AOL mail was once considered sophisticated, and to a non-Internet savvy person it still may be considered as such. Outlook popped AOL's bubble with Outlook Express, which grew in popularity once POP ISPs were created like they were going out of style, that is until the dot com bubble burst.
Today the hip new Internet creations aren't AOL, or even MSN created. They're blogs and a search engine called Google, but no one is paying $118 for either of them. However, this is the case with Gmail, Google's e-mail program.
Gmail, a rather unique e-mail program, provides users the rare opportunity to create a unique user name for themselves, on top of having 1000MB (1 GIG) of storage space - something no other e-mail program or service can compare to. It also provides users a unique archive system, which is especially good for journalists and business users who may need to pull an e-mail message again later for further use.
Gmail is such an amazing phenomenon that even I have jumped on the bandwagon. But does this mean you should, too?
Well, it really depends on what you're looking for in an e-mail program. If you want to be trendy and hip, Gmail is definitely the right choice, but is Gmail for everyone? No. If you're content with AOL mail and only use the Internet for personal use, AOL is probably a good pick. On the other hand, Outlook may be a better pick if you are working in a business or networked environment, although Gmail would benefit users in both of those areas, as well. Gmail is likely the only e-mail service that can guarantee that the love notes you received from that special someone will be in archives 100 years from now, as the other services will likely automatically delete them, eventually.
If you still think Gmail is the one for you, you can find out more about how you can get on the Gmail bandwagon here.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - TDavid
I've used almost 15% of my Gmail space in less than a month with a mere couple of our domains email. I'm guessing it will be all used up on 2-3 months :(
The search is smoking! Too bad they didn't offer up that terabyte of space.
2 - Steven Rubio
I hope Blogcritics gets a cut of whatever profits Mr. Steal Estate makes from this advertisement disguised as a blog post.
3 - Lono
I have an account, but I don't use it for daily correspondence. My Gmail account is used only as an archive tool to keep old crap in that I know I'll need one day, like a garage. I forward addresses, confirmations, itineraries, shit from work that I know I'll have to show them again... stuff like that.
4 - jadester
just a quick correction for ya:
1GB is actually 1000MB. That's what makes it special (or, that's why some people are prepared to pay for it)
5 - John Mudd
Steven: I will donate a portion to Blogcritics if the sale occurs at or above a certain price.
Jadester: Sorry for the typo.
I use my Gmail account to archive items I may need later. I think because of the amount of storage it allows and the archive option makes it an invaluable business tool.
6 - jadester
some people probably just see the "1GB free storage" and get blinded/don't realise they are paying for a free service. More fool them.
I suppose it's also possible that some people think it's a web hosting service too. Whilst i think that in a way it may be possible to "emulate" web hosting using it, such a system would only work if every visitor had a gmail account, or you were prepared to share your username and password with the world
7 - TDavid
I must say, Jadester, that after using Gmail for almost a month that the advertising is so unobtrusive I don't even notice unless I look specifically for it. If I'm the norm and not the exception than this can't be a good thing for advertisers or Google, but it's good for the users ;)
8 - Steven Rubio
That's very nice, Mr. Estate. I'm still wondering why you posted a personal advertisement on a blog devoted to the writing of critics. I suppose next we'll see p.r. folks posting "reviews" of their artists' work, with links to web stores?
9 - Al Barger
Mr. Rubio, why have you got such a hard on over this? Not that John has never engaged in self-promotional activities on this site (heaven forbid!), but this isn't particularly one of them. I'm fairly sure that he does not own Google.
He's reviewing their new email program, and he likes it. What's the problem?
10 - TDavid
I think Steve is saying he doesn't think Real Estate agents should be critical of anything but land and property.
Or maybe he just hates Real Estate agents who use Gmail.
He's definitely stuck in the mudd though.
11 - Phillip Winn
Did none of you follow the link to John's post? John is auctioning off an invitation to a gmail account to the highest bidder on ebay, which makes Steven Rubio's comments both on-topic and highly appropriate.
It is rare indeed to find a review of a product quite so directly linked to personal gain for the reviewer, and John Mudd does have a bit of history with commercialization around here.
Me, I don't care, but please guys, follow the link before you jump all over Steven.
12 - TDavid
I checked out the link and it changes absolutely nothing, Phillip. John isn't the first, nor will he be the last, to sell free Gmail invites. I wouldn't do it (I'm using them as giveaways on our websites and radio show) but I don't begrudge those who do.
Until specific, written rules are put in place to prohibit putting in affiliate links and/or other commercial items inside blog entries then this is just another aspect of marketing to me and those who whine about it like Steve don't have a clue what making money on the web is all about.
It's very hypocritical for Blogcritics on one hand to ask for donations and then criticize writers who want to make money from their FREELY DONATED blog entries.
I seem to recall BC promising Amazon revenue splits to writers in the beginning but I've never seen a penny (not expecting to, but it shouldn't have been listed as a perk if none was going to be offered).
Let's be consistent here!
I've posted many of the same reviews here also on epinions and I've made a couple bucks there. To date I've made zero here.
People can vote with their feet on writers and if writers don't like John's pitches cleverly (or not so cleverly according to some) woven into his posts then they can choose not to read him.
Complaining in the comments area about this -- when no specific rules exist to prohibit what John is doing -- is hypocritical.
13 - TDavid
BTW, just to clarify, Steve - I'm not saying that it is hypocritical for you to complain, so complain away.
I am saying that if Blogcritics establishes rules which prohibit what John did in this entry and yet do not compensate him in any way -- yes, traffic is a form of compensation but who knows but John whether he feels the traffic is enough to warrant his involvement in the site. Also, if you look at the entry above you'll see that he left his link to his blog at the very end of the post.
It wasn't a post encouraging others to go bid on his eBay auction to win a Gmail invite which IMO would have better justified the original attack.
Now, John, the flipside to all this is that I doubt seriously the pittance you'll get from selling Gmail invites off your Real Estate site is worth the bad press you're going to receive over this activity. People see these kinds of auctions as wrong because these Gmail invites are free.
You might not want to do this kind of thing as it could have negative business implications in the ethics department.
Perhaps you should use the (future) invites instead for giveaways to your existing or prospective clients :)
Just a thought.
14 - bhw
It's really very simple. This post is a sales pitch, passed off as a product review.
A critic is not a critic [and a BC is not acting in good faith] if he's selling the thing that's so fantastic-you-just-have-to-have-one-and-it's-your-lucky-day-because-I-just-happen-to-have-one-right here!
Would you trust a review of a product by the salesperson? Do you think it's biased or objective? Would you seek out the opinion of someone not benefiting from the sale of that product?
The site is Blogcritics, so the underlying assumption of our readers is that we're not personally profiting from the individiual items we review.
People will stop coming here to read "reviews" if we're writing sales brochures and pretending they're not.
15 - Eric Olsen
I understand all sides of this and there are valid points all around. For me this particular post doesn't seem deceptive or disingenuous and it's not a breathlessly giddy review. Teh key to our integrity isn't to never benefit in any way from a positive review - we benefit from Amazon sales associated with positive reviews all the time - but to never say something we don't mean, especially for the purpose of personal gain. As long as readers can trust us to mean what we say, then I don't have a particular problem with what follows.
Regarding TDavid's mention of the Amazon receipts, I thought I had made clear what the situation has been: Amazon has been going toward paying direct site expenses. Because the Amazon receipts have never exceeded expenses (which have just grown greatly with the move to a new host), there hasn't been anything to disburse. In addition, there are severe accounting problems regarding keeping track of what sales were generated by what post - Amazon doesn't keep any kind of tracking data - so then the revenue sharing would have to be based on some other criteria, like total number of posts to the site (which brings up the obvious question of "are all posts created equal?" which of course they are not), so for the money involved - under $200 a month - half of which was to be disbursed to the writers - so for under $100 a month, to be disbursed among the 130 or so writers who post each month, you are talking about figuring out an equitable method of dividing under $100 among 130 people, ON TOP OF THE FACT that we don't break even and therefore the whole subject is moot anyway.
I thought I explained all that, but if I didn't I apologize and hope this makes things clear.
16 - Phillip Winn
TDavid -- hypocritical? Tell me where I've complained! The only complaints in this thread have been from Steve Rubio.
I said clearly that I don't care if John pushes his product or not. I was merely pointing out that those who couldn't fathom why Rubio was complaining, who said that this isn't particularly self-promotional, or who described it as nothing but a good review, were missing the point that got Rubio all upset. Even your comment appeared to quite miss the point, and then your follow-up comments are way off base. Hypocritical? Ha!
If John Mudd wants to post self-promotional stuff here, there is no rule against it. Most people don't publish posts which specifically push their own ebay auctions (you said he wasn't, but he clearly was), instead relying on traffic to their own websites, or their own associate-encoded Amazon links within the post, or whatever. John has always taken self-promotion about three or nine steps further than everybody else. But so what?
Just don't jump all over Steve Rubio for asking the obvious questions!
17 - Eric Olsen
Participation in the site is based upon self-promotion, and it is encouraged as long as there is something in it for the reader - THAT is the key. If the site appears to just be a series of ads, then the readers will go away. But EVERY post here is an ad for the writer as a WRITER, and for the writer's home site.
18 - John Mudd
The proceeds from the sale are going to charity. I am not profitting at all from the auction. In fact, I'm paying my own money in order to benefit charity through an auction. There isn't anything wrong with that. I have decided due to the responses I've received from this post to withdraw Blogcritics from being eligible to receive any of the profits.
It should be noted, though, that this post will bring traffic to Blogcritics, which, in-turn, will bring it ad revenues and potential contributors. The more the site is updated, the more traffic it gets. The more traffic, the greater the potential for revenues.
Considering there is no set target audience for Blogcritics (unlike Gawker, Curbed, et al), this discussion is rather pointless. To say this post does not fit here is like saying that the 75%-plus of news media stories that are PR pitches converted into news stories or editorials do not belong in the news. Gmail is pop culture and this is the Et Cetera section. It is not a review of Gmail. It's a short column analyzing whether or not Gmail may fit your needs. It fits my needs, but it may not fit my mom's, my best friend's, etc. It's not a stellar piece, no, but not all of them are going to be.
In the meantime, if you want to help me increase my PageRank even more, keep moaning. The more you moan about me raising money for charity, the more you help my cause and my business. Thanks for being bitter and angry. I'll profit more from the display of your negative feelings than I ever will from any auction held for charity. The benficiaries aren't happy with your comments, though.
Oh, and by the way, when I joined Blogcritics, there were no Terms of Service, and I was encouraged to link to my blog, which I have done here. Furthermore, Rubio's comments are attacks, so they should not even be permitted here. They're not about the content of the post. Blogcritics' webmaster should not be supporting someone for posting attacks, either.
In closing, if making money is so evil to some of you, Blogcritics really should stop trying to raise money for itself, especially without sharing the revenues with its writers, which even Calacanis does. Perhaps Blogcritics should explore paying bloggers who follow certain criteria and refusing to pay others who do not. Even poets get paid, albeit not much (10 cents a line in some places). Or, perhaps writers who hate profit altogether should write where there are no ads or products being sold. Or just stop criticizing profits altogether.
If you are against people writing for profit, don't you think journalists should all be fired? Don't you think Blogcritics should stop selling ads and merchandise, and asking for donations? If not, you're all hypocrites, because it's all based on the same principal. It is very newsworthy, though, that a site profits from writers it doesn't pay, and a select group of those writers complain when anyone who does write potentially could profit from what they write. It's definitely unusual, prominent and controversial. So keep moaning. After all, your moaning is very beneficial to Blogcritics, isn't it? That's why you're doing it, right?
That's a rhetorical question.
People will stop coming here to read the reviews when people stop writing the reviews. The reviews aren't in the Et Cetera section. Et Cetera has all kinds of posts, from personal ones to editorial commentary and even to journalistic news pieces. That's why it's called "Et Cetera". People will only stop coming here when the site is no longer updated. The audience tends to expand over time, but peaks at some points during the year. It may surprise you, but some of the people who come here to read reviews may not care at all about the Et Cetera section. Some people come here only to read certain writers, as well. Before making such sweeping statements, you really should study the demographics of readership, which is pretty broad.
Cheers.
19 - Eric Olsen
Technically, we aren't a charity anyway John, though we may function like one, but I appreciate the thought.
20 - TDavid
bhw, you wrote:
Would you trust a review of a product by the salesperson? Do you think it's biased or objective?
When we first started out our insurance agency I'd take my own insurance policies that I purchased from the company around with me and show people (prospects) that I bought and believed in the products myself, so absolutely yes I'd "trust the review of a product by the salesperson."
If I'm going to put my own money into something, then that gives me carte blanche -- in my opinion -- to say whatever I want about something: good, bad or otherwise. Now if there had been a product that I did not believe in, I wouldn't have bought it myself, nor would I have suggested that others buy it. There's the trust issue that Eric is talking about.
As for your second question, bhw:
Would you seek out the opinion of someone not benefiting from the sale of that product?
Yes, for the same reasons above. In John's case, he is using Gmail and he knows about its functionality. What better person to pitch the product than a user? I already had my say about the concept of selling a free Gmail address, but John is making that concept a little more palatable by making the proceeds go to charity. (I still wouldn't sell a Gmail invite even for that reason though, John, because it just smells bad, sorry.)
John, maybe you should edit your post above and put in there clearly that the proceeds from the eBay sale are going to charity and put the whiner(s) in this thread to bed. That's up to you, though. I don't get all worked up by a link at the end of a blog entry to someone's blog or to a product/service or I would have left this site a long time ago (every article ends with a link to Amazon, or at least most of them do).
In this case since the money is going to charity and not to John directly then I am even more in favor of this post.
All I'm saying -- and all I was ever really saying -- is shame on anybody in this thread who is condemning what John is doing here in this post. And I was careful not to directly finger you, Phillip, because sometimes it is difficult when you or Eric comment on a post to know what position you are speaking from -- is this your own personal view or the view of Blogcritics? You started off by shaking your finger at everybody who didn't "get it" and then went on to talk about Blogcritics history with John's writing and then ended by saying it didn't bother you. Who's talking here?
I respectfully suggest that it might be helpful to point that out for clarity reasons from time to time when you are being critical of the actions of a writer at the site.
Let me reiterate:
1) John wasn't violating any published content rules at this site.
2) he was attacked and had his name and profession mocked in #2. If I was a Real Estate Agent I'd be more pissed than John apparently is about this. What does mocking his profession have to do with a post about Gmail? Or if I interpreted this all wrong and it is about him selling something on eBay that doesn't even violate eBay's rules? "Steal Estate?" Come on.
Again, there are currently no set rules that say affiliate links and product reviews cannot be written and contributed here inside the body of posts and from the sounds of what Eric said above nothing is changing in that regard. That's good to hear :)
Eric has repeatedly said that every blog article needs to have an Amazon code so Blogcritics can make money, and I do not see why the writer cannot try and do the same, so as I said above: let's just be consistent. It sounds from reading Eric's words that he is only adding an obvious (well, to me anyway) caveat:
I agree totally with this. If you have tried a product or service and the product/service/whatever sucks and you say it is great just to make a buck that is totally wrong. This is why sites like epinions balance with multiple reviews of the same product. An honest reviewer will rise to the top and make more money and disingenious reviewers will be chastized by other members.
Since Blogcritics doesn't have any rules against writing conflicting reviews the same thing can happen here. Rotten Tomatoes is another site that has balancing and counterbalancing in play.
But, I digress, this entry is not a review, nor was it meant as a review according to John and how I interpreted it. He just was posting a few words about his experience with Gmail and putting up a link to his blog about selling a Gmail invite (for charitable purposes it seems) -- big deal! That's a standard fare blog entry in my mind and if it's not the kind of thing desired here then all I'm saying is that should be spelled out.
As a reader, I'd rather read what John said then some stupid political or racial rant and this site at times is teeming with those, so let's just be consistent. If the etcetera column is a problem then excise it and this site will be a review only site. I could live with that, but I'm guessing that many others could not and it would hurt the site, so I say leave things the status quo.
Again, and I'll say this just to make it blatantly clear: I don't have any problem with John's post, the fact that he writes to benefit and promote his business (through Googlejuice) and/or through selling products and services through affiliate links through his posts. Not John, or any Blogcritic for that matter.
In fact I just bought a cool service on the web yesterday and signed up for their affiliate program and maybe I'll post a review about it here myself and link my code in there.
And if he's doing any of this and giving all the proceeds to charity then even more power to him -- however, Blogcritics isn't a registered charitable organization, so I don't think the two terms fit there, John.
And since John has pointed out this is for charity, then I mind even less giving this thread another bump for some extra Googlejuice.
This thread does raise a good issue though: that reviews should always be honest by the reviewer. Whether the review is slanted like a sales pitch as long as the writer's heart is right, is very, very subjective.
21 - Phillip Winn
TDavid - an excellent point. I was speaking only as myself, with no administrative mantle whatsoever.
It is in that vein that I post this link, as well, to Wired Magazine.
It is also as just myself that I mention, for those who might not have been around then or don't remember, that John Mudd has been walking a bit of a fine line since he joined the site, precisely because of commericalism issues.
Yeah, I think Rubio made his point after his first comment and should have stopped after that. And yes, John is breaking no rules. But my initial comment makes sense when you consider that I was respond to you and to Al, both of whom seemed to completely miss the fact that John was promoting his own ebay sale. That's all, nothing else.
And yeah, your comment #12 was aimed at me personally, indisputably, since at that point only Rubio had criticized John (bhw did later). Re-read you comment regarding hypocrisy, dude!
Anyway, John, you don't have to turn your winnings over to charity to please anybody around here; feel free to keep them. If, after reading that Wired article, you end up with much.
22 - John Mudd
Please see this link courtesy of Curbed.
Proceeds from the auction will go to benefit SPOT (Stop Pet Overpopulation Together Tampa Bay) and to the auction winner's chosen charity. The proceeds, after auction fees are paid, will be split 50-50 between the two. I will consider Blogcritics a chairty for the purposes of the auction.
The other two extra Gmail invitations I have will be placed in a drawing. To be entered into the drawing, a person must provide me with a referral to a serious Buyer or Seller of a home, condo or other property type in my area.
I did notice the Wired article, but the item will still remain up for auction until the auction closes.
23 - Steven Rubio
I just want to note that outside of contributing occasional reviews to Blogcritics, I have no association with them. Any complaints about my posts, and clearly there are many, should be directed to me and not to the people who run this site. Most, if not all, of the criticisms in this thread are in reference to posts made by me, yet in many of those criticisms, a generic "you" or "Blogcritics" seems to be the target. Don't blame Blogcritics for what I said.
24 - John Mudd
Steve, my family attorney advised me that both are, in fact, at fault, but don't worry, I'm not pursuing anything at this point. If you want to attack me personally, do it privately or not at all. If you have a problem with what I write, talk to Blogcritics' Editor privately. Do not make attempts to libel me (i.e., "Mr. Steal Estate", et al) in public using Blogcritics as the tool by which you do so. It does not benefit you or Blogcritics.
25 - Phillip Winn
Dude, John, chill out! You've known from your first day here that you're treading a fine line, and it would be the smart move on your part to keep that in mind before making legal threats.
You've read the comment policy, right? There's a link down there at the bottom, and it clearly says that you need to chill out about whether people choose to comment publicly or privately, okay? You can't tell Steven or anyone else what they can or cannot say here in the comments just because you don't like it. It's a free-wheeling environment, he expressed an opinion, and has since learned that you aren't breaking any rules with the self-promotion. That's all.
Gee whiz, drink some tea!