Comments on: Monetize Your Blog With PayPerPost

By: Robert

Robert — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 03:14:48 +0000

Luke, thanks for the comment. I wholeheartedly agree with your argument. The thing with these paid reviews is that they encourage, if not require, you to write about things that are related to your blog or that you know about. Obviously, this blog is about money, and I would NEVER write a sponsored review about brain cancer or any type of surgery. I would only write a review about a service or product related to money, investing, finances, real estate, etc. Anyone who does write about something they know nothing about should look in the mirror and question his or her ethics. Everyone needs and wants to make money . . . but not at all costs.

By: Luke

Luke — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:51:41 +0000

Sounds like an interesting opportunity. I am not sure it’s my style, but perhaps I will try it out some day. If so, I would be careful to be original and thoughtful about how I did them.

I recently read a rather chilling article (http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/selling-links-that-pass-pagerank/) about how Gamma Knife surgery for brain cancer was being promoted with paid reviews. Really that strikes me as a bit unethical, for someone with no experience in brain cancer to write positive reviews of a potentially dangerous medical technique. Such reviews should only be written by patients who had a positive experience, or medical professionals who have actually used the technique.

Makes me question the whole idea of paid reviews. But perhaps with the right controls it would be okay in some cases. We have to get paid somehow, and someone has to write reviews. It just needs to be done carefully.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:55:47 +0000

Douglas, thanks for the comment. I value good information like this from readers like you. I know that PayPerPost has that strict requirement that you have to post original content before and after a sponsored post. Did you follow that? If so, did PayPerPost really start rejecting your posts?

How else did they skew the definitions of words in their ToS?

If you want, e-mail. I appreciate any input that you have.

By: Douglas Slingerland

Douglas Slingerland — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:44:23 +0000

I am sorry but I can not honestly recommend payperpost to anyone. I had started using payperpost and creating paid oppurtunities on a daily basis. This was a great income source, but it often took 7-14 days for the post to be approved, then that started rejecting my posts! They used the excuse that I wasn’t posting “original content” and started skewing the definitions of words in their ToS to do anything but pay me the money I deserved.

Once they started rejecting my posts and thus denying my rightfully earned money, I knew I would never use them again.

I hope you and all of your followers encounter a much better experience. Tread lightly, though.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:43:53 +0000

Hi Wiellyam, and thanks for the comment. It took me over a month and a half to get approved. PayPerPost requires that you have your blog running for a certain amount of time, and that you have a certain number of consistent posts. I guess it’s just a way to narrow down the field of qualified blogs. But these requirements aren’t that bad. If you have a blog, and you post every day consistently, you should be able to get approved in a short time.

By: Wiellyam

Wiellyam — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:57:44 +0000

Yeah, PayPerPost have a good rank with other Pay Per Review/ Pay Per Post program.
But, it’s very difficult to approved a blog. maybe PayPerPost is the first PPP program on internet.