What do you want from a blog? [no names please]

doireannod · 10-03-2016 9:20pm

meeeeh wrote: »

At least half of your posts are about why you are not allowed name bloggers. Unlike you I have been around when bloggers were named. The threads were a despicable bitch fest. I have no love for a lot of bloggers but comments there nasty, immature, personal and completely over the top. They made any discussion completely off putting.

But then again someone who joined couple of weeks ago just to name some people wouldn't know that.

I'd say more than half of my posts are questioning the policy about naming bloggers. It's annoying me. Any explanation I've been given to date hasn't been reasonable in my opinion.

Hopeful2016 · 10-03-2016 9:46pm

onthemitch wrote: »

I'm not sure – but I would be 99% sure it doesn't meet the definition of payment. Revenue can't – as in, physically is not able – to police gifting. How would it even be possible? How would they know who had received what, and for what reason?

ALSO: this seems to come up a lot, "in exchange for mentions". That is so incredibly rare you'd barely believe it. Most of the time, PR gifts are sent in the hope that you might mention it. I have never, ever been approached by a PR company and asked to mention something in exchange for it being sent to me. The only time anything like that happened with me was with the coat I mentioned further back – and in that case, I had approached them. I didn't ask for the coat "in return for..." anything. I said, "if you would like to send me one, I would be happy to post about it on x, y and z". (Not to bring up The Coat again!)

The beauty of self assessment is that they don't have to know, the onus is on you to declare it. Revenue use industry averages to identify unusual or significant variations between companies/businesses in a particular industry and if your tax return varies inexplicably from others in your line of business then a red flag is raised and you could well expect to be audited. I don't know how this would apply to a blogger or influencer (as a lot of them don't do much blogging) but social media following or subscriber numbers could possibly form the basis of Reveune's profiling of the industry. It's probably not happening yet but you can be sure it's something that is not under their radar altogether. The Revenue in Ireland are actually quite progressive.

Also, it wouldn't matter how the request/transaction was phrased, whether you asked outright for the coat or asked if they'd like to send you one. The Revenue look at the substance of the transaction not the form. End result was that you got the coat (or whatever) in exchange for promoting the company/item.

meeeeh · 10-03-2016 9:54pm

Hopeful2016 wrote: »

The beauty of self assessment is that they don't have to know, the onus is on you to declare it. Revenue use industry averages to identify unusual or significant variations between companies/businesses in a particular industry and if your tax return varies inexplicably from others in your line of business then a red flag is raised and you could well expect to be audited. I don't know how this would apply to a blogger or influencer (as a lot of them don't do much blogging) but social media following or subscriber numbers could possibly form the basis of Reveune's profiling of the industry. It's probably not happening yet but you can be sure it's something that is not under their radar altogether. The Revenue in Ireland are actually quiet progressive.

I would say that hangover from recession is that there are a lot of other businesses that revenue have to audit (just a guess). Lack of recruitment doesn't help either. It's hard to judge by following because that can be manipulated as far as I know to make it more attractive for advertisers.

Hopeful2016 · 10-03-2016 10:00pm

meeeeh wrote: »

I would say that hangover from recession is that there are a lot of other businesses that revenue have to audit (just a guess). Lack of recruitment doesn't help either. It's hard to judge by following because that can be manipulated as far as I know to make it more attractive for advertisers.

I wouldn't be too sure of that, most revenue audits are not random and are due to red flags being raised. Revenue also decide to monitor particular industries if they are considered risky and the way things are going blogging could well end up on that list and we could see widespread auditing of bloggers.

Hopeful2016 · 10-03-2016 10:10pm

Come to think of it, it would only take the Revenue compelling companies to declare who they are providing free samples to and what the value of them is, to know exactly what blogger is receiving and how much it's worth. Could be considered a reasonable move as all of these gifts/or samples will be written off against tax by the company.

A similar measure was used to counter the black market in other goods and services, companies now must declare in an annual declaration every person/business it made sales to over a certain (reasonably small) limit.

karensgal · 10-03-2016 11:32pm

To go back to Rosemary's original question what you would like from a beauty blog:

Honest reviews on products
Content that isn't the same as everyone else.

I've no problem with people getting free samples. I'm sure the majority they get are not asked for and they just receive them. Once they give an honest critique or are genuine. In saying that it doesn't mean they have to give a negative review, some chose not to review at all if they don't like it and that's fine.

In terms of hotels and restaurants etc. being given for free. To me it's bringing a place to your attention that you may not be aware of, no one's forcing anyway to go. It might influence my choice but I'd still look a hotel or restaurant to see, one if I could afford it, what the menu was like, standard room etc. So the final decision would still be one I made myself.

As for the raincoat, I remember the snaps and assumed Rosemary bought it herself as she seemed to love it that much. It doesn't make a difference to me that she didn't pay for it as I still believe she was genuine in that she did like it, which clearly she did as she asked them for one. Anyway it's an item of clothing, it's either to your taste and you might buy one or you won't. I thought it was kinda of cool for a raincoat but didn't love it enough for the price tag so wouldn't buy it. I think clothes are a little different to beauty products as it's easier for you to decide if you like it by looking at it visually rather than beauty items which can't be returned if you don't like them.

It only annoys me when someone gets something for free and gives false review, raving it's amazing etc. It's become easier to spot these, especially when someone raves about a product which they've barely used or not opened and then never mention again. Makeup is expensive, you can't honestly expect someone to go out and buy 10 different foundations to review just so someone could read it, they would be broke. Brands know this which is why they send them out for free to bloggers who in turn should only give a review if they like the product or if the review is honest.

I think there are quite a few well known bloggers who are more concerned about their brand than being honest and giving good content. Unfortunately it appears to have ruined it for everyone else and made us all so cynical.

To me talks of revenue etc just go to show that some people deep down begrudge that others are getting things for free....

Hopeful2016 · 11-03-2016 12:19am

karensgal wrote: »

To go back to Rosemary's original question what you would like from a beauty blog:

Honest reviews on products
Content that isn't the same as everyone else.

I've no problem with people getting free samples. I'm sure the majority they get are not asked for and they just receive them. Once they give an honest critique or are genuine. In saying that it doesn't mean they have to give a negative review, some chose not to review at all if they don't like it and that's fine.

In terms of hotels and restaurants etc. being given for free. To me it's bringing a place to your attention that you may not be aware of, no one's forcing anyway to go. It might influence my choice but I'd still look a hotel or restaurant to see, one if I could afford it, what the menu was like, standard room etc. So the final decision would still be one I made myself.

As for the raincoat, I remember the snaps and assumed Rosemary bought it herself as she seemed to love it that much. It doesn't make a difference to me that she didn't pay for it as I still believe she was genuine in that she did like it, which clearly she did as she asked them for one. Anyway it's an item of clothing, it's either to your taste and you might buy one or you won't. I thought it was kinda of cool for a raincoat but didn't love it enough for the price tag so wouldn't buy it. I think clothes are a little different to beauty products as it's easier for you to decide if you like it by looking at it visually rather than beauty items which can't be returned if you don't like them.

It only annoys me when someone gets something for free and gives false review, raving it's amazing etc. It's become easier to spot these, especially when someone raves about a product which they've barely used or not opened and then never mention again. Makeup is expensive, you can't honestly expect someone to go out and buy 10 different foundations to review just so someone could read it, they would be broke. Brands know this which is why they send them out for free to bloggers who in turn should only give a review if they like the product or if the review is honest.

I think there are quite a few well known bloggers who are more concerned about their brand than being honest and giving good content. Unfortunately it appears to have ruined it for everyone else and made us all so cynical.

To me talks of revenue etc just go to show that some people deep down begrudge that others are getting things for free....

Are you referring to revenue or the Revenue? I'm an auditor and am simply considering it from that point of view. It possibly wouldn't be of interest to many but as an accountant I'm curious to see how it plays out. Luckily I can certainly afford to buy any make-up that takes my fancy and considering whether the transactions are taxable or not doesn't make one a begrudger or a "hater". That's a very juvenile response, people can have differing views on topics without being begrudgers. Unfortunately, people can't seem to express those views with being labelled as such.

karensgal · 11-03-2016 12:39am

Hopeful2016 wrote: »

Are you referring to revenue or the Revenue? I'm an auditor and am simply considering it from that point of view. It possibly wouldn't be of interest to many but as an accountant I'm curious to see how it plays out. Luckily I can certainly afford to buy any make-up that takes my fancy and considering whether the transactions are taxable or not doesn't make one a begrudger or a "hater". That's a very juvenile response, people can have differing views on topics without being begrudgers. Unfortunately, people can't seem to express those views with being labelled as such.

I didn't mean to say that everyone is a begrudger and sorry if it came across that a way. I definitely think you should be able to criticise a blogger without being called a hater. Most of them annoy me now too, especially those that try to hide paid or sponsored posts etc. The word amazing should be banned from their vocabulary as it seems the only word some use.

At the same time I do think this thread again went a little off topic and people just seem to cling to the idea of the free samples can't move past that. I personally think their was an over reaction to Rosemary getting the coat.

Someone might start beauty blogging as a hobby and as they go on their blog gets more popular so people want more posts which means more products. How long could they continue to only review what they purchase without spending a lot of money. If they garner a following pr's/brands will become aware of them and send them some products to try out. I'm fine with this once they review the product the same way they would have it they had of purchased themselves. I just don't think a free sample being received means they have to review it. That decision is then theirs. However, if they receive a payment in return for a review or a post then this should be disclosed as I think it's hard to remain biased.

Rosemary got her tattoo removal free in return for social media exposure but she hasn't sugar coated it at all. She's told everyone it hurts like hell and itches. I respect that kind of honesty of but you don't get it from everyone.

dudara · 12-03-2016 11:09am

anothernight wrote: »

I must say, Captchas don't actually bother me at all, even though I'm disgustingly bad at them.
I use Wordpress with Akismet and I have it set so that I must approve each comment by a new commenter, which is fine because I can do it very quickly from my phone. According to the stats, 99.77% of all spam was caught by Akismet. The other 0.23% would've required approval from me to be published anyway. I've never had a false positive, and repeat commenters's comments are published automatically so it's not that much extra work either.

I've never used Blogger but does it have any anti-spam plugins? If so, I would definitely recommend installing one.

Unfortunately, I don't think Blogger does anything like that. It's why I consider it a bit limited as a platform. I'm giving serious thought at the moment to moving to another platform as I want to refresh the blog layout.

ChloeElla · 12-03-2016 12:37pm

http://searchengineland.com/google-tells-bloggers-to-disclose-nofollow-links-when-reviewing-gifted-products-244533

Thought this might be of interest, whether anything comes of it or not

scarbouro · 12-03-2016 4:34pm

Some of the Bloggers on snapchat share such utter crap! You have the bloggers who do it well, you get an insight into all different aspects of their lives on a daily basis, which for the most part are interesting and then there are the ones who are complete narcissists!! They'd give the Kardashians a run for their money! Not sure why they think people want to see 10 selfies, underware shots, sitting in front of the mirror shots, office shots, daily shot of their designer handbag ect. If one does it, they all follow suit. No imagination whatsoever.

I love the few who shy away from all that crap and talk about different ideas they have/products they have used and to give practical advice to their followers.

doireannod · 12-03-2016 4:59pm

scarbouro wrote: »

Some of the Bloggers on snapchat share such utter crap! You have the bloggers who do it well, you get an insight into all different aspects of their lives on a daily basis, which for the most part are interesting and then there are the ones who are complete narcissists!! They'd give the Kardashians a run for their money! Not sure why they think people want to see 10 selfies, underware shots, sitting in front of the mirror shots, office shots, daily shot of their designer handbag ect. If one does it, they all follow suit. No imagination whatsoever.

I love the few who shy away from all that crap and talk about different ideas they have/products they have used and to give practical advice to their followers.

My personal "favourite" is snaps of feet walking to the gym wearing gym gear that can be seen from space

scarbouro · 12-03-2016 5:12pm

Or taking a clip of themselves in traffic or the bushes flying by as they are in the car.. Like WTH! I don't get it, is it to fill up the amount of seconds per day they have on it?! There really is no need for it but yet a lot of them do it. There are good bloggers on it, when they don't have anything interesting to show/say they just leave it for the day. There's no need to start snapping absolute rubbish just so you have a long story to show.

SusieBlue · 12-03-2016 7:00pm

Slightly OT but what's the new photoshop filter they're all using for videos on snapchat? Can't find it myself and was wondering if it was something that had to be downloaded separately. A cork blogger mentioned it on her snapchat today.

doireannod · 12-03-2016 7:23pm

Doesn't look like we're going to get a logical response on why bloggers are the only people in society that aren't allowed to be named here. The unspoken message I'm getting is loud and clear though and it's a blatantly sexist one; It seems women who have opinions on women are bitches or haters. Our genuine opinions, queries or concerns are being reduced to hysterical, hormonal driven jealousy. Women are being belittled by Boards; our voices being muted. Men? Not so much. Men are given free reign to call sports stars fat, politicians corrupt and Conor McGregor racist. I have an opinion or concern about a female blogger? I'm an hysterical bitch.

These bloggers claim that women need to support each other and not tear each other down. Of course we must. But we can not and must not build women up who are dishonest, greedy, vulgar and setting a bad example. All of my best friends are women and I build them up and support them. Bloggers I respect and support? Strong, independent, dignified and educated women. Women I feel are setting a good example and women I look up to. By independent I mean not living at home with mammy and paying your own mortgage and bills. Women that I think fit the bill? Pippa O'Connor, Erika Fox and Rosanna Davison. There are others but these ladies come to mind immediately when I think of successful, dignified, independent women.

Boards, the way you're belittling and diminishing women is appalling. Men with something negative to say? No big deal. Women with something negative to say? Bitchy haters.

onthemitch · 12-03-2016 7:27pm

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Slightly OT but what's the new photoshop filter they're all using for videos on snapchat? Can't find it myself and was wondering if it was something that had to be downloaded separately. A cork blogger mentioned it on her snapchat today.

It's just a new option when you scroll right – so you know when you want to put up the time or the km/h feature, it's the first option when you scroll right, your face goes all doll-like. It's bizarre! But amazing.

retro:electro · 12-03-2016 7:34pm

doireannod wrote: »

Doesn't look like we're going to get a logical response on why bloggers are the only people in society that aren't allowed to be named here. The unspoken message I'm getting is loud and clear though and it's a blatantly sexist one; It seems women who have opinions on women are bitches or haters. Our genuine opinions, queries or concerns are being reduced to hysterical, hormonal driven jealousy. Women are being belittled by Boards; our voices being muted. Men? Not so much. Men are given free reign to call sports stars fat, politicians corrupt and Conor McGregor racist. I have an opinion or concern about a female blogger? I'm an hysterical bitch.

These bloggers claim that women need to support each other and not tear each other down. Of course we must. But we can not and must not build women up who are dishonest, greedy, vulgar and setting a bad example. All of my best friends are women and I build them up and support them. Bloggers I respect and support? Strong, independent, dignified and educated women. Women I feel are setting a good example and women I look up to. By independent I mean not living at home with mammy and paying your own mortgage and bills. Women that I think fit the bill? Pippa O'Connor, Erika Fox and Rosanna Davison. There are others but these ladies come to mind immediately when I think of successful, dignified, independent women.

Boards, the way you're belittling and diminishing women is appalling. Men with something negative to say? No big deal. Women with something negative to say? Bitchy haters.

Could not have said this better if I tried. Fair play to you, agree 100%

on_my_oe · 13-03-2016 12:06am

I've mentioned it before but the women of mumsnet have been debating the same issues that many posters have been talking about here. The threads (!) were epic, with nearly 2,000 posts, and I think some of bloggers understood readers desire for transparency and honesty.

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/style_and_beauty/2586982-Influencing-the-Influencers-Disclosure-in-Social-Media-Vol-3?pg=8

One of the posts that stood out to me was one about disclosure in Scandinavia - I can't read the original source so just have to take the poster 'FrustratedFrugal' word for it. The Scandinavians have a fairly detailed Code of Conduct:

* PR samples should be disclosed
* Advertisements and product placements should be clearly labeled.
* If a blogger has been given something for free and he/she writes about it, it is considered an advertisement (Including PR samples!)
* If a blogger has been compensated in some way (either with money, vouchers, goods, services or in any other way) for a post, it is considered an ad.
* Bloggers are free to voice negative opinions and not review gifted items.

IMHO this rings very true to what many have expressed in this thread - maybe an Artic wind of change will blow into Irish blogging.

To add to my previous suggestions, I'd like to see some bloggers post reviews of products that they don't like and explain why. It can't all be wonderful, and if bloggers are receiving PR samples, then it might save me wasting money on bad products

retro:electro · 13-03-2016 12:44pm

Over on the fashion and appearance page people are ripping the absolute p out of Paul Galvin and his new clothing collection. Funny how the rules there can be so different even though they have the same charter and the same mods as the beauty forum. Total double standards. Nobody here even wants to slag anyone off, we just want a healthy discussion and the ability to name bloggers where appropriate (eg. They've posted/said something publically that people want to discuss) But no! Sure that would make us "bitchy".

meeeeh · 13-03-2016 1:23pm

anna080 wrote: »

Over on the fashion and beauty page people are ripping the absolute p out of Paul Galvin and his new clothing collection. Funny how the rules there can be so different even though they have the same charter and the same mods as the beauty forum. Total double standards. Nobody here even wants to slag anyone off, we just want a healthy discussion and the ability to name bloggers where appropriate (eg. They've posted/said something publically that people want to discuss) But no! Sure that would make us "bitchy".

Actually I also critized comments in Paul Galvin thread, I don't agree with that kind of attitude. However his relatives and family were never dragged in to it. Some threads in beauty forum were pure nastiness in comparison.

There was also perfectly civilized thread in Ladies Lounge regarding comments Pippa O'Connor made. I doubt though many contributors there equate women's rights to discussing who is better and more honest at selling mascara and dental services.

doireannod · 13-03-2016 1:43pm

anna080 wrote: »

Over on the fashion and beauty page people are ripping the absolute p out of Paul Galvin and his new clothing collection. Funny how the rules there can be so different even though they have the same charter and the same mods as the beauty forum. Total double standards. Nobody here even wants to slag anyone off, we just want a healthy discussion and the ability to name bloggers where appropriate (eg. They've posted/said something publically that people want to discuss) But no! Sure that would make us "bitchy".

The difference? It's a man that is being discussed #boardsissexist

doireannod · 13-03-2016 1:46pm

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually I also critized comments in Paul Galvin thread, I don't agree with that kind of attitude. However his relatives and family were never dragged in to it. Some threads in beauty forum were pure nastiness in comparison.

There was also perfectly civilized thread in Ladies Lounge regarding comments Pippa O'Connor made. I doubt though many contributors there equate women's rights to discussing who is better and more honest at selling mascara and dental services.

Women's rights means being treated equally to men

meeeeh · 13-03-2016 3:34pm

doireannod wrote: »

Women's rights means being treated equally to men

I didn't think Pippa O'Connor is a man.

Oh BTW sexism is such pathetic card to play. When you can't think of any decent argument you use the 'us poor women card'. I didn't think there are only female bloggers neither I noticed that you wouldn't be allowed your opinion on other threads because you are woman.

doireannod · 13-03-2016 4:53pm

meeeeh wrote: »

I didn't think Pippa O'Connor is a man.

Oh BTW sexism is such pathetic card to play. When you can't think of any decent argument you use the 'us poor women card'. I didn't think there are only female bloggers neither I noticed that you wouldn't be allowed your opinion on other threads because you are woman.

You've misinterpreted my point entirely. You didn't read the post properly, clearly. The point I made is that women make critical comments they are branded as bitches but men are freely allowed to make negative comments. Never did I say we aren't allowed to have opinions because we are women. We're allowed. But we risk being dismissed as bitches if we say something unfavourable; this is not the case for men.

meeeeh · 13-03-2016 5:04pm

doireannod wrote: »

You've misinterpreted my point entirely. You didn't read the post properly, clearly. The point I made is that women make critical comments they are branded as bitches but men are freely allowed to make negative comments. Never did I say we aren't allowed to have opinions because we are women. We're allowed. But we risk being dismissed as bitches if we say something unfavourable; this is not the case for men.

No that is a week argument. There were plenty valid negative comments made about Pippa O'Connor statements last week. However they didn't include nasty comments about looks, relatives and similar nonsense. It's the nature of comments not because they were made by women.

doireannod · 13-03-2016 5:19pm

meeeeh wrote: »

No that is a week argument. There were plenty valid negative comments made about Pippa O'Connor statements last week. However they didn't include nasty comments about looks, relatives and similar nonsense. It's the nature of comments not because they were made by women.

I accept that it's not the entire argument but I feel like it's at play nonetheless. There's been absolutely no logical reason whatsoever given as to why bloggers can't be named but all other figures in the public domain can.

*I think you mean "weak" argument

meeeeh · 13-03-2016 5:28pm

Yes. Sorry for typo.

Mrs OBumble · 14-03-2016 3:06pm

FWIW, Google have posted today what they expect of Bloggers who get free stuff to review.

Point number 2 is:

Disclose the relationship
Users want to know when they’re viewing sponsored content. Also, there are laws in some countries that make disclosure of sponsorship mandatory. A disclosure can appear anywhere in the post; however, the most useful placement is at the top in case users don’t read the entire post.

Read the full story here: https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2016/03/best-practices-for-bloggers-reviewing.html

onthemitch · 14-03-2016 5:47pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

FWIW, Google have posted today what they expect of Bloggers who get free stuff to review.

Point number 2 is:

Read the full story here: https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2016/03/best-practices-for-bloggers-reviewing.html

That's really interesting, I for one had never even heard of a nofollow link – but used them in today's blog post to link to an item I'd been sent.

I'd still argue that a free item or sample doesn't constitute sponsorship or payment, mind you!

Dav · 14-03-2016 6:04pm

I'm not entirely sure why Boards stopping you from defaming people is somehow Boards being sexist. It's really not. Every time you name a blog and make a negative statement about it or its owner, you are putting Boards.ie Ltd at risk of legal action. It doesn't matter that you're the ones who said it, we're legally responsible (the 2009 Defamation Act is yet another of Fianna Fáil's great contributions to Irish society).

So, unless you're willing to prepare me an affidavit that identifies you and indemnifies Boards.ie Ltd against any legal action arising from you're defamatory comments about another person's work, there won't be any "name and shame." Then you can go to the high court and appeal the case, we have no interest in spending two hundred grand to allow you to defame someone.

What do you want from a blog? [no names please]

Comments