Authors, in case you've missed jwatkins' post under the Common Place category, about incorrect info about C-C on springwise.com, check it out. A couple of us have disputed the info posted there but, if you have time, there's more to be said.
Thanks to jwatkins.
Aariana
False Info about C-C
Moderators: Celeste Stewart, Ed, Constant
-
constant-content
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:20 am
We are not worried about it, looking at the site its not a threat. Reading that thread it seems even our own writers have some facts wrong 
. I don't get involved in these things, if you look hard enough you can find about 1000 of these types of posts where people just don't understand the site.
That and i have no respect for people that rip of ideas of others, but then again good ideas always get ripped off.
. I don't get involved in these things, if you look hard enough you can find about 1000 of these types of posts where people just don't understand the site.That and i have no respect for people that rip of ideas of others, but then again good ideas always get ripped off.
Hey Constant- I was just wondering if what I posted in Common Place is what you were referring to as "having facts wrong"? I don't see the post I made that Aaruana is referring to listed anymore.
Also, if there are 1000 posts with the wrong facts about Constant-Content, I would think you would be concerned. If there are 1000 false posts today, there could be 10,000 posts tomorrow.
If those 1000 posts would have been corrected could there have been 1000 more possible sales for the writers here on Constant?
Also, if there are 1000 posts with the wrong facts about Constant-Content, I would think you would be concerned. If there are 1000 false posts today, there could be 10,000 posts tomorrow.
If those 1000 posts would have been corrected could there have been 1000 more possible sales for the writers here on Constant?
-
Aariana Adams
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:41 am
I was just trying to help. I know there are many great writers here who work tirelessly to get their works approved and then sold. I just hate to think that some potential buyers may be put off by an errant comment.
Last edited by jwatkins on Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
If buyers are considering using CC, I think they are careful enough not to take one person at his or her word. A person only needs to come to the site if they need affirmation that the negative comments aren't warrented.
You'll find the spread of rumors and negative information is rampant for any successful writing or content site. However, when you ask the people who are actually familiar with them, you'll get glowing reports. Sometimes this information is spread by writers who have been turned away.
Ed
You'll find the spread of rumors and negative information is rampant for any successful writing or content site. However, when you ask the people who are actually familiar with them, you'll get glowing reports. Sometimes this information is spread by writers who have been turned away.
Ed
Point taken Ed but here is my contention. Suppose I tell you that I heard Buble Bee tuna is tainted with E-coli, you call Bumble Bee and they deny it, you do a web search and nothing shows up, you even feed it to a cat and nothing happens. But aren't you always gonna be a little wary when you eat tuna? Even now, with this made up scenario, every time you see a tuna can you're gonna think about this post. Hope you didn't really love Tuna 
I just think any company should be concerned about what is being said and never just dismiss it. Oh and a company should never assume what a customer is likely to do.
I just think any company should be concerned about what is being said and never just dismiss it. Oh and a company should never assume what a customer is likely to do.
-
constant-content
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:20 am
Why would I want to plug a site the simply ripped off the Constant Content idea, and did a poor job at that?
The site was not worth talking about or linking to. I have to be honest it bothers me that they ripped of the idea, but really the post was removed to protect writers as well as Constant Content. I can see writers not knowing better and posting content to both sites and getting their account suspended here.
The site was not worth talking about or linking to. I have to be honest it bothers me that they ripped of the idea, but really the post was removed to protect writers as well as Constant Content. I can see writers not knowing better and posting content to both sites and getting their account suspended here.
-
constant-content
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:20 am
The facts wrong comment was "Aariana Adams" post on the site.
"Google does index Constant-Content articles. Ranking changes and articles may drop off, but C-C articles are routinely indexed. I've had lots of C-C articles indexed on Google, both under my name and by subject."
But I think she meant that Google indexes articles once they are sold, either way someone corrected it.
Its obvious a couple writers are behind the site (the ones posting).
"Google does index Constant-Content articles. Ranking changes and articles may drop off, but C-C articles are routinely indexed. I've had lots of C-C articles indexed on Google, both under my name and by subject."
But I think she meant that Google indexes articles once they are sold, either way someone corrected it.
Its obvious a couple writers are behind the site (the ones posting).
-
Annetta Holmes
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:20 am
- Location: South Africa
Whenever a company is doing well it will attract negativity. CC produces quality products.
If every successful company had to spend time trying to track down where the black PR was coming from, their attention would be diverted from what they manufacture - quality products - and be placed on hunting down the black PR. That's exactly the intention of black PR.
Any one that hears about contaminated tuna, tests it and finds out it's not contaminated then [i]still[/i] worries about it lacks observational powers - a malady I doubt our customers suffer from.
Keep your attention on producing your product, bellow loudy about it to all and sundry and soon those that deal in deceit and treachery will waddle off and find someone else to try and bother.
If every successful company had to spend time trying to track down where the black PR was coming from, their attention would be diverted from what they manufacture - quality products - and be placed on hunting down the black PR. That's exactly the intention of black PR.
Any one that hears about contaminated tuna, tests it and finds out it's not contaminated then [i]still[/i] worries about it lacks observational powers - a malady I doubt our customers suffer from.
Keep your attention on producing your product, bellow loudy about it to all and sundry and soon those that deal in deceit and treachery will waddle off and find someone else to try and bother.
Annetta you've made my point. No one will "test" tainted tuna and anyone who does lacks more than observational skills.
Constant, I apologize for caring. I just didn't like the fact the information was erroneous and I just thought you should know. I won't make that mistake again.
As an aside I would like to let evryone know why I cared about the misinformation. I am an entrepreneur at heart and find myself pulling for ccompanies such as Constant to really make it. I had an association with an e-commerce site that allowed people to set up their own e-commerce sites and have products dropshipped for them. The company was new and had a unique way of doing things. The had their problems at first, much like Constant, but worked tirelessly to make the company better, much like Constant. Anyway, I started a blog that would detail my association with this company and how I was building my site, getting traffic, and generating sales. It became very popular. Even the owners themselves would post. It became a PR5 ranked site and I was on the front page of Google when someone typed in the name of this company. However, their was another blogger (the evil one) who didn't like this company and so he would post on my blog and the people who were for the company would rip him a new one. It was great! That blog was huge. Problem is, he also had a blog named "________is deceptive.com" that was also PR5 and ranked on the front page of Google. Now, as long as my blog was up he wasn't much of a threat because my blog was ranked ahead of his and my posts trumped him.
Now for the problem. I got bored with e-commerce, shut my e-commerce site down, and quit keeping the blog up. He didn't. He kept blogging, my ranking dropped, and now anytime anyone types this company's name in Google, (testing the tuna), they see a site that, "_______isdeceptive.com" Just makes me want to jump right in with that company and give them $85 per month!
Anyway, Constant I'm pulling for ya! I also know that you don't have time to read everything that is put out about you and correct it....
Wait...there's that entrepreneurial itch again...
Sorry, gotta go start this new company...
Constant, I apologize for caring. I just didn't like the fact the information was erroneous and I just thought you should know. I won't make that mistake again.
As an aside I would like to let evryone know why I cared about the misinformation. I am an entrepreneur at heart and find myself pulling for ccompanies such as Constant to really make it. I had an association with an e-commerce site that allowed people to set up their own e-commerce sites and have products dropshipped for them. The company was new and had a unique way of doing things. The had their problems at first, much like Constant, but worked tirelessly to make the company better, much like Constant. Anyway, I started a blog that would detail my association with this company and how I was building my site, getting traffic, and generating sales. It became very popular. Even the owners themselves would post. It became a PR5 ranked site and I was on the front page of Google when someone typed in the name of this company. However, their was another blogger (the evil one) who didn't like this company and so he would post on my blog and the people who were for the company would rip him a new one. It was great! That blog was huge. Problem is, he also had a blog named "________is deceptive.com" that was also PR5 and ranked on the front page of Google. Now, as long as my blog was up he wasn't much of a threat because my blog was ranked ahead of his and my posts trumped him.
Now for the problem. I got bored with e-commerce, shut my e-commerce site down, and quit keeping the blog up. He didn't. He kept blogging, my ranking dropped, and now anytime anyone types this company's name in Google, (testing the tuna), they see a site that, "_______isdeceptive.com" Just makes me want to jump right in with that company and give them $85 per month!
Anyway, Constant I'm pulling for ya! I also know that you don't have time to read everything that is put out about you and correct it....
Wait...there's that entrepreneurial itch again...
Sorry, gotta go start this new company...
-
Aariana Adams
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:41 am
Yes, I did mean that our articles often get picked up once they are sold, both by author and subject - and I think I made that clear in a later posting. To me, that's a good thing for the author.
I completely understand what jwatkins was trying to do - clear-up trash talk about our favorite writing venue: C-C. What disturbed me was the indication that C-C does not sell original material, but the other site always does. I wasn't clear about the program C-C uses to check content. I now understand that it uses Copyscape. That's why I suggested someone more familiar might want to post.
Freelance writing will take authors to multiple places to sell their product. This unmentionable site has several good C-C writers signed up already. In fact, C-C writers are all over the web, but I'm betting that C-C far out performs everyone else. Success is just too tempting not to copy - but looking at the "scrambling" of the article snippets...not impressive to me.
I see it only a "positive" that we are protecting our turf (C-C) for future writing projects.
Aariana
I completely understand what jwatkins was trying to do - clear-up trash talk about our favorite writing venue: C-C. What disturbed me was the indication that C-C does not sell original material, but the other site always does. I wasn't clear about the program C-C uses to check content. I now understand that it uses Copyscape. That's why I suggested someone more familiar might want to post.
Freelance writing will take authors to multiple places to sell their product. This unmentionable site has several good C-C writers signed up already. In fact, C-C writers are all over the web, but I'm betting that C-C far out performs everyone else. Success is just too tempting not to copy - but looking at the "scrambling" of the article snippets...not impressive to me.
I see it only a "positive" that we are protecting our turf (C-C) for future writing projects.
Aariana
-
Aariana Adams
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:41 am
One other point: the "trash talking" was posted on a site that does not offer freelance services (not a writing site) - it promotes entrepreneurial ventures. Readers may be website owners/buyers, not just writers. A website owner/buyer can easily be put off of C-C from info posted there.
Having said this, I completely understand C-C's efforts not to support competing websites.
Aariana
Having said this, I completely understand C-C's efforts not to support competing websites.
Aariana
That other site does not offer only original content. I saw at least one article I rejected for content that was not completely original posted there for sale.
I can understand writers wanting to try another venue for their writing, and that is their choice. However, I would not want to be associated with this site after what I saw.
Ed
I can understand writers wanting to try another venue for their writing, and that is their choice. However, I would not want to be associated with this site after what I saw.
Ed