Selecting only one green category: the death sentence for multi-niche blogs at postjoint
I saw in my account:
Your action is required: Please update the content interests for your blogs. You will not be able to make new offers until this is done.
You require only one popular category to be selected, out of 20. By doing this you basically signed the death sentence for multi-niche blogs. Please remove this and allow multi-niche blogs to continue publishing quality content for the most common categories (the green tags). Not only you get paid at least $1.5 (minimum price per credit) for each article being published but I think this new practice is discriminatory for all blogs publishing content from multiple niches.
We’ve just rolled out an update that combines main themes and precision keywords. The overall effect will be an increase in relevance for all parties.
Thomas Oppong commented
Opportunities are not picking up. New changes make it difficult to practically get opportunities. Blogs with multiple categories are struggling. Marketers want better target, we understand but relevant bloggers with better ranking and multiple categories can't even see the opportunities to make offers. It's just not working.
Opportunities are scattered in different categories and bloggers will be tempted to keep altering categories just to see relevant opportunities. Bloggers should be giving the chance to choose other main categories.
Laura Blaauboer commented
I think this new update is more for the benefit of marketers than for bloggers. AGAIN I had to change all the settings to my blog and I must say that the precision keywords are not good at all.
@Erik - The changes have been tested and are designed to increase relevance. We've had lots of feedback from marketers about irrelevant offers and general sites. The majority of our bloggers use the service for free (monthly allowances). Give it some time and the opportunities will pick up again.
Erik M. commented
What a gigantic facepalm, nice work. After wasting a ton of time (AGAIN!) setting up all of our blogs, we have zero opportunities available to be claimed.
You guys need to read up on the lean startup and gain a better understanding how to iterate your product. Making massive changes without testing is a great way to continually lose users.
Especially when we're paying you for the "service" of having to reclassify our blogs over and over again. Let me know when you get it together and there's actually opportunities to be had in the database.
Thanks for your feedback Laura and JJ. This update will go a long way towards improving things with respect to dropped domains and general sites. We also have a bunch of other changes in the pipeline.
Laura Ginn commented
I've just caught up with this post and for once me and JJ Coop completely agree. I've also stopped guest posting for clients as I just can't do it effectively anymore. Dropped domains are a huge problem on every platform like this and I think that they have played a huge part in the recent Google update. Good quality blogs was initially what this site was going for but it is now overpopulated with spam and dropped domains and the cost of using the service doesn't measure up against the quality of it unfortunately.
I'm with JJ - a lot needs to change before I start offering guest posting as a service again.
Sinea Pies commented
My blog covers several niches. I totally agree with request...we need to be able to designate several areas of interest.
Yeah thats what my personal preference would be. Plus force people to link to at the very least 1 other legitimate site from the post along with their own link.
A bunch of random links, all with 'natural' anchors would be impossible to detect algorithmically.
A single link with an 'apartments Manchester' anchor is obviously not legitimate and easily detectable.
JJ - Are you saying no keyword anchors at all - so we only allow branded, general or URL links?
@ Igor. I agree with that. People won't rate a blog 4-5 starts and the acceptance rate for it is excellent if they are unhappy with such blog. Maybe PJ should implement some restrictions according to the acceptance rate only and establish levels according to this criteria.
Igor - the problem is if its not moderated to some level, people will inevitably push it too far and it'll destroy it for everyone else. If people can upload spun content and other people can post the content on dropped domains.... then it becomes a farce and the chance of it lasting long term is round about zero.
i would assume the best way to win long term (for Postjoint themselves, advertisers & publishers) is to go for quality across the board. Good quality blogs, no spammy anchors, high end content, etc etc. If some people say they need to keep it under $5 a link or some other silly number, then imho they should be excluded from participating for the good of the system as a whole.
Igor Gjurovski commented
There is an old say: "Don't repair if it's not broken". So if you have happy publishers and happy advertisers I don't see why you "care" for relevancy or something else? Somebody in PostJoint act as advertisers are dumb asses and they don't know to pick a good opportunities and publishers are some nasty sort of people who like to screw up their clients.
I thing this philosophy is contra productive for both advertisers and publishers.
I would like to address (again) the quality check when publishers are submitting blogs. Please be more liberal and live advertisers to decide where to post their content. Don't decide for them.
No problem, I'm still actively reading the support forum and just read the recent blog post too. I'm just not uploading any content until the dust settles and/or either you change the system, or I work out a safer way for me to use the current one :)
I know this would lose you some users in the short term but I think banning anchor text links would go a long way towards ensuring people can use things like this far more safely.
One issue I see (and I've had a think and don't see a real way around this) is that even if you ban someone adding 'credit card' exact anchors
they might still sell posts with those anchors outside of the PJ system completely.
Yet it doesn't matter to me whether those posts got on the blogs via PJ, MBG or anywhere else - they're there and adding risk, thats all that matters.
I don't know if you could get away with not only banning publishers from adding anchor text links via PJ, but banning them from actively selling these type of links anywhere else at all. If publishers would be willing to do that I'd see the links we were getting as being lower risk, and happier to compensate them more.
JJ - As you know we are very responsive to customer feedback and are working hard to improve the system whilst trying to keep the right balance. We know exactly what you are talking about with dropped sites, multi-niche, etc, and we are about to launch two major updates to address this. One will go live within a matter of days, and the other within a few weeks. So stick around and keep on giving us your valuable feedback!
Whether its a dropped domain or whether its one that was bought before a drop and repurposed, is just semantics really. It still means none of the old links were given editorially - its spam central and the exact type of thing Google don't want.
Do you think they'd be impressed if they used archive.org to look through your site, and seen it go from a 'real' business, to a godaddy holding page, to a blog with categories from cancer to SEO? If it was your friend that done the spammy bits then passed the ownership to you, thats hardly an excuse I'd want to use in a reinclusion request :)
They obviously wouldn't like it.... but its just another one in a long long list of things being done by someone that worked towards destroying guest posting for everyone else.
We're officially out of the guest posting business for now, with immediate effect. So thats 300 or so posts a month that won't be going on the PJ system. I was reasonably confident in our own work but looking through some of the nonsense the same blogs are/were publishing elsewhere I have no confidence in them not bringing it crashing down and me being caught up in it purely from being linked to from the same blogs.
Its been fun and profitable while its lasted but I just can't justify using PJ with the current setup, and at this current time. We spend decent money on good content, and spend time researching 5 or so good resource links to be placed in it. No anchor text rich links at all, even to our own site. Yet when I visit some of the other posts on these blogs there is a load of absolute crap thats one step above spun content at times. With one link only in it, direct to a money site with a painfully obvious anchor text. So all of our hard work and spending is wasted when the inevitable happens to that blog. I'm not saying the crap content is being added via PJ - it might be sold directly. But it doesn't matter to me how it got there, only that its there.
I'll be paying all my pending offers and then I'm done. I'll check in occasionally to see if anything changes to make it viable to use again... but I'm not confident and looking to reallocate promotional budgets elsewhere now unfortunately.
@JJ COOP: I appreciate you don't name my website but please make a difference between a dropped domain and a domain (a website) that has never been dropped but acquired from a friend "as is", with full content on it.
Dropped domains and websites who changed their ownership are totally different things. But is ok, I understand your position and I respect it.
btw I'm deliberately not naming your blog as I don't want to out anyone publicly or cause unnecessary problems, but can you not see that the exact thing you are doing is causing problems for everyone? You're presenting your blog as legitimate when its anything but. I know you'll say otherwise but you can't seriously tell me you chose that blog name for any other reason that its past history.
Its exactly these type of blogs that me / presumably Laura Ginn too are referring to that are ruining the system for us.
I appreciate other people might want to have links on them based on DA/PR alone - thats absolutely fine, if you want to sell and they want to buy then I couldn't care less, it doesn't concern me. As long as I can opt out of them and never have to see offers from them.
When their stats came from buying a dropped domain to build a blog on, their stats are generally unimportant. If they've built a blog from scratch, then yes their stats are far more important.
Its very rare we even actually need to use stats - you can get a good feel for a site by simply visiting it. If its clearly had some care taken in the design, layout etc, the content is well thought out and written then its likely to still be around in a year / not go toxic on you.
If the domain is obviously dropped and off topic, and they’ve done horrible things like add a load of deliberately high value categories including a ‘cancer’ one and push posts promoting bullshit cures… then the outlook isn’t good is it? Your blog has high stats but its certainly a spam site.
ok, JJ COOP, then you agree that considering the blog's DA, PR, Aexa ranking, and other stats is a useful thing to know whether or not a blog is spammy/low quality.
Not all general blogs are by default spam/low quality. Their stats and rankings are important.
Laura Ginn commented
I agree with JJ Coop. I often end up reporting multi niche blogs that ignore my special requirements - usually "no mummy blogs and no general blogs". I want to post on sites that are niche because not only are they 'usually' higher quality but my post is more relevant. Yet I am forever reporting blogs that bid on my posts because they are not suitable - and I think this may be why PostJoint is making changes. I can't be the only one to do this.
With writers having to pay to receive more than 10 offers, we need the offers we receive to be relevant. Otherwise the whole process just gets ridiculously expensive.