| Author |
Topic |
John_Reese |
 Posted - 10/22/2007 : 02:30:13
|
Hey everyone,
I'm posting this because I know many of our users are members of the Warrior Forum -- and I want to create ONE thread to keep the moderators (hopefully) from having to police a bunch of other threads.
We just removed over *10,000* blogs from our network. And the odds are some of those are users of this forum.
If your BlogRush account was made INACTIVE recently, don't take it personally please. In fact, if you had a "make money" related blog you should know that we had to be extra strict with that category -- because most of the blogs in that category were heavy with ads and promotional material compared with the ratio of tips, techniques, and true unique "helpful" content. Ultimately, it was a judgement call by whatever one of our reviewers reviewed your individual blog.
If you want to see examples of "make money" type blogs that got approved, you can check out the following to get an idea of what we were looking for:
http://www.jackhumphrey.com/fridaytrafficreport/
http://www.andybeard.eu
http://www.internetmarketingsweetie.com/blog/
As your notification stated, you can resubmit your blog after the "suspension period" is over.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE understand... we had no choice but to move to a strict, quality guideline criteria system. It's the same thing that many other Internet services use.
And, no, it's not always fair and impartial. Mistakes ARE made. Good sites can and do end up getting mistakenly rejected. If YOU feel a mistake was made with your blog, as was previously stated, you can resubmit it.
Thank you for your understanding and please do not take it personally as any kind of sign that we think you're a spammer or a bad marketer, etc.
Best Regards,
John Reese
|
|
Paul_Short |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 02:30:56
|
Thanks John ;-)
Paul |
 |
|
infodude |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 02:35:12
|
Wow! thanks for the update John!
I have to recheck my blogs. |
|
|
Angela V. Edwards |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 02:39:37
|
John, I got a message tonight that my blog was made INACTIVE...but I have never signed up for BlogRush!! I have never put the widget on my blog; I don't even know how!!! My blog is not a "make money" blog, but that's immaterial, since I don't have a BlogRush account. I guess I'm INACTIVE, though, lol.  |
|
|
Gary Smith |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 02:43:52
|
Hello John,
Great idea but really poor implementation so far (in my opinion). You would have done better to look at services like HitTail. They had a long open beta period before they launched. This gave them time to provide stats, fix security issues and launch a stable and complete service.
With regard to the razor gang that removed 10,000+ blogs... My blog is a service .. nothing to do with making money. Good, original information and tips ... widget on the main page of my blog.
All other problems aside, my main gripe is that I wasn't given a reason in the email and when I tried to log in I couldn't even delete my account - the only option was to add another blog.
In the email I was basically told 'Here are our guidelines .. now YOU work out why we made you inactive!'.
BlogRush is great but it's not THAT important to my success that I'm going to spend hours scratching my head trying to work out why it was rejected. Especially when it's still not providing any meaningful stats.
I understand that you want a 'clean' network with useful information but there isn't a whole lot to compel me to want to get back into the network right now. Particularly if I have to spend time trying to work out why quality control guy A decided it wasn't suitable.
|
|
|
Dean Kennedy |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 03:23:07
|
Personally, telling me you're kicking me out, and then apologising doesn't really make it any better. My blog is admittedly small and only has 36 posts. But, of the posts, 26 of them are "helpful" and not ad/money related -- to me that puts my quality content ratio at over 72% of my blog posts; so just 28% are about making money and most of those affiliate links. I'm at a loss to work out how that is not in the "far outweigh" definition!
I looked at the 7 points in the quality guidelines for being included -- and can't see why my site doesn't qualify... but I just don't think it's worth bothering to worry about BlogRush in future! |
|
|
Anomaly1974 |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 03:31:28
|
My highest traffic blog got removed but it was because I lost all of my content recently. I am okay with that, however, since you are here. Maybe you could answer one question for me? When I started I had my blog in a subdirectory and it is now on the root directory. I still do not know how to remove the blogrush info for the site that no longer exists. Embarrassing but I found no way to voluntarily remove any "dead" weight from my account so I would not clog up the system. Any ideas?
Thanks
Ward |
|
|
LB |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 03:36:52
|
Personally, I think this is a really lame thing to do after the fact.
You had thousands upon thousands of bloggers that signed up, installed your widget and made glowing posts on their blogs and promoted your service for you bringing in many new users. Most of these people found you through word of mouth from other bloggers.
And now that your member base is massive- you bite the very hand that has fed you by banning many of the bloggers that worked so hard to promote your service.
If blogs are trying to scam the system then fine- kick them out.
But if you're going to actually review the content of a blog and then decide whether they're worthy- the time to do that is before you allow them to go live with your widget.
I can understand why people are angry. |
|
|
John_Reese |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 03:44:47
|
quote : Originally posted by LB
Personally, I think this is a really lame thing to do after the fact.
You had thousands upon thousands of bloggers that signed up, installed your widget and made glowing posts on their blogs and promoted your service for you bringing in many new users. Most of these people found you through word of mouth from other bloggers.
And now that your member base is massive- you bite the very hand that has fed you by banning many of the bloggers that worked so hard to promote your service.
If blogs are trying to scam the system then fine- kick them out.
But if you're going to actually review the content of a blog and then decide whether they're worthy- the time to do that is before you allow them to go live with your widget.
I can understand why people are angry.
It's called a PUBLIC BETA for a reason. We did not foresee all of these issues.
And we are *NOT* banning anyone. We're simply moving accounts to an "inactive" status. These users can make necessary guideline changes or submit other blogs they may have. It only takes ONE approved blog to reactivate the account again. None of their referrals are lost while their account is inactive. Any 'growth' of their referral network is still being tracked. |
|
|
pearsonbrown |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 04:02:45
|
I tested the water with a small but active blog of mine in the educational area. I've never tried to make any money from this blog, apart from a few cents from the Adsense, and it was purely intended as a way of 'giving something back'.
I got the 'message' too this morning. I went through the list of criteria and I can't see that it failed any of them.
But, in any event, i wasn't getting in any traffic from the widget and the headlines that were on there would have attracted none of my visitors anyway. So it's no great loss.
I've always been a big fan of john Reese but I think he's made a big mistake here. I only went into Blogrush in the first place because it was him and because he'd never let me down. Now I won't trust him so much in the future.
Pearson |
|
|
LB |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 04:03:56
|
All I'm saying is I can understand why there are some angry people. Many of them worked hard promoting Blogrush and their blog now got disapproved. They feel betrayed.
Personally, I would have sent quality guidelines to people and given them 30 days or something to update the blog to pass them.
Alternatively, you could just put a moratorium on new submissions to the marketing category for a while until things even out.
Ultimately, it's your service and you can do whatever you like with it. I'm sure you've dealt with bigger issues than blog approvals before. Just offering a perspective from the "other side of the fence" so to speak.
And nope, my account wasn't made inactive so this isn't some sort of personal thing. I'm just pointing out why there are some angry posts here.
I think Blogrush is a killer service, but some people are getting the short end of the stick on this one- even if that's not your intent. (and I'm not saying it is)
|
|
|
John_Reese |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 04:28:15
|
quote : Originally posted by pearsonbrown
I've always been a big fan of john Reese but I think he's made a big mistake here. I only went into Blogrush in the first place because it was him and because he'd never let me down. Now I won't trust him so much in the future.
Pearson,
Let me get this straight... you don't trust me now because a reviewer in my company made the judgement call that your blog wasn't right for our network and temporarily disabled your account?
WOW. |
|
|
upupandaway |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 04:36:50
|
quote : Originally posted by John_Reesequote : Originally posted by pearsonbrown
I've always been a big fan of john Reese but I think he's made a big mistake here. I only went into Blogrush in the first place because it was him and because he'd never let me down. Now I won't trust him so much in the future.
Pearson, Let me get this straight... you don't trust me now because a reviewer in my company made the judgement call that your blog wasn't right for our network and temporarily disabled your account? WOW.
Pearson's got a point though. Even though it's your reviewer, still you're the boss and it's your responsibility. It does make people wary of big projects that you may roll out in the future. |
|
|
Andyhenry |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 05:04:24
|
Since I knew the system would need changing I created a new blog for this and only put content which came straight from 2 ebooks on non-moneymaking areas. I did use a money related theme for the blog graphics though.
So it looks like however the decisions were made was based on a pretty flimsy set of rules. There wasn't a single affiliate link or promotional link on my blog in any of the posts. Every post was a new piece of content related to either Baby Boomers or Time Management.
All I can imagine is that someone saw the theme and made some false assumptions about the content and turned it off. There's no way the content could get any cleaner.
So it's obvious that I'm not going to be able to put anything into this system without fear of it being rejected, despite some of the blogs that did get accepted being fed by blog growing tools.
It doesn't really matter, but it's just a shame that a system with such potential has been so problematic.
Anyway, good luck with your efforts John.
Andy
|
|
|
Glenn Grundberg |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 05:28:16
|
My blog was flagged as being pornographic.
As it's a men's health site dealing with ED, I guess that's porno?
Even with the MD written material about dealing with this MEDICAL
condition?
Whatever, John. It doesn't really matter, because your stupid "widget"
never worked right, and I gave up after ten tries or so anyway...
So the blog was "inactive" before your razor-wielding whiz-kids got to it
anyways.
As far as your infantile whining about "it was someone in my massive organization
who was responsible for deactivating your account, not ME", get something straight.
As Hopper says to the princess in "It's A Bugs Life:
"Principle of command, sweetheart- It's ALWAYS your fault"...
Good luck to you, my friend! |
|
|
Willie Crawford |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 05:31:40
|
Hi John,
Given all of the people who signed up and then
rushed to brag about how easy the original system
was to cheat, I expected you to take this type
of action.
No matter how you corrected deficiencies in the
system, there will be some unhappy people and
people who feel that a mistake was made with
their blog.
Since it was a business decision that you admit
wasn't perfect... few decisions are... the logical
thing to do would be to move on 
I commend you on taking action rather than allowing
a good idea to be destroyed by those who would
game BlogRush... or any system for that matter.
Any of my clients who had their blogs made inactive,
will simply be advised to make changes and resubmit.
Be well.
Willie |
|
|
Mark McWilliams |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 05:47:03
|
Yahoo...I got your email this morning John!
I'd even placed the widget right at the top of my blog as instructed!
And we have got to wait until when? 21st November...
As soon as I got the email, I knew there would be hundreds of people go and comment on your blog John...but I noticed that you disabled that feature.
And I also thought that we were going to be warned first?! |
|
|
John Taylor |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 06:07:51
|
Network Not Approved For My Blogs
John,
I was testing BlogRush on several blogs, all of them.. In My
Opinion.. are legitimate, content rich blogs and the Widget was
positioned at or near the top of the sidebar on each blog. I
also invested time to use appropriate colours to integrate the
widgets with the design of my blogs all of which used the
Semiologic theme.
The blogs covered the marketing, business, gardening and travel
categories.
This morning I removed BlogRush from my entire blog network.
Not because a minority of them were made "Inactive", simply
because, In My Opinion, the BlogRush Network does not meet my
exacting standards for a service which delivers high quality
traffic.
The fact that your reviewers are unable to review blogs in a
fair and consistent manner was incidental to my decision to
remove the BlogRush network from ALL of my blogs.
This isn't an emotional knee-jerk reaction... this is very much
a business decision.
John
|
|
|
AndyBeard |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 06:20:56
|
This is still beta
I think what John is trying to do is work with a subset of blog which are without doubt the kind he wants in the network.
I had a friend email me recently, he launched his new blog around the same time as the Blogrush launch, and I actually discovered he had launched it through Blogrush when he only had 2 posts on it.
Whilst he has pumped out 20 high quality posts since then, it is quite possible that when he was manually reviewed he only had 10 posts.
The email he received specifically stated, just before the guidelines, exactly why his blog wasn't included - not enough posts.
I suggest people re-read the email they receive if they think they were not given a reason.
By working with this subset, John and his team will be able to work on CTR having eliminated one of the complaints.
One of John's problems will be categorization. I can understand why a health blog dealing with ED would be removed if it is currently displaying on blogs that are intended for a family rather than adult audience.
Another example are the number of affiliate marketing blogs that didn't want MLM content appearing, and many affiliate marketers also regard any information product sold with a long form sales letter as "get rich quick"
John's team had to draw a line somewhere where they are assured that they have a good set of data to work with, and that is for the long term benefit of all. |
|
|
John Q Public |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 06:26:46
|
quote : Pearson,
Let me get this straight... you don't trust me now because a reviewer in my company made the judgement call that your blog wasn't right for our network and temporarily disabled your account?
WOW.
John, I don't use Blogrush and I don't have a stake in it either way.
I agree with your quality guidelines and I agree with Willie's comments that you'll never please everybody.
However, clearly John you've missed some of the points here.
Your explanation lacks common sense and logic dude, since you seem to be missing the point that it's not the "temporary" ban which many people are annoyed with. It's the fact that some blogs are being booted for flimsy reasons which leave them wondering if they'll ever get back in, and to make matters worse they are not given the "specific reasons" to straighten it out in 30 days. Very weak dude.
So in 30 days they're afraid that they'll be rejected again, and again, and again (every 30 days without SPECIFIC reasons given).
And the people who aren't rejected now will be wondering if they'll be next on your chopping block in 30 days, or the month after that.
You've created a system where nobody's safe since your razor wielding reviewers not only don't specify the exact reasons for booting blogs, but they apparently don't use any uniformity, and they apparently are taught (by you presumably) to not give the benefit of the doubt in questionable cases. They are taught to be heavy handed when in doubt, not a good choice, and certainly not necessary.
People like John Taylor (and many others) are not people to make things up out of anger, and I believe that you have obviously given too much leeway for your reviewers to be heavy handed when in doubt.
Having said that, I realize that it's your site and you reserve the right to be as heavy handed as you want, and you have no obligation to be fair or equal with any blog. I'm not disputing that, dude.
But seeing that this is a discussion forum, I'm simply stating that I think you're going to breed massive resentment because the people who you think are merely "temporarily booted" will probably wind up being booted again and again, and they'll never know why.
Others will be booted later for arbitrary reasons too, and they'll never know why.
Frankly you'll need some uniformity in the booting process, or you'll at least need to list some specific reasons to help people get back in (if you want to avoid the backlash which is coming).
As for me, I don't really care one way or the other, I'm simply trying to start a heated debate. :-) LOL.
In short John, you're simply wrong dude, and your usual good judgment has been clouded with emotions rather than logic.
Let the flame war begin. :-) I'm joking, chill out fellow dudes.
-------------
John Q Public formerly "People" |
|
|
Andrew Wilson |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 06:35:43
|
I guess that that there will be a lot of open spots in the 'matrix' now.
This whole thing was NOT forseeable?
I am not a tea leaf reader but yeah, right, OK.
|
|
|
dbarnum |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 06:47:04
|
The web is about Instant Gratification too many times. Now I’ve not been affected in a negative way by this, but it sounds like John has given everyone an opportunity to revise and resubmit, which sounds fair, in my humble opinion.
Here’s a heads up:
As a professional freelance writer earning income from my articles and photos from print publications, I can tell you that publishers are allowed to pick and choose what they’d like to publish. And if they tell writers “No,” or something like, “Revision work is needed,” professional freelancers don’t gripe and moan, they revise, resubmit, move on. Head to professional freelance writers’ forums and see.
In the case in this thread, John is a publisher. He’s telling you how you can revise and then try again. Not all publishers do that. If you feel it was an error, say so “nicely” though in a professional manner, quick and to the point, as 10,000 blogs are involved here. Honor his time and business sense, and be professional or don’t bother.
If it was not an error, heads up: many, many famous writers have had their works rejected. See the book, “This Book is Unpublishable! Rejected Writers -- Alcott to Zane Grey (Paperback),” by Elaine Borish (Author) and others along this line of topic. You can bet that the publishers who rejected the work of these famous folks probably do not give them itemized lists of items to fix.
So hey, don’t take this personally, is my 2-cents. You could be the next Agatha Christie, Charlotte Brontë or who knows…
Just remember: publishers have rights and can and do publish what they want. And you can also become a publisher and will want to do the same on your own blog.
If everything was the same, why bother to have the web in the first place?
So dust off your material and resubmit or move it. It really is that simple. No emotions necessary. It’s simply business. Period. If you wouldn’t do the same and it was necessary, how would your business turn out? You need to trust fellow business owners to do what they need to do for their business, just as we trust you to run yours. With 10,000 involved here, it’s hardly personal. It’s very much business.
And with John Reese’s reputation, I’d bank that it’s a decision well worth taking note of in your own businesses, too. Are you tweaking and revising to improve your business? Or are you in your comfort zone?
|
|
|
n/a |
|
Lloyd Lopes |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 07:17:07
|
As I have stated before , and will again....just so that everyone understands....
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EFFECTIVLEY MONITOR ALL THE BLOGS IN THE BLOGRUSH NETWORK.
Its not economically viable. Full stop. This isnt an emotional rection - it is a mathematical one.
John has attempted to scan the blogs on the cheap , which has resulted in not enough time being taken to review each blog - and as such sketchy and unpredictable decisions have been made during their review.
A blogrush user invests time and money to put the system up on their blogs , and to tweak it to make it work.
Simple economics tells us that when a system ( government or authority ) is unstable or unpredictable , then the risk of using such a system becomes greater , because returns are not guaranteed.
What I fear John has done here to a system with an already low rate of return is to raise the risk factor too high - and thus rendering it not viable for blog owners to use.
Simply put:
From :
Low risk , low return = x number of users - usually bottom of the market
To :
High risk , low return ( currently - low return may change ) = no users
I disagree with Dr Mani on using blogrush as a symbol of approval. Having the widget on your blog shows that you have to resort to very low ways of getting traffic - its a bit like having a traffic exchange or FFA banner on your site.
The general perception of blogrush in the blogging community is one of a failed ploy , a pyramid scheme and a free and nasty way of trying to scrape a few visitors.
It may not be any of these things , but the thread above is evidence towards this argument.
Can you provide any evidence against it?
This whole blogrush launch has been very interesting to watch - and some lessons can defenitley be taken away from it.
|
|
|
zmax |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 07:26:46
|
I guess my blog passed then because I got this email:
An Important BlogRush News Update...
- Congratulations!
- 10,000+ Blogs Removed From BlogRush
- Phase 2 Being Deployed
- Busy Week Ahead!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Congratulations!
-------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this update because your blog has passed our strict
Quality Guidelines and criteria -- we believe you have a high-quality
blog and we are happy you're a member of our network!
|
|
|
Lloyd Lopes |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 07:31:48
|
Oh and yes...my account was made inactive....
Im not very upset. :P...it was just annoying when I tried to find a way to delete my account and there wasnt one. |
|
|
Charles E. White |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 07:45:12
|
Here's two things I am having problems with:
quote : And we are *NOT* banning anyone. We're simply moving accounts to an "inactive" status. These users can make necessary guideline changes or submit other blogs they may have. It only takes ONE approved blog to reactivate the account again. None of their referrals are lost while their account is inactive. Any 'growth' of their referral network is still being tracked.
I can't even make my own website right the first time, I have to test it, look at it and review it over and over, let alone a widget that has tens of thousands, if not 100,000's of thousands of users. Just redo and resubmit your blog if it went inactive.
quote : The fact that your reviewers are unable to review blogs in a
fair and consistent manner was incidental to my decision to
remove the BlogRush network from ALL of my blogs.
If they made John Taylor's blogs inactive then there seems to be something wrong with the reviewers or their system to qualify a blog. I have read many of John's blogs and they are nothing but quality work and updated regularly. Matter of fact, I haven't seen anything John does that isn't professional, quality stuff. If they made John's blogs inactive what the hell chance do the rest of us have?
Apparently, someone needs to review the reviewers. |
|
|
David_Thompson |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 07:53:50
|
quote : Originally posted by Charles E. WhiteHere's two things I am having problems with: quote : And we are *NOT* banning anyone. We're simply moving accounts to an "inactive" status. These users can make necessary guideline changes or submit other blogs they may have. It only takes ONE approved blog to reactivate the account again. None of their referrals are lost while their account is inactive. Any 'growth' of their referral network is still being tracked.
I can't even make my own website right the first time, I have to test it, look at it and review it over and over, let alone a widget that has tens of thousands, if not 100,000's of thousands of users. Just redo and resubmit your blog if it went inactive. quote : The fact that your reviewers are unable to review blogs in a
fair and consistent manner was incidental to my decision to
remove the BlogRush network from ALL of my blogs. If they made John Taylor's blogs inactive then there seems to be something wrong with the reviewers or their system to qualify a blog. I have read many of John's blogs and they are nothing but quality work and updated regularly. Matter of fact, I haven't seen anything John does that isn't professional, quality stuff. If they made John's blogs inactive what the hell chance do the rest of us have? Apparently, someone needs to review the reviewers.
Hey Charles,
this sounds like a Hollywood movie
or something 'review the reviewers'...LOL
I think this was a automated process
flagging keywords or something like
that, or the reviewers are overwork. :)
--David |
|
|
dbarnum |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 07:56:26
|
Lloyd, I'm not sure I'm aware of the important position you may hold when you say,
quote :
"The general perception of blogrush in the blogging community is one of a failed ploy , a pyramid scheme and a free and nasty way of trying to scrape a few visitors."
Bottom line here for math, everyone:
- most people do nothing with what they have (check many threads here for info on that)
- hence most will gripe instead of take action for improvement
- hence most will want to gripe here
John took the opportunity to post about his beta program. That's it.
Take gripes elsewhere. This isn't a John-bashing thread or forum, nor is it customer service.
John, thanks for taking time to post your announcement. If you have a follow up for everyone, just let a mod know if you want it posted here or anything (unless Allen advises differently).
And to you who posted about me in particular (twisted comment deleted) & others in this thread who are being positive:
No, we do not believe John or other top IMers here are IM-gods or any such nonsense. And you’d know that if you read through any number of other threads here.
Check the rules: this is not a bashing forum. John was simply making an announcement to help clear up other threads popping up. In case you don’t know (and it sounds like you don’t), not all IMers here are that concerned at all with their clients. Again, search threads here and you’ll find that out very easily.
|
|
|
| Topic |
|
|
|
BlogRush Account INACTIVE? (Please Read)