestions are welcome. Here are features I already plan (because I want them!):

1. Let the blogger place the box where they prefer either inside their post, sidebar or between posts.
2. Let blogger format the box size, color, border thickness etc.
3. Let the blogger specify which group of affiliate ads they want to display (clickbank, amazon, general etc.)
4. I don’t know.. what else seems important? Make them blink?

I don’t want to have tooooo many options, but key ones that might make this attractive to bloggers who want to monetize would be useful.

Oh… and of course, if you know of a plugin that already does a good job rotating random text-based affiliate ads, let me know. I don’t want to reinvent the wheel.
—
Update: I’m fiddling with the plugin. Ads will appear, disppear and have “issues”.

© Lucia for Big Bucks Blogger, 2007. | Visit Post | 7 comments

DealDotCom is a brand new affiliate company, and they have a an enhanced commission deal for people who sign up quickly.

What’s the deal? If you sign up, and get others to sign up, you will get a 35% commission when they buy something. Plus, if a person you signed up signs up someone, you get a 15% commission on what those people you sign up buy! Signing up is free, easy and risk free. (If you are worried about risk, defer giving a social security number — as they advise. )

Commissions? On what?

Starting Tuesday Sept. 18, 2007, DealDotCom will post exactly one high-quality internet marketing/online business related product and service at a rock bottom price each day.

See how new the program is? If you act now and recruit others, you have a chance to rake in bucks on their purchases.

No it’s not too good to be true!

Two Tier commissions are used by loads of reputable companies particularly when they are new. These packages encourage people to recruit new affiliates. So you should take advantage of it. Sign up today, encourage others to do so, and then wait until Tuesday to see how to advertise the actual products! (Or maybe they will be so good, you’ll just want to buy the stuff yourself.)

To sign up, visit: DealDotCom.

© Lucia for Big Bucks Blogger, 2007. | Visit Post | No comment