Article Integrity

A very odd and transparent trend I’ve seen this past week:

An author will say that they have seen or found this really cool resource related to their article topic and that you should check it out. Usually these links are in the bottom of the article body, but not in the resource box.

What is phony about this ploy is that the resource they just supposedly “found” is actually on THEIR own website!

Worse, they usually don’t even cover it up as the domain in the “phony” resource is the same domain in their resource box, further sealing their stupidity.

Come on! Get real. Your readers can see right through that.

Bottom line: Don’t say you just FOUND a resource related to what you’re talking about if you indeed PLANTED the resource! The market is not stupid.

Same goes for those who have been posting comments to their own articles, indicating that they may want to check out their own resource. Geez people, I thought I have seen it all, but I keep getting amazed daily at how far some authors will stretch reality.


Dina Giolitto writes:

That is pathetic.

Comment provided June 29, 2005 at 12:51 PM


Lance Winslow writes:

Most of your authors are phoney, most of the commenters on the articles are phoney or competition or opininated. Most people who vote on the articles, will vote simply because it offends their belief system. So if the articles are phoney, the commenters are phoney, the people who rate them are phoney? Why do you have this site? Oh, yah to make money? Hmm?

Did you know that most writers are maniac depressed people taking mood enhancers? Incidentatlly, although this Blog post of yours has nothing to do with my articles, as I have no resource box, since I am not promoting anything. I often put in links in the article as this is the new way people like to recieve thier information. Go read any major online magazine. Often if the person is an expert as you call your authors, then if in fact this were true then of course they might have page on thier website with pertinent information to a specific sub topic and of course they would wish to send the reader there because it is more fully explained and illustrates their point. So this trend you are witnessing does not mean that the articles are going to the DOGS as some articles seem to be headed, it may mean an evolving trend.

I have also seen some trends on the EzineArticles side of the fence, which seems to be fairly self serving, you will have to go with the flow if you want to continue to attract writers and articles. Pathetic is an interesting word isn’t it Dina, you judge too quickly and are too opinionated in that regard.

If you read Michael Crieghton’s “Fear State” you will see how often environmental groups use their own reports and research to prove thier own point, that is pathetic “junk Science”. The problem is that this TREND is quite effective and captures the reader and helps to mold their minds for manipulation, it seems to work and this is why it is being used. Now the rabble rouser environmentalists like use these tactics and people copy what works, this is why you see this trend. As far as pathetic goes, well maybe it is indeed quite pathetic when done in an untasteless way. But people do it because it works. When something works people will do it and other upright walking carbon based bi-pods will in fact copy them. If I were you I would expect this trend to continue

Comment provided June 29, 2005 at 3:35 PM




I very much disagree with your comments about most of our authors being phony.

The greater majority of them are not phony and they deliver valuable expertise that benefits our readers/audience.

We work very hard behind the scenes to keep phony authors and phony articles out of our site. It’s an intense mission of ours because our reputation travels with every article…hence why we give a crap about who and what is on this site.

I think you may have judged too quickly the real reason why people rate articles or comment on them. The greater majority of comments have no self-serving purpose. Honestly, I have no idea as to why people rate articles, but I’m certain it’s not only because the article might offend their belief system.

Comment provided June 29, 2005 at 3:45 PM


Dina writes:

Hello, Lance. Thanks for rating my articles, that was special. Why do you care what I think?

I see this as a place for people to post their articles as a way to get others interested in their online businesses. It may be something else for you, Lance… but if you require something deeper, you may feel frustrated here. You seem angry that I wasn’t blown away by your article on copywriting. You want honesty; well, sorry but copywriting is veiled communication with a hidden motive, it’s super manipulative, it’s NOT philosophy and you can’t expect it to be anything other than it is.

You’re too honest of a person to ever be a copywriter, so take that as a compliment. And I’m too scientifically void of knowledge to ever even touch anything that you’ve ever done in your life, and I respect you immensely in your category. Can’t we all just be happy? Jeez. Today is one of those days when I wish I were like, meditating in Tibet or something. Just give me some sitar music and get me out of here. Lance, take it easy.

Comment provided June 29, 2005 at 5:04 PM


Edward Weiss writes:

Not only is it transparent, it’s stupid. If an author indicates they found a resource worth mentioning, the reader assumes that resource is from another author/writer, unless of course, the author indicates such, i.e., I have another article you might be interested in.

Comment provided June 29, 2005 at 5:19 PM


Dina writes:

Yes, and if the reader is interested in the resource, they’ll see that the author did a self-referral and quickly flee. In this way, the author puts up a red flag that seems to say, “Hello, I’m not very smart at all!”

Comment provided June 29, 2005 at 6:09 PM


Stephanie writes:

What is wrong with an author taking articles found on their own website, as a means of increasing exposure?

Comment provided July 7, 2005 at 6:03 AM



There is nothing wrong with that as long as they don’t present the resource as if they had just “found it” while aimlessly surfing the net.

In other words, an author should not give a resource as if they were not connected to it when in fact, they planted it or put it there in the first place.

It’s dishonest and the author that caused this blog post in the first place realized her mistake and has ammended the article to look less “fakey”.

This blog post is about helping authors to present themselves and their resources in a genuine way rather than via a fake dishonest way.

Comment provided July 7, 2005 at 6:35 AM


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Please read our comment policy before commenting.