If you promote sites where the model is 18 or older, and you find that a sponsor is suddenly informed a model they used claims to be underage, whose responsibility is it?

To begin with, let’s take a look at the circumstances.

You get told by a 3rd party that a model you are promoting on your site is not of legal age, a year younger actually. The Sponsor hasn’t notified you but the person telling you is direct competition to that sponsor.

So what do you do?

For myself, I put the post or page into ‘private‘ so that it isn’t able to be viewed, then I contact the sponsor. Now the question is, do you delete immediately or do you wait for a reply? And should the sponsor have already contacted you?

That is the dilema.

When a sponsor has clear evidence to the model’s faked age, then I would say YES they should have already contacted you, but what if there is doubt, question, about that illegality? Should they be rushing to alarm affiliates that a possible promotional model is not of age, or do they wait for proper proof?

The Internet is a great place, lots of information out there. Unfortunately, a lot of that information is just speculation, idle gossip, and inaccurate. So what does an affiliate do? Panic or do a simple removal or move to making the potential illegal content private? Then too, there is the whole Cache issue that occurs for a site crawled by the Search Engines. That ‘now private’ post is still showing in the cache.  Will even if you DELETE IT.

Then too, there is the whole legal issue. What if the cache is used to lay a claim that you are promoting underage? I mean if an item is posted say 6 weeks before the facts are determined, what are the legal ramifications? Again, is it the Sponsor at fault, or the Affiliate?

Seriously, Google is a business, like any other business. It provides a service to it’s customers, and because it has a large number of customers, some have the notion that it is there to help them make money off Google’s back. It is a relationship that is interesting, because while we all want our share of the pie, the fact is, Google Exists for it’s own interests, not ours.

YES, our sites help power that index, but hey, it is OUR CHOICE. Seriously, if we don’t like how Google is conducting its business, we can simply block it’s spider, put ‘no index/no follow’ right up front, put a disallow in our robots file and not bother with Google. After all, there is Yahoo, MSN, ASK, and a host of other Search Engines out there, but WE CHOOSE TO INCLUDE GOOGLE.

This sense of Entitlement is bizarre. Google has its rules, like any other business does. WE HAVE OUR RULES TOO! I mean how many sponsors will allow a member to share their password with their friends or for everyone on the internet to use? WE CANCEL THEM, DON’T WE?

Yet everyday, on virtually every webmaster board, someone is bitching about Google, as if Google is their personal window to mega money. They Bitch about the rules, try to find ways to short circuit those rules, then when they get caught, they run in a panic, claiming they are being Censored. Course they aren’t writing letters to their Senators or Congressperson to argue against Patriot Acts I&II or about GItmo or even about how the Government uses TORTURE. But they sure do WHINE when Google makes a decision.

If those running Google think a site is not suited, that is their right, just as it is our right to disagree, or say that age limits are wrong. Just as we determine which credit processor to use, or drop, which affiliate to drop for too many emails, it is a business choice we make. Just as Google does.

IT IS THEIR BUSINESS

Some of us will refuse to sign up for sponsors who promote Scat, or Piss, because it is too risky. Others will ignore the BDSM type sites, and some will ignore the BEAR sites, because, it is something WE DO NOT WANT.  After all, it is OUR SITES, so we are entitled to do as we please, to make our income.

WHY DO WE THINK GOOGLE SHOULD BE DIFFERENT?

Over at Gaydemon there is an ongoing discussion regarding the ‘sudden‘ decision by Epoch to no longer allow the Switch / Maestro credit/debit card for recurring billing. Now in all fairness, it is a decision made by Switch/Maestro and not Epoch on it’s own. In fact they have been processing these cards for recurring membership for a year since the card’s new rules were either implemented, or at least announced.  Least that is the explanation given by Epoch.

Now I don’t live in a bubble, and I can understand, even expect, that Credit Card Companies and Banks are going to be adjusting how their cards are used. What with Identity Theft on the rise, with Hackers growing bolder, and with the Credit Crunch happening around the world, it stands to reason that changes, that toughening of rules will be a natural progression. That said, I still find it annoying and irritating at how these companies INFORM it’s customers of these changes.

Example being, that this thread at Gaydemon was started just yesterday, the 25th of June, with the resulting action of no longer accepting these cards for recurring billing taking effect on the 30th of the Month.  Now, excuse me, but according to the explanation given by an Epoch representative, this is not a new rule, but one that has been in the works for at least a year. In fact the ‘other‘ processors don’t accept this card for recurring for that year, supposedly due to this reason.

So if it was known for a year that this day was coming, why did Epoch take so long to fully inform its customers?

Why was notice only given with less than a week’s time before it takes effect?

And worse in my mind, is if they knew this day would happen, why weren’t their accounts fully informed of this possibility long before now, like at the moment of signing up for their service?

What has me a bit pissed is the sense that somehow Epoch was doing everyone a favor, and deserves a thank you that this action didn’t happen a year ago. Frankly it isn’t just Epoch that is like this, but many large operations seem to have this attitude of ‘entitlement‘ that says that we, the customers, should be thankful we can do business with them.

Simple truth is, that they exist BECAUSE WE USE THEM. It is the money WE PAY that provides them with the funds to hire people, to run their operation. WITHOUT THE CUSTOMER they have nothing, no income, but we are expected to THANK THEM? Sorry but that is ass backwards.

Simple truth is that a Credit Card Company has made a decision. It should be Epoch contacting its members, to offer help and suggestions on how to not let such a decision adversely effect OUR OPERATION, and REMAIN COMPLIANT.  That is what they get their FEES FOR. If they are aware of these changes coming, then they shouldn’t be dropping it on our toes, but giving us proper notice, proper time to absorb the information, to get over the shock, not expect thank you’s for having not letting it happen earlier.

Granted, there are times when there simply isn’t any advance warning of something. However, a clear explanation, can go a long way to insuring that any anger, any discourse, is properly directed. If Epoch for example, were only notified this week that the cut off was July 1st, then a simply inclusion of that fact in any outgoing emails would go a long way to insure Epoch didn’t come under suspicion.

As well, a clear thought out plan of action, such as explaining the various options open to them, would further help lessen the impact of the news.  It might mean a bit more thought prior to sending out the notices, but it would avoid a lot of drama too.

But then again, we are supposed to be thanking them, aren’t we?

Cookies, and their duration, as set by Sponsors, is an issue many webmasters get passionate about, but I wonder, should we? I mean does it really matter if a cookie is set for infinity or 24 hours?

Myself, I am of the opinion that a cookie should be set to about a month, perhaps a bit longer like six weeks, but I don’t believe cookies set longer really matter in the scheme of things. Not because I am uber rich and it doesn’t matter to me how much I make, but because I believe that most surfers have some form of anti spyware that gets run at least a month or so.

Microsoft even, has some anti spyware nonsense included in VISTA, and I tend to think that most new anti virus software also does. Do they eliminate the cookies? Not sure, but while webmasters may be more security conscious, I think the surfer is rapidly becoming more astute about things like spyware, like cookies.

The more known anti virus programs like Norton, MacAfee, Trend Micro and so on all seem to come bundled these days with scans that include checking cookies, include checking for spyware. And some will count a cookie as spyware, and prompt to delete. Let’s not forget about Ad Aware either, that is popular with consumers.

So why bother with setting them for longer?

Personally I think it is a tempest in a teapot, but then heck I once was blond too. So who really knows, but it would be interesting to find out, just how many sales does a site make from a cookie, and can they even tell when the cookie was initialized. By that I mean, can they tell if the cookie is recent, or was placed on the surfer’s computer six months ago? three months? whatever?

Now that would settle the issue, though somehow, I don’t expect an answer.

Frankly I think it is about perception. I think affiliates are so conscious of being ripped off, that when they see a short time cookie, they have the impression that they are being ripped off somehow. I don’t quite see it that way, though I suppose anything is possible. I just find it weird as to why some sponsors set cookies to expire in a day, others set them to expire in a year or longer.

If it truly is as I believe, that the surfer deletes the cookies on a regular basis, then it makes no difference. On the other hand, if they don’t, then I guess the question is should an affiliate be entitled to a commission for a surfer who visited six months earlier?

What if they visit another affiliate’s site, that has better marketing copy and so makes them click the join page, but as the cookie is from elsewhere, the one who really made the sale is denied the commission?Then there is the issue of ‘how do you know’ if it was your cookie or not?

This whole issue comes down a simple matter of trust, I think. If I am pushing a sponsor who I don’t trust, the real question shouldn’t be about how long their cookie lasts, but why am I pushing them?

I can hear the answers too: ‘Well they convert really well for me” and yet if we mis trust them so much, how are we even sure of even that aspect of the business relationship?

What has me wondering is the way it was included in this particular paragraph:

If you’ve noticed that your rankings in Google seem to be affected, you might consider a few searches on your site to see if anyone has injected spammy or porn content on your site. If your domain was example.com, you might want to run a few queries such as [site:example.com porn] or [site:example.com biaxin] or [site:example.com viagra] to see whether you run across unexpected results. (source - Matt Cutts Blog)

Maybe I am just being paranoid.

But in reading how that is worded, it makes it seem that ‘porn‘ is not a good thing in Google, which would be really bad news for a lot of adult webmasters. I mean, like we don’t have enough headaches from Bush and the other wing nuts out there? Still, there has been a lot of speculation that ‘adult sites‘ that deal in ‘porn‘ are given some form of penalty or something, that some how effects their rankings.

Yet at the same time, adult sites do rank well for very specific terms. Some of them might be considered as being ‘porn only‘ terms, but there are lots of other words, for which adult sites rank well at. The only thing I have found, is that to get a higher Page Rank, just doesn’t seem in the cards for many Adult Orientated Sites.

So does Google penalize adult sites?

I suppose the answer depends on who you talk to. Somehow, if they do penalize us, they aren’t about to admit it. I mean that could be an interesting lawsuit, if some bright eyed lawyer wanted to take them on, but then again, the hard part would be to prove it. I personally think they do, but not as much as they could.

Now if that stupid XXX TLD ever became a fact, I think you would see Google and other search directories block all of us, which is just one of the many reasons why I oppose the XXX TLD.

Yet given how complex the Search Engines are, and how they determine a site’s ranking, I do think that certain words may indeed provide a trigger, that does harm our rankings. I think the obvious terms like ‘porn‘ are one of them, which is a bummer. I use it way too much, and I am really wondering, is it me, or is it all those nasty ‘porn video‘ or ‘porn star‘ words I use?