|
|
|
Fark is one of the most popular blogs that links to stories, but competitor (see comments) Jason Calacanis tells Wired News that the site asked him for money in exchange for highly placed links to his sites. Calacanis says a Fark salesman, Gogi Gupta, told him "We don't hold ourselves to the same standards as (The New York Times), and I would urge you not to either." Calacanis, the founder and editor of the late Silicon Alley Reporter in New York and Digital Coast Reporter here, posts at his blog:
After trying to figure out a deal they told me that I could just buy the editorial. The cost? Like $300 to $400 for a story.I was shocked…. all this time I’ve been reading Fark.com it turns out that some percentage of the stories are paid for. Looking back on it I’m now sure the adult links are all paid for, as are the ifilm.com links.
I feel like I can never trust Fark again.
The stupid part about all this is that Fark.com could easily just put “Advertisement” by the stories and their readers would click them 2x as much just to support Fark. It is so dumb.
Say it ain’t so Drew! Clean up Fark, I want to love it… really I do.
Fark's publisher, Drew Curtis, says the salesman was fired, but declined to clear up his policies. Says Wired: "Curtis refused to deny that Fark accepts payment for placement of links. He did not respond to requests for clarification from Wired News."
* Fark is not a blog: Sean Bonner explains it well.
** Fark responds: "If the same material -- e.g. clip, news story -- is available in several locations, we may enter into a commercial agreement to prefer one host site over the another. We will also link stuff that I just happen to like..." Curtis says he is working on a disclosure page to clarify the policy, and adds: "We apologize for not being clearer about what we do and don't do."
Thanks Sean. Weird brain spasm, now fixed.
Posted by: Kevin Roderick at August 6, 2004 10:39 AMWait...people read Fark for the articles?
Wait...Fark *has* articles?
I thought people only go there for the Photoshop contests. Does this mean that people are paying to get their embarassing pictures placed? That'd upset me more, as I like to think of Fark as one of those dumping grounds for pictures that are random and weird yet organic. If someone were paying for placement, that would feel like someone making a deliberate video for "America's Funniest Home Videos." And we all know what a bastion of artistic integrity *that* program was.
Posted by: Adam Rakunas at August 6, 2004 11:22 AMI posted this earlier today on Fark. I know Drew very well (he basically put my site on the map) and hope this provides some much-needed perspective to a largely irrelevant issue:
Drew's site is one of the great underdog success stories in the history of the internet. Anyone fair-minded person that's been around Drew one second knows he's one of the few genuinely honest website operators out there.
That's why it really pains me to see this crap. It's a shame. The guy built Fark from dirt, and this is what he gets? Anyone who has a thimbleful of knowledge about Drew from a personal or business perspective would never, ever attempt to impugn his credibility.
Drew's mentored countless webmasters like me and helped build some of our sites into successful ventures. I'll never forget how shocked I was that Drew was initially so open to helping me - when I really had nothing to offer him in return. But that's the kind of person he is. His site has spawned thousands of websites that enhance our lives - that never, ever would've existed without Fark.
For all the (99% free) enjoyment he's provided people at Fark, he doesn't owe anyone an explanation. He'd have millions of daily visitors with or without paid links. He understands what makes the site work, period. That's not going to change.
And no, I've never paid for a link. And Drew doesn't post everything I submit, not even close.
- Brooks
Posted by: Brooks at August 6, 2004 04:15 PMJust to be clear: WE DO NOT COMPETE WITH FARK.
1. We have no blog even similar to Fark.
2. We don't have one advertiser in common.
Daniel took a big leap by saying we were competitors.
Now, we are in the same *space*--blogging--but we are not competitors.
all the best, j
Posted by: Jason at August 7, 2004 03:46 PMArguing over whether Fark is a blog or not is a pretty wasteful use of energy. That said, of course it's a blog. duh. His criteria are pretty arbitrary too. LGF-yes, Fark-no.
Posted by: Boundary Layer at August 9, 2004 03:29 PM
of LA Observed
Jason, not Jacob
Posted by: Sean Bonner at August 6, 2004 10:11 AM