<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Paid Reviews: Harmless Commentary or Selling Out?</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.webmaster-source.com/2008/03/18/paid-reviews-harmless-or-selling-out/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.webmaster-source.com/2008/03/18/paid-reviews-harmless-or-selling-out/</link>
	<description>Useful Resources For Webmasters</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 24 May 2026 19:46:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.42</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>https://www.webmaster-source.com/2008/03/18/paid-reviews-harmless-or-selling-out/#comment-1088</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matt]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:53:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.webmaster-source.com/2008/03/18/paid-reviews-harmless-or-selling-out/#comment-1088</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Good analogy. Well said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Paid reviews are, in my opinion, more ethical than scripted celebrity ads...so long as they are honest reviews. The biggest problem, though, is that if someone sees that a review is paid, they tend to trust it less. However, here is my thought: If the author is disclosing the fact that the review is paid, shouldn&#039;t that make it more reputable? They care enough to say that the review is sponsored, instead of hiding the fact. Doesn&#039;t that seem more reputable to you?&lt;br /&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good analogy. Well said.</p>
<p>Paid reviews are, in my opinion, more ethical than scripted celebrity ads&#8230;so long as they are honest reviews. The biggest problem, though, is that if someone sees that a review is paid, they tend to trust it less. However, here is my thought: If the author is disclosing the fact that the review is paid, shouldn&#8217;t that make it more reputable? They care enough to say that the review is sponsored, instead of hiding the fact. Doesn&#8217;t that seem more reputable to you?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean Kelly</title>
		<link>https://www.webmaster-source.com/2008/03/18/paid-reviews-harmless-or-selling-out/#comment-1087</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sean Kelly]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:02:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.webmaster-source.com/2008/03/18/paid-reviews-harmless-or-selling-out/#comment-1087</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think paid reviews are perfectly fine. Just like you said, it is important that the payment does not influence the honesty in the review. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I see it very similar to celebrities doing advertisements. If we think that those are ethical, where the celebrity is paid to say scripted things about the product, why is it not ethical to be paid to review a product in an unscripted fashion?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think paid reviews are perfectly fine. Just like you said, it is important that the payment does not influence the honesty in the review. </p>
<p>I see it very similar to celebrities doing advertisements. If we think that those are ethical, where the celebrity is paid to say scripted things about the product, why is it not ethical to be paid to review a product in an unscripted fashion?</p>
<p></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/


Served from: www.webmaster-source.com @ 2026-05-26 08:15:26 by W3 Total Cache
-->