Adam said...

Thanks for the info. I also believe that it is in our best interest to write a little more so that readers don't feel that we are writing the posts just for the money.

Feb 25, 2007 5:10:00 PM

colleen_cc said...

I only wish there were a way to MAKE the advertisers rate people. For new people especially - when you've taken 100 opps, and only have 4 or 5 ratings, it's not fair to not be able to get opps requesting a 4 or 5 tack, when only a few people have voted.

Feb 25, 2007 5:12:00 PM

colleen_cc said...

Adding to earlier comment - I have 143 votes, but I've taken 784 opps. That's only 18%. Yes, I am sure some of those opps were from before the tack ratings even existed, but still. Have you sent out emails to past advertisers letting them know to come back and rate us, because us being able to take new opps depends on it?It hardly seems fair to prevent people from taking opps on something that 20% of advertisers are using.

Feb 25, 2007 5:24:00 PM

Angie said...

I have been rated for a whopping 7% of my posts made. I am not sure why the advertisers aren't required to rate us but can use the tack rating to segment some people out. That just doesn't make sense to me.

Feb 25, 2007 6:13:00 PM

Ali said...

Maybe they don't want to rate because they felt like it wasn't worth rating. We also have to take into consideration that.That saying comes into play here "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all".I'm pretty sure if anybody got rated badly then they would scream up a cry an hue in the forums and support emails asking why they got rated badly when they met the opp requirements.But then again if you don't get rated you will never know what you are doing wrong. Vicious cycle.So this blog post should serve as a wake up call for all bloggers to go above and beyond.

Feb 25, 2007 6:19:00 PM

karmov said...

Boo to your ratings. You guys knocked me down from a 5/5 to a 4/5. It seems I can please the advertisers themselves but for some reason I'm falling short of what you think advertisers should be expecting...Why not set the bar where your advertisers are setting it?

Feb 25, 2007 6:29:00 PM

Angie said...

Personally, I think it's just like anything else in life: if someone is happy, they are quietly happy. If someone is upset, they scream and kick and spit. Oh yes, advertisers will sure take the time to issue a ban, but most don't bother to even rank with the tacks if htey are ahppy.Lopsided and eventually crippling.

Feb 25, 2007 7:59:00 PM

kat said...

96 opps, 11 votes. Hardly seems accurate or fair to me. All this talk of rating us through PR and Alexa, the advertisers asked for these ratings, yet they are not rating us themselves. It would be beneficial to us to have the advertisers rate us on the opps we take for them.

Feb 25, 2007 8:19:00 PM

Guy said...

I think the problem with tacks is very basic and why such a rating system is flawed from the outset.People generally do not go out of their way to issue praise, unless they receive something stellar.On the other hand, people are more than happy to give feedback if they are annoyed or disappointed.This makes rating systems of this nature skew negative.

Feb 25, 2007 10:02:00 PM

5xmom.com said...

I have this silly idea of putting a little, friendly quote or gif that says, 'If you like this post, give me some votes on PPP. (or something in that) Yes, I am desperate for votes, just as all posties. :P Votes are hard to come by. 461 posts since October 2006 but only 85 votes.

Feb 26, 2007 12:16:00 AM

Ben said...

I still haven't received a tack rating, and two of the posts I did were FOR PAY PER POST as the advertiser. How hard is it for you guys to rate the blog when you approve it? Two, maybe three extra seconds?You should lead the way for your other advertisers. Rate your posties.Here's a couple ideas--1) Offer incentives to advertisers for filling out tack (like 10% off their next advertisement).2) Have two separate ratings. One that Advertisers rate, and one PPP rates. That way, if we meet all the requirements, but the advertiser isn't satisfied, there is somehting to counter the lower tack. (ex--PPP gives the post a 4 for meeting or exceeding all requirements, advertiser gives the post a 2 because of something they didnt like, but didn't explain in the notes).

Feb 26, 2007 1:44:00 AM

Lisa Renee said...

56 ratings - 5 bans and 327 posts...I can live with the bans because I know at times my primary blog is controversial. I was at a 3 tack when the whole tack thing started and then when the votes were recounted or whatever happened was a four and have stayed a four. I admit personally that hurt, as I have tried to do my best in doing more than what was required the majority of the time. Then when I realized that the bans could be from earlier as an error or just because something as simple as maybe that advertiser was not a liberal...and seeing no new bans have come in that I just needed to concentrate on what I was doing before. I still really, really, really disagree with an advertiser ban affecting our scores but a .5 is better than a 5. I think banning us alone from future opportunities given it can't be taken back and is a forever kind of thing is enough....

Feb 26, 2007 2:40:00 AM

BReilly said...

All of these rating systems (PR, Alexa, tacks) reduce everything to an easy to read number, but it's not really clear that any of these numbers capture what matters about what people are writing on their blogs (not that there is another system which does). PR and Alexa both can be manipulated to a degree. The tack rating system might do a better job at assessing the content of a blog, but it doesn't offer any specifics about which posts were rated highly and which were not, so it really doesn't give you enough information to help raise your tack score. The inclusion of the bans (which can be for non-post related reasons) pollutes the tack score, making it less useful, plus the low percentage of advertisers rating posts doesn't help. Where is the evidence that an Alexa score under 200,000 or PR of 6 leads to more traffic to the advertiser's site than a PR of 2 where the blogger has done an effective job with the opp? Isn't there some more effective measure of a successful post? Since all of this rating stuff is so quantitatively-driven, there must be some numbers supporting the use of these systems to predict the return on the advertiser's investment.I have 760 posts and 124 votes - 16% of my posts are rated. I've got 17 bans out of 124 votes - 14% of my votes are bans, so almost the same percentage of advertisers who vote on my posts have banned me from their opps, but I still have no idea which posts were considered good and which ones got me banned.

Feb 26, 2007 3:50:00 AM

Lady Aeval said...

I'd rather get a private postie comment than a tack. A tack is just an average of tacks and doesn't tell me what I did well and what I did wrong. I like to learn and improve, but it's hard not to.For example, was my content wrong for the post? Did I put a link up that the advertiser didn't like? Was it posted next to some other post the advertiser didn't like? Was my post boring (awww come one now! I try to be fun!)I only take ones I can relate to and have the time to learn about so if I do something wrong I'd really like to know what after I put a lot of effort into something.It's like getting a performance appraisal on a scale without the input.

Feb 26, 2007 4:27:00 AM

Google Bot Unwanted said...

I think you should put on your advertiser stat how many posts taken,how many on this site, what is the overall rating. Open disclosure and REQUIRE to rate after review.I'm tempted to do a footer disclosure like what those political ads do, saying Supported by PayPerPost (advertiser) for giving me my daily dose of Viagra and Heart Attack (random item/target) promoting "Themselves to be a VERY IMPORTANT WEBSTAR, bigger than President Bush and to win an Emmy" (the service). More details at their Website : HTTP://www.PayPerPost.Com ($website)Promoter of this service ($me) have RATED/UNRATED/NOT-TESTED the service, so I "bear no liability/have Faith in/feel it's OK" (the rating) about them.Very Very Tempted!

Feb 26, 2007 6:59:00 AM

The Editor - Neo Garfield said...

Excellent initiative Ted! This is EXACTLY what we posties would like to know. We want to be rated, which PPP has implemented, but now, we would also like to know WHY we were rated thus.If I got a 5 tack by one advertiser, I would like to know what was so special in that post which made the advertiser 5 tack me.If I got banned, I would like to know WHY I was banned - what did I do which the advertiser did not like.And THIS post IS an EXCELLENT way to do it! I hope all advertisers respond positively.Everyone, you cant expect ALL advertisers to tack you! They are busy people who spend money for quality "buzz" about their products. They are deputing the "buzz" job to PPP to save time and do it effeciently. Thus, they may not have time to tack us all. They may not even have time to read up all the reviews! So we shouldnt expect too much.

Feb 26, 2007 9:58:00 AM

Stephanie said...

Okay, I am a little new to this still but here are my thoughts.A) Please let us know the reason for a bad tack, I don't need praise, I need critisim so I can continue to grow.B)This may be my inexperience showing but I have been rejected for an post because I added something. Where you talk about adding "something extra" I have run into problems with that so I stick to writing.C) I think it is really important to know why we have been rated poorly and give us the opportunity to fix it, just like we would if we had been rejected. I absolutely LOVED one advertiser that took the time to place a comment on my blog about the opp I wrote for them! What a wonderful way to let me know how I was doing!I don't want to complain, I think that being rated by advertisers and PPP could be a wonderful way for us posties to grow, but we need to know what we are doing wrong if we are going to correct it. If we don't know, we can't fix it, we will eventually end up not able to take any opps and as you said we will fall out of the system and eventually PPP will have no posties left. Please seriously consider getting us personal feedback on ratings.

Feb 26, 2007 1:21:00 PM

Anonymous said...

If a high school student was enrolled in six courses and at the end of the year she was told she had a "B" average, but that she couldn't see what her grade was in English, Biology, Geometry, etc. because the teachers didn't want her to know what grade she got in their class, what kind of school would that be? One with lots of unhappy and confused students.

Feb 26, 2007 9:15:00 PM

Sindy said...

I find it interesting that that are 18 comments ALL from posties. That in and of itself should tell you that the advertisers are busy. I have only been rated by 12% of the advertisers. I am not angry with the advertisers that haven't taken the time to rate me, as I respect their time.I think the tack rating should be like a 'review' for staff - much like you said the middle of the road post meeting requirements, correct use of grammar, spelling, and punctuation - 3. Exceeds opp requirements - 4. Outstanding efforts - 5. Then a 2 would be mets requirements, with formatting errors, spelling errors, doesn't read well (disjointed thoughts), etc. and have the reviewers have a set of rules to rate us. Sure, you'd have to come up with guidelines and it's all subjective, but at least you'd get a true average from all of the reviewers. Then there could be a separate bonus that's added for positive ratings from advertisers - disclosing 23 our of 195 advertisers have rated this blogger and the average tack rating is 5/5 or whatever. So that other advertisers can see that the advertisers thoughts. This would give a more realistic view of bloggers efforts than the randomness that currently exists. Colleen has been rated by 18% of the advertisers she's blogged for ... so her 5/5 is more valuable than the 5/5 that I have with only 12% of advertisers rating me. OR IS IT!?! We really don't know because many of her ratings could be from the same advertiser that just lovers her (or not) ... but you get the idea. When you look at how it's set up, and how we're all crying out to get the advertisers to buy in and rate us - it's still not the ideal situation. It's so subjective and you can't even compare one blogger to another. So advertisers are believing they are getting a high quality blogger by asking for a 4/5 tack rating, when it's all so random.I think the lack of response to this post should be a huge indicator of the fact that asking advertisers to rate us isn't going to happen to the volumes that you expect. And as an advertiser if you kept reminding me to do so I'd get rather annoyed.At the very least the advertisers need to understand more about tack ratings by disclosure of how they work right where they opp creation happens (someone else mentioned this too, I believe).Time to put your thinking caps on and tweak this process a bit more ...

Feb 26, 2007 10:01:00 PM