Really, I think darkmoon would be one of the last people I know online to sign up for something like PPP.

As for myself and PPP: I think after reading back through this thread, reading the specific information VC Dan and others have provided — thank you to all — and talking to others outside of this post, I’m going to continue to stay on the sidelines.

Others might feel comfortable using them but I still don’t at this juncture. Maybe I’ll learn more that will rekindle my interest later. I wouldn’t use them as an advertiser either. I’d rather pay and get honest feedback than engineered commentary for anything our company does. I realize I could buy exactly that at PPP, but there is an odor of other advertisers being able to offer an option to do things I don’t agree with at the site and that taints the site for me.

Sorry VC Dan, but this seems to me like a bad investment.

From the Blogger Blog post:

[QUOTE]

Why so many Death of AdSense or AdSense is Dead type posts? Here’s one reason why.

Bloggers are getting paid for discussing some Death of AdSense book or newsletter by PayPerPost.com. This campaign ran from September 14th to October 14th and apparently paid $10 per post. We have no way of knowing if it is being renewed for another month because and PayPerPost.com now blocks the opportunities page from non-members (we are not a member).

Aside from the ad campaign there is also some genuine discussion taking place.

[END QUOTE]

vasper #15. “I need to document this, but I read recently that PayPerPost was paying people to flame AdSense.”
tdavid #20. “Ummm, Vaspers that post clearly refers to “Some Adsense book or newsletter” — it doesn’t specifically finger what you wrote in #15: “paying people to flame Adsense.” Paying people to flame a book or newsletter about Adsense is not the same thing as flaming Adsense.”
vasper #23. “PayPerPost was (maybe still is?) paying people to flame AdSense by publicizing the “Death of AdSense” book. Try Googling “PayPerPost + AdSense” (remove quotes) and you’ll see the raging blogocombat fury.”
dm #24. “You’re the one that was saying that there’s flaming of Adsense and that the bloggerblog post was the original one you read. I’m pointing out that there’s NOTHING in the post you linked that talks anything about 1) flaming Adsense or 2) PayPerPost flaming Adsense.”

Now let’s see now. The subject matter was PPP flaming Adsense. Is that in the post linked? Nope. Nothing says anything about PPP flaming Adsense in that post. Blogger’s Blog was reporting that PayPerPost was paying people to review the book. Review doesn’t mean: “write good things about it.”

You’re trying to misdirect by reinterpreting someone’s writing to fit your arguments. Your counterpoints are all based on the fact that PPP supports “attacking Adsense”. That’s incorrect. That’s like saying that because Phillip Morris pays for anti-smoking campaigns, they’re obviously against the tobacco industry. This logic doesn’t make any sense.

There is only 1 single plain fact here:
Fact: PayPerPost is paying for bloggers to review a book.

You’re the one that was saying that there’s flaming of Adsense and that the bloggerblog post was the original one you read. I’m pointing out that there’s NOTHING in the post you linked that talks anything about 1) flaming Adsense or 2) PayPerPost flaming Adsense.

The post itself talks about how Adsense could be going downhill due to clickfraud with links and that PayPerPost is paying people to review the book “Death of Adsense”. Nothing says there that they’re 1) flaming, 2) paying for positive reviews of the book, or 3) paying for negative reviews of the book.

The Blogger’s blog post was talking about how there is a book called “Death of Adsense” and that PayPerPost was pushing for reviews of it. It doesn’t flame PayPerPost, nor does it say PayPerPost is pushing the book. All the post says is that PPP is paying for reviews and discussion about the book. Then it goes into how there is legitimate discussion on the subject itself.