New feature: Amazon Context Links

[DavidV]

I am trying a new tool called Amazon Context Links which automatically creates links to matching Amazon products. So if I mention Atlas Shrugged, it's supposed to automatically create a link to buy the book. Amazon says it takes a little time to get going. I have configured it to only match by exact title. If you have concerns about this feature, let me know.

Also check out the new Amazon Book Shop for this site.

Edited June 7, 2007 by GreedyCapitalist

[DragonMaci]

I am trying a new tool called Amazon Context Links which automatically creates links to matching Amazon products. So if I mention Atlas Shrugged, it's supposed to automatically create a link to buy the book. Amazon says it takes a little time to get going. I have configured it to only match by exact title. If you have concerns about this feature, let me know.

Also check out the new Amazon Book Shop for this site.

Both are interesting new additions, both of which I support. I might even consider the Amazon Context Links myself one day when I have my own site, so that it earns me some more money. As for concerns, I have none.

Edited June 7, 2007 by DragonMaci

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I am trying a new tool called Amazon Context Links which automatically creates links to matching Amazon products. So if I mention Atlas Shrugged, it's supposed to automatically create a link to buy the book.

As I mentioned in another thread when I first discovered this feature:

By the way, I am not responsible for the book advertisements that showed up recently in my posts. Seems if I mention Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics by Immanual Kant that an Amazon.com add will pop up. Evidently, that is a new feature of this website. So, I do not recommend the book ads that show up via my writings. That is, I don't care to promote Marx or Kant by simply writing a title of their book. Read Atlas Shrugged or The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution.

I think there is a limit to what one ought to promote via one's website, and promoting writings by selling books that are evil is not something I care to do. Even though I think someone who wants to understand the destructiveness of Kant ought to read his works, it's not something that I would recommend to a general audience just by mentioning a title by him.

I think the same goes for promoting anti-objectivist websites via Google ads.

If one is going to have an ideological based website, which objectivismonline.com supposedly is in its very URL title, then one ought not to promote the opposite philosophies or mangled versions of Objectivism.

The intellectual damage being done while promoting these items far outweighs a few cents one might make by their ads popping up.

So I suggest you reconsider your advertising campaign strategy.

[softwareNerd]

I think the same goes for promoting anti-objectivist websites via Google ads.

People who browse the web realize very soon that Google Ads are often just the opposite of the hosted site. Post about the perils of Satan on a Christian forum and Google ads start to display ads for a Satanist site. Often, when I'm reading a favorite blogger talk about the fight against Islamists, his Google Ads show some pro-Islam sites. It is true that I would not know about these sites without Google Ads. However, if I ever do click out of curiosity I'm adult enough to evaluate whether the site is good or bad. As often happens, I never get beyond the first page, and I'm least bothered that I transferred 5 cents from an Islamist to Google (and some of it to a blogger I read).

Bottom line: when you see a Google Ad on any site, know that the host site does not imply any sanction, and that indeed it is like an "anti-" site.

[DavidV]

The Google and Amazon ads for this site are filtered for a number of anti-Objectivist sites, but ultimately, I think people are aware that I don't control the content of the ads.

The Amazon context links in particular are useful as a research tool independently of their marketing value.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

The Google and Amazon ads for this site are filtered for a number of anti-Objectivist sites, but ultimately, I think people are aware that I don't control the content of the ads.

I'm glad you are going through some effort to control the content of your website forum and other sites you own; including what you advertise.

The Amazon context links in particular are useful as a research tool independently of their marketing value.

I'm not against the idea of using advertising links within the content of one's website for one's own work. I've often thought about doing that myself with my own website. There is nothing wrong with trying to make money from the content of one's work.

All I'm saying is don't be a pragmatist when it comes to doing this.

I think it was Marx who said something along the lines of: When we want to hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope.

So, don't sell the enemy any rope -- i.e. don't advertise their positions that are against yours in principle.

Besides, I don't think it is a good idea to modify someone else's posting after the fact in the sense of adding links that they didn't put into it originally, since it implies they intended those links. Upholding editing policies is a good idea -- i.e. deleting posts that are against your editorial policies -- but this forum is not a pre-moderated forum. People submit posts and then one can comment on them using the reply button.

If the forum was such that one submits a post for publication, knowing that an editor will add comments or perhaps not publish the whole writing, that's different. It would be like presenting an article for a professional magazine where one works with an editor for content and clarity. But even in that context, an editor shouldn't change phrasing that might mean something entirely different from what the poster intended.

If you wanted to change your forum to be more professional in that it is pre-moderated before the submissions are posted, that's up to you. That would require a more stringent editorial policy, but people could decide if they wanted to participate under those terms or not, once those policies are made clear.

In short, I don't think back editing is a good idea after the post has already been submitted -- i.e. published on the forum. Especially since many of those posts go out "raw" via the email notification of replies; so, in a sense it has already been published in two ways: on the forum and via email.

In other words, in general, either edit it before the fact or leave it alone. Given the nature of this forum, deleting the post after the fact is a way of keeping the content of the forum within editorial policies. But I don't think modifying someone else's work after the fact is the same thing.

[softwareNerd]

When evangelists hand out booklets on the street, I always take one. I figure one to me means one less to someone else.

Secondly, placing online ads on a friendly site where the membership is largely aware of the advertising site, implies that one does not get any "awareness" mileage from that particular ad.

Edited June 9, 2007 by softwareNerd

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Secondly, placing online ads on a friendly site where the membership is largely aware of the advertising site, implies that one does not get any "awareness" mileage from that particular ad.

People going to a website mostly ignore the ads, but that is true for any advertising which generally has a conversion rate of shoppers at less than 1%.

However, this site has a lot of traffic that tends to be new to Objectivism, and them clicking on links that have "Objectivism" in it might be a higher conversion simply due to them being curious about what is out there regarding Objectivism. It's those new people I'd be worried about going to anti-Objectivist sites, because they don't yet know the difference. It will only add to their confusion about what Objectivism is, which is not good, even if they do eventually figure it out.

Likewise for those buying a book based on a link in a posting they admire. For example, one cannot assume that someone new to Objectivism will not be confused by Kant and his ilk for many years after reading one of those books. So my recommendation is come to understand Objectivism before digging into those other philosophies, for self-protection.

[~Sophia~]

It's those new people I'd be worried about going to anti-Objectivist sites, because they don't yet know the difference. It will only add to their confusion about what Objectivism is, which is not good, even if they do eventually figure it out.

The intellectual damage being done while promoting these items far outweighs a few cents one might make by their ads popping up.

Given the crystal clear context/content of this forum, with almost every post being written from an Oist perspective, and the fact that most people are aware that the content of adds is not controlled by the site owner, what in terms of real evidence do you have to offer as a support for this claim?

When it comes to Amazon context links - I think I first encountered this feature on Noodlefood. I think it is a great addition.

Edited June 9, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[softwareNerd]

For example, one cannot assume that someone new to Objectivism will not be confused by Kant and his ilk for many years after reading one of those books. So my recommendation is come to understand Objectivism before digging into those other philosophies, for self-protection.

Okay, let's assume that some newbie sees an Amazon link to a book by Kant. If the book was mentioned in a post he admires, then presumably that poster made his attitude toward Kant clear. If the newbie understands this, he might click on the link to Amazon, but knowing that he's checking out the opposition.

If the newbie does not understand that the poster was being critical of Kant, then he might actually buy Kant and read it, thinking that Kant is a pro-Objectivist scholar! Now, he might come back and complain and be told that he made a mistake, and that Kant is the opposition. Finally, one might have someone who actually ends up getting Kant's argument and Objectivism's argument, and thinks Kant is right.

It is this last type of person whom you wish remains ignorant of Kant?

The world will be changed by people with active intellectual minds. I say: expose them to it all, it will only make them stronger. If some, along the way, end up muddled, chance are they would only have been ballast anyhow. If others love Kant after reading both, they would not have remained Objectivists long anyway.

I say: post the links to wean out the bad peas in the pod!

I'll add the following: on a different type of web-site, such ads may be inappropriate -- e.g. a web-site that is not discussion oriented, but instead speaks with a coherent message.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Given the crystal clear context/content of this forum, with almost every post being written from an Oist perspective, and the fact that most people are aware that the content of adds is not controlled by the site owner, what in terms of real evidence do you have to offer as a support for this claim?

I see intellectual mistakes being made all over objectivismonline.net; and sometimes these mistaken views are corrected by more knowledgeable posters. But why add to the confusions by promoting opposite views? The transition of going from whatever one was before coming across Objectivism and then becoming an Objectivist is not an easy task. It takes a dedication to reason across the board, and I have known many people who only go part way, and then turn against Objectivism because they get some sort of conflict they don't care to resolve, and so fall back onto whatever they were before coming across Objectivism and hating Objectivism.

Usually, though not always, the conflict is one between reason and other people -- that they will lose "significant others" if they remain Objectivists. And a lot of anti-Objectivist sites and non-Objectivist philosophies focus on these types of conflicts and say give up on reason -- go by emotions or non-stringent thought, because this makes one more compatible with others who don't care to be rational across the board.

Now, SoftwareNerd's response to that is to let it happen, let them become intellectual ballast; and if a context sensitive link providing an anti-message will push them in that direction, then all the better.

While I don't think an Objectivist is responsible for how others think, I do think that if one is rational then one will not push opposite views -- even in an effort to get rid of the ballast. For example, if one comes across someone who wants to be kind to others, it is better to guide them towards the Objectivist understanding of justice and independence than to push them onto Christianity. Better in the sense that we need more rational people out there.

There are certainly quite enough of the irrational people out there, and given the fact that 99.9999% of the air time in our culture is dedicated to non-rational functioning, do we need to add more to that mix? Is that going to help us live in a more rational culture?

Besides, the claim that one is not responsible for what shows up on one's website is simply not true. The owner of the website holds the keys to that domain and has complete control over what will and what will not be presented on his website. Abdicating self-responsibility is not the Objectivist way.

And I do think that abbreviating "Objectivist" as "Oist" or abbreviating "Objectivism" as "Oism" is an intellectual short-cut that shouldn't be done out of respect for the philosophy of Objectivism. Like those Christians who shudder at "Xmas" for taking "Christ" out of "Christmas"; we should shudder at someone wanting to take "Objective" out of "Objectivism" or "Objectivist".

[softwareNerd]

I'm fine with not linking to sites that the forum owner finds disgusting, or that a large segment of the forums audience would validly find disgusting. That's a fine reason.

However, protecting the ignorant from confusion is not a good reason. The ones we want won't stay ignorant for long, link or no link.

Of the ads that show up on OO.net, I do see some for religious sites and for satanism sites. I think it's a waste of time trying to ban each such site individually. I've never personally seen links to Objectivism-bashing sites that claim to be "real Objectivists". So, the discussion seems to be about what might happen, though it isn't happening. Or, have you, Thomas, actually seen any ads for disgusting sites that could also confuse people?

ADDED: On second thoughts: concerns about specific links should be raised by communicating privately. Maybe send GreedyCapitalist a note.

Edited June 10, 2007 by softwareNerd

[~Sophia~]

I don't see how most of what you wrote above is relevant to adds (I actually think you are addressing my position on a recent thread).

I don't think that adds create confusion given the context of this form. The owner of this board is not pushing opposite views. I also don't see how a little link on the bottom of the page (which I don't even notice most of the time) - is spreading irrationality or making people more irrational than they already are. I find your hints "if one is rational" and "this is not an Oist way" insulting toward the owner/moderators. I also find your comments rationalistic - not connected to what, in fact, IS or IS NOT happening. If you have a suggestion - such things should have been done in private.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I find your hints "if one is rational" and "this is not an Oist way" insulting toward the owner/moderators. I also find your comments rationalistic - not connected to what, in fact, IS or IS NOT happening. If you have a suggestion - such things should have been done in private.

At the beginning of this thread, GreedyCapitalist said:

If you have concerns about this feature, let me know.

So, I'm letting him know. He didn't say contact me in private, but rather started a public thread on the issue.

Besides, I am not trying to insult the owner / operators of this website. It is not rational to support one's enemies. This would be similar to GW Bush saying that Muslim is a peaceful religion even though we are at war will militant Islamics -- who want to force everyone in the world to go along with their religion.

Giving them air time via a rational website is not rational.

Now, if one wants to quote from one of those websites in an effort to show people just how irrational and dangerous they are, then that's fine; so long as one shows the rational alternative of individual rights and man's life on earth as the standard.

In short, when one is promoting an ideology, one should not be non-partisan. A recent link to an anti-Objectivist website claimed we should be non-partisan as a means of promoting Objectivism.

Well, if you don't know that Objectivism is right and that you know it, then why are you bothering trying to promote it in the first place? To what end? To say that Objectivism has an opinion on world matters as does Plato and Kant and Marx? And that who has the opinion and how they came up with that opinion -- via reason, emotions, faith, or satanism -- is irrelevant?

Everything in Objectivism is integrated with everything else in Objectivism, so it is not surprising that someone might think that I am answering something brought up in another thread when answering issues brought up in this one.

That is the nature of thinking in terms of principles.

By the way, if you see me as a thorn in your side, then you need to check your premises.

Edited to add the following:

As I logged out, one of those great quotes at the top of this website showed up, which is very relevant.

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." --Thomas Jefferson

Edited June 10, 2007 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

[~Sophia~]

Well, if you don't know that Objectivism is right and that you know it, then why are you bothering trying to promote it in the first place? To what end? To say that Objectivism has an opinion on world matters as does Plato and Kant and Marx? And that who has the opinion and how they came up with that opinion -- via reason, emotions, faith, or satanism -- is irrelevant?

It is clear from many posts that people on this forum (especially the regulars) don't think that Objectivism is just another opinion. The importance (and identity) of correct epistemological methods is also being stressed often.

Yes, ideally there would not be any adds which are contradictory to Objectivism (if we can make it so - I would be for that). On the other hand, the content of the forum overwhelms any small links which may appear at the bottom of the page. And like you mentioned, only less than 1% actually click on such links to begin with - even if they do - because of our radicalism, the difference between those messages and our message is hard to miss.

[MisterSwig]

This feature has created links in some of my posts, and it must not be working properly because the links do not match the item linked to. Just because my sentence contains a few words similar to some book title, that doesn't mean that the context of my sentence has anything to do with the book. For examples, see here and here. Look at the first link in each post. I think Amazon Context links is a good idea in theory, but it doesn't seem to be working properly.

I hope the site does not become cluttered with useless links such as these.

Edited June 13, 2007 by MisterSwig

[Mammon]

I think it's kind of annoying. It feels like your hijacking someones post to advertise. Imagine talking to someone in real life and saying Atlas Shrugged and some guy pops out behind a push and says "BUY THIS BOOK?! I HAVE IT IN MY POCKET RIGHT NOW LOW LOW LOW PRICE!!!"

It's annoying. That's my two-cents.

[DavidV]

I have disabled it for now in the current default skin (IP.Board Pro).