ellie <3 libraries

sooooo much!

Affiliate sites August 6, 2009

Filed under: Soapbox — ellie @ 8:59 pm

I’ve tried to leave this as a comment on Steven Bell’s post These Predictions Throw Caution To The Wind, but for some reason have been continually thwarted (my cocomment account knows I left them, but the site doesn’t seem to…). So here goes, cause this is driving me batty!

I suppose I am hyper aware because I have an ex who used to design these things, but I’m still shocked every time I encounter someone (or at least a professional) who doesn’t know about affiliate sites.

What Steven ripped apart was a blog post from an elearners.com affiliate (http://www.elearners.com/help/affiliates.asp) site that hasn’t even bothered to take down it’s “Hello World” post. This is some random person trying to make a quick buck, not a professional.

Both this site (http://associatedegree.org) and Learn-gasm – who has the top 100 blogs post going around currently (www.bachelorsdegreeonline.com) are sites designed solely to earn revenue through click-throughs.

When you use the drop downs to select types of degrees you are taken to elearners.com, which results in a “sale” for the directing site.

All of the links to request more information on any of the schools on either of those sites are affiliate links

e.g – https://search.collegedegrees.com/forms/university-of-phoenix/publisher/bachelorsdegreeonline

The “bachelorsdegreeonline” at the end is a tracking mechanism to allow collegedegrees.com to reward sites that send them visitors. Just like libraries can send people to Amazon and get a kickback. The difference is libraries are trying be helpful – these sites are not.

While all the schools linked to are legitimate schools, both are misleading sites since they only link to schools that offer an affiliate kickback. They also only link to forms to enter your contact information at third party sites, not to the actual school websites.

While the content of the top 100 blogs and 25 predictions lists is completely non-objectionable, the fact that librarians are taking these sites seriously is.

ETA Section below

* apologies to Steven who did in fact know it was an affiliate site and was mocking how stupid the content is on these types of sites rather than mocking what he believed were someone’s sincere predictions (which is how I had originally read his post). Also thanks to Steven whose comment on the affiliate site people’s email tactics reminded me to add the comment below about SEO.

* a trackback to GeekDad because I’m not interested enough to sign up on their site to comment.  I’m just going to give up if Wired.com is duped too. (edit – give up getting so frustrated that is)

* A comment on those Top X style posts (Top 100 School Librarian Blogs, Top Blogs for educators, etc. etc.) and why you shouldn’t link to them:

What the author is doing is trying to increase his traffic and SEO. He likely does some minimal investigation to determine what sites would have the biggest impact – so in that sense, the lists are probably somewhat representational of influential sites – like I said, the content isn’t the objectional part. He creates the page with the links to the 100 top whatever, then emails all of them to let them know they’re on the list. Every one of them that posts that they’ve made a top 100 list and links back to him increases his site’s page ranking. The more important your site is, the more it helps him, both in search engine algorithm terms (being linked to by someplace important counts for more than being linked to from less popular sites) and because it brings him more incoming traffic. Which also increases his site’s page ranking (and the chance of someone clicking through in a way that gets him paid).

To see this effect in action – search Google for “octopus.” Today the site asking you to help save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus is #3 for me. Then do a “link:http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/&#8221; search and you can see that there are tons of educational sites linking to it – they’re linking to it as an example of a bad website to use when teaching kids how to evaluate websites, but a direct result of that action is to increase the site’s page ranking.

As a complete aside, because I love this so much, the owners of that site (who also have a page devoted to the tin foil deflector beanie) noticed their increase in traffic and wrote this response.

Why is that bad?

At the very least you are helping bad information be more likely to appear near the top of search results. In the case of the tree octopus, it probably doesn’t really matter much, it’s a funny site and hopefully most people will realize that.

But, this particular little batch of sites that is currently targeting higher education – they are ones that are ostensibly trying to help people find colleges, choose degrees, etc., when in fact they are only linking to forms to enter your contact information for a small subset of online only colleges that offer affiliate linking programs.

Some of the more malicious sites are also using those forms to harvest contact information, plant tracking cookies, install malware, etc. I can’t decide from their privacy policy whether I think that this particular batch of sites are also harvesting the contact information and selling that off, but it certainly is something sites like this do.

And then there’s the part that got me all riled up in the first place: These affiliate sites are exactly the kind of site we should be using in our examples to students for evaluating information – on the surface they seem related to education, some have .org addresses, but when we start looking at them critically they fail every test easily – no about page (or at least nothing informative on it), unauthored posts,  little to no original content. One of the main components of being a librarian is teaching people to think critically about information, so when we fail to do so ourselves I find it incredibly frustrating.

Another ETA – an example of some critical thinking.

A word on nuance:

A representative from eLearners.com contacted me about this post, legitimately taking umbrage at being lumped in to this group and let me know some of the helpful items they offer. I was not clear enough initially that my comments on affiliate sites were directed at the sites linking to eLearners, not eLearners itself. While eLearners is certainly a for-profit entity that does take advantage of the affiliate model, they also offer a wide variety of content – including scholarships – and are very clear that they are focusing on online colleges only (as opposed to associatedegree.org for example).  Unlike the two sites mentioned above that are currently linkbaiting librarians, eLearners.com is  clearly not just some guy trying to make a quick buck through minimal effort.


6 Responses to “Affiliate sites”

  1. stevenb Says:

    Ellie – I would have hoped from the tone of my post that it’s clear that I’m absolutely NOT taking this site seriously in any way,shape or form. I am aware that they exist only to generate ad revenue. My post is in fact a reaction to these affiliate sites – including the 100 librarian blogs you should read – which you mention. One of the reasons I am ridiculing it is so that more of us will completely ignore these sites and pay no attention to them whatsoever. I for one am pretty fed up with them emailing me to tell me about their latest greatest list and how I should be telling everyone about it. The content at these sites is typically completely inane (and somewhat objectionable to my sensibilities), and mostly does a disservice to anyone seeking reliable information on a topic such as the future of higher education. All that aside, I was just in the mood to write a more humorous post. Sorry you weren’t able to leave a comment at ACRLog – not sure why that happened – but your trackback is there so I hope that will direct some folks to your post. Thanks. Steven

  2. ellie Says:

    I could tell from your tone that you had no respect for the author, but not that you were aware it was an affiliate site. It reads much more like sincere frustration (couched in humor) on your part with professionals who are still stuck in the past (or present), as demonstrated by one particular example.

    I’m relieved to hear I was wrong.

    I’d wager your post did more to boost their revenue this week than to dissuade librarians from taking them seriously, but you make a good point about their email advertising techniques that I forgot to mention and that I’ve seen has taken other librarians in.

  3. […] apparently I came off appearing rather naive to at least two bloggers. Both Ellie Collier and Roy Tennant took my post as an opportunity to warn the librarian community about these sites […]

  4. Thanks for the more detailed explanation of affiliate sites than I was able to muster when I wrote about this phenomenon in the biblioblogosphere last year. After I wrote my post, I too was on the receiving end of annoying emails from someone at one of the sites I referred to.

  5. Aaron Tay Says:

    I guess it’s pretty obvious to any experienced internet user (much less a librarian) to smell a rat. I didn’t think affiliates but clearly something like that was happening.

    For me, it was really flattering to be listed , next to famous blogs like “Information wants to be free”, so flattery won. To be fair, when i tweeted about it , i did say the site was dodgy 🙂

  6. […] is this bad? You can read more in my previous post or in the post “Affiliate sites” at Ellie ❤ Libraries. In addition, Shamsha brought another post to my attention, again from a […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s