As you all know the issue of cross-posting reviews to other price comparison sites was an issue of much debate on the boards this week. While some of the debate has been heated, overall this community has done a great job of surfacing the important issues and discussing them openly and honestly.

We have heard each of you and are carefully considering your feedback. I know it seems difficult to make your voice heard online in this day and age, but I assure you we care deeply about your concerns, needs, and opinions. Many thanks to our valiant Moderators for putting in the overtime to help guide this process.

My original post on the subject was an under-informed mis-step which I want to apologize and take responsibility for. There is a genuine tension between restrictions on members and the need for unique content, and we're still working on the right balance of a solution for that. Where I feel we truly failed was in *how* we approached the issue. We should have incorporated more history and background info into our decision, and we should have involved more members in the process.

My apologies to those who felt attacked or admonished for doing what Nirav specifically allowed back in 2002. My mistake was in believing that I was simply clarifying the existing UA. Members had been asking for clarity on the rule and enforcement of it. I believed I was providing that, but I was unaware of the letter and therefore working in the dark. My bad.

For now we've said wait a few days and we'll issue a new UA. However, as we hear more feedback from you all, we realize this is clearly an important issue which many feel strongly about. Given the tumult over the past few days and our own missteps, I don't want to rush another decision. GG and I have decided to take a few weeks and consider the issue further, keeping ALL options open. We will consider everything from eliminating all mention of this subject from the UA to entering an exact list of pertinent price comparison sites to something in between.

We're going to do more homework on the duplicate content issue and involve more members in the discussion along the way. As a start, feel free to air your thoughts in this thread for consideration. We may or may not respond to each comment but I promise we will read and consider them all with open minds. This is intended as an open discussion, not necessarily a vote. So let us know what you think, but more importantly, why.

For clarity's sake, the current state of affairs is that there is a request not to cross-post to price comparison sites, but no rule against doing it. If we decide to make this a rule, we will consult as many members as possible first, we'll keep the scope of such a rule as limited as possible, and make the terms of it as clear as possible. No one will be punished for existing cross-posts to price comparison sites; any new conditions we lay out will only apply on a go-forward basis.


Many people have expressed fears that they will have to choose between Epinions and another site they belong to, but I'd like to point out that the vast majority of sites out there were never part of this discussion. The duplicate content issue is important with regard to very large, very well-known price comparison sites that compete directly with Epinions and Shopping.com, not smaller, community-driven sites or personal websites.

Members are the most important part of Epinions and, as ever, it's our privelege to work with you on this.

Well said, Andy.



ApprovingDoc

Thank you very much for taking the time to give this the series thought it obviously needs.

I need to leave for a doctor's appointment right now, and I'll then be out of town for a few days thereafter, but I do want to post this thought for you to think about.

Of my 266 reviews, 143 of them are the only review of the product. Some of those products go back years. Some are more recent and currently popular.

Is it better for the site to have some things covered but with duplicate reviews, or to have only original content and leave many items completely unreviewed?

Obviously, I have a huge stake in this decision. I would be happy to interract with you and GG in any capacity that would help. It will just have to be mid week next week when I get back from my first vacation this year.

And again, thank you for taking the time to think all these issues through and come up with something that will benefit the site as a whole. I want to say again, I recognize you need to do what is best for the site and won't take any decision personally. (Well, unless you say everyone but Mark can cross post.)

Mark

An eminently fair and smart decision...

As Andy says, unique content is important to the site, but as Mark points out, non-unique or partly-unique content is better than no content. In the understandable pursuit of uniqueness epinions must balance the need for coverage and quantity.

Ultimately, I think what most needs to be remembered is the nature of the relationship between epinions and its members. A member gives epinions the right to distribute that member's intellectual property. As Andy has outlined, according to the TOS as it stands, this is not an exclusive right, though epinions has expressed a preference for exclusive content.

In return for granting epinions this non-exclusive right, members receive some pocket change and distribution--an audience, egoboo, community, getting their name out there, or whatever you want to call it.

That is the nature of the relationship. Changing the TOS to make these distribution rights fully or partially exclusive changes the relationship. In effect, the member is required to give more to epinions, namely the option of pursuing other distribution channels simultaneously.

Some members may feel that the utility or value they receive from epinions currently would still justify their participation if they were required to give these greater rights to epinions. Others may feel the utility they receive from participation would become inadequate if it cost them more than it currently does.

It works just like a price point. The inclination is to raise the price to increase profit. But the danger is that fewer people will buy at higher prices. Requiring exclusive distribution rights raises the price of doing business with epinions for members. The extent of exclusivity determines the extent of the price hike.

There will always be members willing to participate here no matter what the cost. What epinions needs to decide is how far it can raise its price while still maintaining the kind and quantity of members it desires. Or if it can increase the utility it provides to its members in return for requiring more exclusive content.

-Andy

I received the following e-mail from Customer Care, that, I guess, states the interim stand, until a final answer is reached:

Dear dolphinboy,

Please accept our apologies for the confusion surrounding the issue of cross posting reviews. We'd like to ask you to disregard any previous emails or communications on this matter while we work toward a solution all members can be satisfied with. We thank you for your patience and understanding.


After considering the community’s concerns, we have decided to enforce the cross post rule on a go-forward basis, not a retroactive basis; your reviews posted before this announcement will not be in violation of the User Agreement.



Internet trends have forced us to strengthen the original User Agreement, which we understand has a profound impact on the community. We wish to make this transition as painless as possible for our members and will review each situation, case by case, collectively as a team.



We are currently putting the finishing touches on an updated User Agreement, as well as a Member Center post, due out shortly; both will help clarify any outstanding concerns and address any remaining questions.



The members of this community are the heart and soul of Epinions, and without your contributions and support, we would not be the success we are today. Please contact us with any feedback or concerns you have. We look forward to working through this issue with you.



Thank you again,



Epinions.com

Well said indeed. Bravo.

George

Hi Andy,

I've been watching and reading the info on cross posting and the Google shuffle. Actually I posted a bit about that on my account though the info is sketchy and probably will remain so. Google is not good about sharing info and giving folks ammunition to game the system.

The question I have is: Wouldn't any dup content have an impact?

I'm thinking perhaps the price comparison sites are the only REAL competition in terms of ranks. They are larger and more powerful and more likely to rank above when two pieces are the same. Or, that's my guess.

As previditor (sp?) mentioned, it is good to know what we're dealing with. I know a list of sites would be hard to produce and could change from day to day. Still, it's hard to know which ones fall under "price comparison" when it inclues (or may include) those with Amazon ads on a personal page for instance.

I've got a big collection here (as I'm sure you know). I've written unique content here as well as other spaces. But, as a writer, I really would like to know:

1. the impact of cross posting (even very general observations)
2. how much control I have over my material and where I use it

Topics can't be copyrighted, so I can take the same general topic and spin it various places to fit the markets. That's how I've approached online writing. I might talk about grilling (barbecue) here and other places, but I'm doing reviews here mostly and then essays or recipes other places. I know that's not a problem.

I guess some of this will have to be discussed and will be part of the new user agreement. Any general thoughts would be appreciated though. And, if I can provide any helpful info, just email. I come at it from the writing end, and I've been at it about 15 yrs.

Thanks, CyndiA

Folks have asked for more details on this, so let me explain. It can be a little complicated, but I'll try to lay out the fundamentals.

The first reason why unique content is good for Epinions is relatively obvious. If shoppers can find information here that they cannot find elsewhere, they will keep coming back and using the site. Once someone has Epinions bookmarked we've earned a valuable customer. Perhaps they'll join and write for us, perhaps they'll just use the site to make buying decisions, then patronize our merchant network. This is how we make money, and the more lifelong customers we can win, the better.

Secondly we get into Search Engines and how they operate. A lot of shoppers come to Epinions not directly but via search engines. They type "televisions" into Google (try it) and find us on the first page of results.

Now, it's much better to appear on the 1st page of results than the 5th page or the 89th page. Most people click something they see on the first page. So how do you get to the first page, especially when EVERYBODY wants to be there?

Search engines have changed a lot over time but most of them are pretty smart now. They crawl the entire web, analyzing sites, how they link to each other, what kind of content is on them, etc.

Epinions has always done pretty well with the major search engines because it's a well structured site with lots of rich content. That takes time to build.

However, the major search engines are also smart enough to detect if two sites are really similar. An old spamming technique is to set up 100 different versions of the same site, all powered by the same underlying engine but with different faces. This was one way to "spam" the search results page. The idea was that maybe you couldn't get onto page 1 right away, but if you had 100 sites come back in the results, you could sprinkle them throughout, "blanket" the results pages and get more clicks.

Of course, search engines are smarter than that now, and if 100 identical-looking sites crop up, they understand they're probably all from the same 1 source, and they will throw out 99 of them from the search results.

Naturally, in response to this, spammers have gotten smarter, making it harder and harder to detect site similarity in an automatic way. And so search engines again have gotten more sophisticated in response. It's a kind or arms race, and with each iteration, the search engines change slightly who they decide to put at the top.

[reaching word limit... to be continued momentarily...]

Historically, Epinions has always done well thanks to the depth of our content, and the fact that we have a lot more content than most any other site out there. Search engines know when they come across a site with "deep pockets" content-wise, and they tend to favor these. After all, the web is full of shallow little sites that link all over the place, but truly deep, rich content sources are fewer and further between. To date, we have more or less been considered one of these "rich sources."

However, as our content duplication with other sites grows, this unique status as an "authoritative source" may change. This can impact whether or not we appear on page 1 of search results for different terms. This can all take effect at the level of an individual product, or for a whole category, or sitewide. Our main concern is a high volume of duplication sitewide with another site that already has a strong authority ranking. That's were we could really reach a tipping point which could damage us as a business in a dramatic way. To CyndiA's point, any duplication may have some effect. But we're concerned about BIG effects, here.

Search engines are complex and don't reveal all their tricks. They also change over time. Folks have asked us repeatedly to tell them exactly which sites are okay, and exactly how similar content must be to be considered "duplicate." It's exceedingly difficult, to the point of impossible, for us to lay out precise guidelines for these things that will stand the test of time. That's why we keep them broad. If a case comes up, we will look at it, consult our Search Engine Optimization analysts, and investigate whether, for this review, on this site, for this product, at this level of duplication, if there is a problem or not. We'd prefer not to have to step in at all, and if no actual problem exists we have little interest in forcing compliance with the letter of the law. Still, guidelines need to be broad so that they encompass all the cases we might need to enforce. I know that all makes it sound like we want to be inconsistent, but in reality we just don't want to bust anyone for this unless it's really an issue. And only we have the necessary SEO tools, skillset and data to make that final determination.

There is a LOT more to it than this. There are many, many factors in a site's search rankings. Older sites seem to be held in higher esteem than newer sites. If a lot of people link to you, that's also helpful. There are things you can do to the structure of your site (like making it disabled accessible) which also help.

I'm not saying that uniqueness is everything, but it does matter. Search engine traffic is fickle and we can't base our long term business plan solely on it, but it has always been and will probably always represent a significant chunk of our incoming traffic, your incoming pageviews, the number of people who click out to merchants, and the number of people who register and join Epinions.

A lot of this is debatable and I won't pretend to be an expert. The above is intended solely to explain the fundamentals of this issue to people who have no exposure to it. Search Engine Optimization is a whole cottage industry now, and our analysts have advised me that in general we should strive to have a large depth and breadth of unique, high-quality content.

The things you're saying are what I've gathered from reading on the issue. I don't have detailed stats data here or elsewhere (and yikes would not want to deal with that end).

I know a lot of things impact including unique content. But, what I'm hearing lately suggests that search engines are focusing more strongly on that now.

I know I find Epinions high on the Google hits (as a rule) which is good. While I click through lots of pages, I know that is not typical. I think many online users hit the first or just a few down. That's what I see with students in any case.