Edenfallacys: Apples to Apples…and still FAIL!

Short version: I’m not voluntarily leaving Edenfantasys (although they might make that decision for me ). EF is simply the quickest means to an end. However I feel need to point out EF styles it self as more then a means to an ends it styles it self as being an open and honest sex positive community and I find that to be bullshit. Although EF’s sins aren’t so egregious as for me to boycott them completely (they have yet to help put a bounty on the heads of sex workers unlike a certain other online magazine) They are enough that I felt the need to write the this post and have it stated for the record that I find the calm that EF is an open honest, transparent, community to be bullshit. The below will explain why I find that claim to be bull, if they don’t feel the need to ban me after I say my peace I will speak no more of this and continue working with them (unless they pull more bullshit). While only the tip of the iceberg ,you can read the full list of EF’s sins here, I will mostly focus on filling what I see as a gap in the discussion regarding EF: Fred’s (president of EF) claim that other sites (the specific ones I’ll list below) use the same type of JavaScript encapsulation to handle user generated content as does EF.

Note: I waited to post this because I was waiting for my affiliate check to be safely in the bank. I believe this speaks volumes about how much trust I have in EF right now.

Introduction

For those of you unfamiliar with the Edenfantasys linking fiasco. MayMay described this in great technical detail in his post( Please read his post first other wise much of this may not make sense). But in short Edenfantasys uses Java script to handle all of the links on its retail website and on its magazine SexIs, this replaces all the outbound links with  “likelinks”.  According to Maymay and others  this is a sneaky Javascript redirect and is prohibited by Google webmaster guidelines. Since there is no sign of the true  link in the non-script code, this means is there is no outbound links on the site that will be crawled by search engines because as far as the search engines, which can’t follow the Javascript, can see their is no outbound link. This means no matter how much you write for Edenfantasys (Note this doesn’t included Edencafe that is just a WordPress blog, hold on to this, it will become relevant later) off site no matter how much they link to you it will not effect your Google rank as Google can’t see the links.  But wait wait Fred has answers, bull shit answers. Here is the relevant part of his first response (Note: I had to manually insert the links because a straight copy paste inside Firefox will only copy EF self-referential links, again hold on to this for later):

Some helpful examples include these sites, which do the same JavaScript-based encapsulation:

CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/
USA TODAY: http://www.usatoday.com/
Gizmodo: http://gizmodo.com/
LifeHacker: http://lifehacker.com/
Dead Spin: http://deadspin.com/
Io9: http://io9.com/
Kotaku: http://kotaku.com/
Jalopnik: http://jalopnik.com/
Celebitchy: http://www.celebitchy.com/
The indy Channel: http://www.theindychannel.com/index.html

Those are just a few of the millions of sites who utilize this linking practice as means for protection of user-generated content on interactive platforms.

All linking within SexIs Magazine, on contributor profiles, and elsewhere on EF have always been encapsulated. This allows us to be able to display all of the content instantly without pre-moderation and to share traffic with our contributors.

Before we continue let me make explicitly clear what EF is doing:

1) The links will only work with Javascript enabled.

2) It is a script designed for solely for handling links; there are many site where the profiles, forums or even the site it self won’t load with out JS this is not the same as what EF is doing. On EF the page/forum/comment will load and only the link is non-functional with out JavaScript.

3) The link you put in is replaced by a non script <span> element which can only be lead you out of the site if JavaScript is enabled.

a normal link looks like this:

<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/" target="_blank"> http://edition.cnn.com/</a>

EF’s “links” look like this:

<span class="linklike" ID="EFLink_43232_c183c1">link</span>

4) This applies to all links on the site.

The links on the sites Fred cites be they user created or not do not function like that, but that I could let go. Then Fred opened his mouth and out came even more bull shit you can read the full announcement here:

If you read negative posts about us, look a few lines below or to the side, you will always find our competition’s promos. The simple answer would be – competition.

Right people are going against their own economic self interest by giving up the affiliate cash  would gain by being your affiliate and the free toys and in some case the cash they would make writing for Edencafe  just because they like your competition so much. Not any specific competition just the general grouping of anyone that not EF. It couldn’t be because you didn’t pay them, or because you banned them, or due to a negative experience they had with your company its because of your competition, because in PR fantasy land EF is infallible and no one could ever have a negative experience with you which would be a much simpler explanation.

Competition is the simplest explanation even when this recent rallying of anti EF sentiment is all clustered not around a new competitor opening or something else connected to your competition, but out of EF bullshit. The first wave came after the first round of EF spurting PR department bullshit (it couldn’t be because we are smart enough to tell bullshit when we see, it is because of competition). The second wave started after EF’s bull about their linking again the simplest explanation isn’t “we don’t trust you and your business practices” its “the competition”. It not them Fred its You. Moving on to the next piece of bull:

Why did you say those other sites link the same way when they don’t? The Java use is similar but actual linking is different.

This is a high-tech talk and it needs to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. However, from what we see, in general, the confusion comes from people who are not differentiating the user-generated content (UGC) from the editorial content. The editorial external links on the cited examples do work differently, but this is because they are inserted by the editorial staff and are checked manually. To compare apples-to-apples, one needs to try to insert a link into those sites oneself – making it a UGC link. This handling needs to be compared with how EF handles the UGC links. However, the exact coding might differ a bit from Eden’s but the final result will be same – the user inserted link won’t work with JavaScript disabled. Try it the right way, to compare, and you will see.

There is so much bullshit just in this response it hard to tell where to begin. But let start with the question he answered, the question itself I find to be bullshit-y. It has the line  “the Java [Script] use is smiler, the Javascript  use is NOT similar and it is not similar specifically because of the linking issue by phrasing the question that way, any answer is automatically making EF look innocent. Moving on the “case to case basis” line, my theory is that was slipped in to allow them be able to say “well not in that case, your just not doing it right” when someone presents an example of user created links not being encapsulated. (which is why I will present dozens )

Secondly all EF links be no matter who created it are encapsulated. Editorial content as well as user created off site links are “encapsulated”. Or do you mean to tell me the entire whole of a online magazine with paid writers and editors is all non-editorial content? Are you telling me that the pages such as those on FTC guidelines link, which has a JS encapsulated link to the FTC or the this page explain the affiliate program, which has several off site links, are user created pages and not the product of EF staff and manually checked links? Even demonstrating that editorial content is not encapsulated still proves that EF and the other sites linking practices are not the same, as far as I’m concerned. More importantly, even accepting that all links on EF are or are treated as if they were user created, the user created content on those other sites are NOT Javascript “encapsulated”.

Proving that EF linking and the sites Fred sites aren’t handling the user created links the same from a is so simple I can and have done so in under 140 characters take a look at this tweet. In it I link to a user created profile on Lifehacker that has a link  I added to the profile, a fully functional non-encapsulated link added me to that site (and the whole Gawker network but I’m getting ahead of myself). This to me should be enough to demonstrate that the two site don’t link in a similar fashion all user created links are encapsulated on EF, not all links are encapsulated on the examples he cites. However to remove all doubt let ask ourselves the question:

Where is the JavaScript Encapsulation Fred?

USA Today and the Indy Channel

I’m going to start by giving Fred the benefit of the doubt and look at the two examples which are closest to what he says. USA today and the Indy channel’s main page⁽¹⁾ are heavily dependent on JavaScript, neither the forums nor the user profiles will load with out JavaScript, the entire forum and the entire profile pages not just the links this is not the same as having just the links be JavaScript redirected. Again no one is denying that there are sites or portions of site that don’t work without JavaScript. The links in those cases still don’t behave like EF links do. Look  at the status bar the links on those site display the destination in the status bar not the page your on like EF link’s do. Secondly copy a whole post that has user created links from those sites and from EF note that those site will copy over a proper link to the destination site, unlike EF. EF link structure is designed so all roads point to EF. Even being kind and counting these as “close enough”, and if he just gave these two I would probably do that and move on, that still leaves 80% of Fred examples as bull plain and simple.

CNN

These examples are taken from their user generated ireport site. The description of ireport straight from CNN’s description (emphasize mine)

iReport is a USER-generated section of CNN.com. The stories here come from USERS. CNN has vetted only the stories marked with the “CNN” badge.

Example #1: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-448548

Click to see full size

Look at the link at the bottom for www.lowcountrywx.com, you can click on without Java script unlike what EF tells you. Note in the screen-shoot the media player that does require JS is non-functional. This  user generated story comparable to an article on SexIs.

Example #2: http://www.ireport.com/people/adriana71

Click for big making

Look, a link to blog spot blog NOT encapsulated like in each and every profile link on EF is.

Now note if you look the comment section under the articles won’t load with out JavaScript. Now as I said above this a function of that forum not a method of “encapsulating” links after all if the goal was to encapsulate links why allow them both on the user created articles and on the user profiles? Simplest explanation CNN is not “encapsulating” link using JavaScript they are using a JavaScript based comment forum system. (Still not convinced of the difference between these thing? Read below for more)

Gizmodo, LifeHacker, Dead Spin, Lo9, Kotaku and Jalopnik

Now I will tackle the next bunch of sites together because they are all part of the Gawker media network and are on the same platform. When you register for one site, you register for them all. Guess what? They have user profiles that you can add a link to, an apples to apples comparison as EF also has user created profiles where you can add a link (only difference none of these ask for a Google friendly link in return). Let look at how out bound links are handled on Gawker network, here is my profile on Gizmodo:

Click= "Make my screen shoot GROW!"

A standard link structure and you can click on it with out JavaScript and it will work. But like I said you register for one you get a user profile on them all, so here is my profile on LifeHacker (Pic), and on Dead Spin (Pic) and on Lo9 (Pic), and on Kotaku (Pic) and on Jalopnik (Pic) however those are not the only Gawker media site so here are some bonus examples: my profile on Jezebel(Pic) and on Gawker(Pic) and on Fleshbot (Pic).

Note: that even thought the account has yet to be approved there is an non-JavaScript link to my blog right on each of the profile pages. Ferd actually consider this site’s linking comparable to EF’s linking where even paid writers for SexIs have there links changed to “likelinks.”? Where posts made by EF staff have the links “encapsulated”? Where the exact same link as I have there is “encapsulated” on my EF profile. Let me makes the level of BS clear: Fred is saying a site where I can  before my account is even approved can simultaneously add a non Java script link to every site in their network, 6 of which he used as his examples, is comparable to a site where nothing be it user or staff created is not Java script encapsulated. This my friends is bullshit.

But wait there is more evidence all of these sites have the option to comment on articles in the form underneath the article, now Javascript is required for you to view the forum ,once again to even see the forum not just to have functional links. However like I said above this is not the same as what EF is doing. To illustrate Gawker media’s forums system has a perma link function which demonstrates how silly the notion that the two are comparable is, because JS is not required to view the perma links or to click on the links within. Here is  perma-link a post on Gizmodo (pic below) you can click on the link and not only will the comment load with JavaScript disabled the links inside of it will still work, no Javascript encapsulation for links on the Gawker network. Once again this behavior is the same on Lifehacker (Pic), Deadspin (Pic), io9 (Pic), Kotaku (Pic) and on Jalopnik (Pic) and now for the bonus examples: Fleshbot, (Pic) Jezebel (Pic) Gawker (Pic).

Click to embiggen

but wait there is more all sites on the Gawker media network have a tag function i.e. #tips that can function as there equivalent of an open forum i.e. #offtopic, if you click on one of these tags and there are a least a few examples on the right hand corner next to the share button on each site, or you could just put: http://(url of gawker media site)/tags/(the tag you want to see here). i.e http://gizmodo.com/tag/tips Again this is accessible with out JavaScript enabled and if you click on a link *gasp* they will work with out Jazz script enabled and the link structure is nothing remotely comparable to EF.

Still not convinced here is a video of me browsing the user generated links of the Gawker network with JavaScript disabled:

Celebitchy

Lastly Celebitchy if you look at the blog it may feel familiar to some of you,  if it does it is because Celebitchy is run on fucking WordPress ; it powered by the same software that runs this site and many of the sites EF reviewers use. WordPress blogs do not use JavaScript to “encapsulate” outbound links, not even Eden’s own WordPress blog does that. Here is an example of not one but two user created outbound links, created by the same comment system used on most WordPress blogs.

Click and full size I will go.

Please tell me I’m wrong.  No seriously tell me the head of EF did not just try to pass off a WP blog as using Javascript encapsulation for user created links when even their own WP blog doesn’t do that and the employee that runs it has repeatedly said it doesn’t and that same blog like this one uses the commentluv plug-in so there are even more non-encapsulated links on it then normal?

What about other User Generated Content sites chaos?

I had to ask myself if Fred wanted to demonstrate how USER Generated content is handled why did he pick sites which are primarily editorial content? Why he did not pick one of the many sites that are primarily user generated  to illustrate his point? My theory is that Fred was setting a trap he picked sites that where primarily editorial content in order to bait people in to falling in to his counter argument of “but its not user-generated content” or maybe he genuinely believes sites which do not require Javascript for user added links really are using the same Javascript “encapsulation”  as EF . Who knows? However, as a demonstrated above the user generated portion of all the sites he cites and more aren’t “encapsulated” in the manner EF “encapsulates” links. So I decided to look at some other user generated content sites and if you look at the major sites consisting of primarily user generated content none of them “encapsulate” links either. Let us look at Wikipedia’s page on user created content for a minute for a minute. Look at“the notable websites based on user generated content” sections and let’s look at some of those examples. Let us take a look at some of those websites, that are again based on User Generated Content, and compare them to EF.

Wikipedia

First site up: Wikipedia, the site anyone can edit, the site that anyone can add a link to. Let look at the references section of the user generated content page. If you have JavaScript disable all the links still work, as does the page itself and most of Wikipedia, and the code is standard stuff here is a pic:

Click for growth

The user generated “largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet”, doesn’t use Javascript to “encapsulate” links.

Twitter

Surely, a site that goes down so often would use this lovely security technique to protect itself…o wait no it does not. Again keep Java script disabled look I can see all my tweets and the link and look normal code, no Java script used no Java script encapsulations (note you need JavaScript to log in, the log in forum won’t pop up other wise, unless you are using cookies enabled so your login in automatically).

(inappropriate comment about touching and things growing)

DIGG

Digg no Jazz script encapsulation. Look at this again a site all about user created links does not use Javascript for outgoing links.

Clicking this one actually takes you to a smaller version...not

EBay

Nope not here either take a gander at this user profile for an example.

click me to...you get the idea

Youtube

Youtube definitely needs JavaScript to play video no question but, even in a site that requires Java script to function outbound links are still not “encapsulated” want an example here is one of Eden’s own vids on youtube. With out JavaScript you can’t even pull down the menu to see the full link yet you can still click it. Even in a site that is effectively inoperable with out JavaScript there is still no “encapsulation” for out bound links.

Click me, make full sized I dare ya!

and so on and so on….but try it for yourself disable JavaScript and go around try to find a link that you can see but won’t take you anywhere because the code has been replaced with span elements requiring JavaScript to interpret.

But what about those staying with EF?

Surely the other people staying with EF have an explanation that makes all of this make sense? Not as far as I can tell they either don’t care or like me they are staying in spite of Fred bull not because they believe it. Example:

Rayne is staying even referring people to EF http://www.insatiabledesire.com/2010/05/25/our-decision-regarding-edenfantasys/ Yet..

My opinion on their link policies is likely in line with most that have a technical background. The method of linking they are using isn’t protecting anyone, and worse may be providing a false sense of security to the site owners. Either way, you are eventually transferred to the destination website, and at that point there is no “protection” at all. Personally, I think they should get a second opinion from another programmer, and disable this piece of code

I do believe that their linking policies aren’t right,

and this is from some one who says they will continue to recommend EF without hesitation. I’m not so forgiving I will continue to recommend EF for the things EF has demonstrated it self to be good for as I put it a means to an end but I will not only hesitate but flat out lead anyone who wants to support real honesty and sex positivity elsewhere. Analogy: you want lowest prices go to Walmart you want to support local small business go there and pay more and just like in the analogy I see no problem with recommending different places accordingly. Even the people staying with EF think don’t agree with Fred explanation the only difference is that they choice to focus on what they are staying for I’m focusing on what I’m staying in spite of. (unless of course they ban me, I know your reading this EF employees. Maybe they will just put me in their “cooling off period” which would prove that the cooling off period is designed to be punishment, not a preventive measure.) Some people say this is negative, I say this is honesty, pretending that you don’t see a giant gray land animal in the room because it would be “negative” that is dishonesty.

The “Community”

As demonstrated above the idea the the sites Fred cite use the same Java script encapsulation technology is laughable. However to be honest I don’t care about the link issue it self, even if they weren’t using this  linking method they would still probably use some thing thing like the  “no follow” attribute to deny link juice to contributors so the linking issue itself isn’t my problem. My problem is with Fred’s BS deceptive response. He pulled the “ur doing it wrong” card; insulted those that have an issue with EF by saying it all about his competition even thought most off site reviewers, review and have ads for multiple companies, including some EF employees and give a bunch of BS examples of sites which supposedly use the same linking method when they clearly don’t.

If he is BSing his community because he knows what he is doing is shady then it obvious he doesn’t care about his community. If he is mistaken then he just insulted his own community and even banned people with out getting he facts straight. If he truly believe that a network of sites where any one can make an account and simultaneously add a non-encapsulated user created links to every site on their network , via their user profiles, and a site run on WordPress, handling user created links the way all WordPress sites do, are “using the same JavaScript-based encapsulation” as a site where no link any where on the site be it added by paid staff,  paid writers, manufactures or users is non-encapsulated, then their is a disconnect between him and the community (by which I mean rational thinking people) that makes me unable to trust what comes out of his mouth.

Now there is no doubt that the issue Fred cite as possible reasons for implementing this code are real however the idea that the sites Fred lists are using the same technology is silly. There are other sites that use entirely different form of redirects for example the site my space redirect links through a different domain however that is still not comparable to what EF is doing. These are not Javascript redirects so their is not the issue of having an different element i.e EF “likelink” span elements in the non-JS code then in the JS. what the search engine see and what the user see is still the same, we both see the redirect links. However, had Fred presented the JavaScript redirect as simply their version of this and left it at that I wouldn’t have a major issue, had they simply presented it as simply the method they chose to use and acknowledged this is not used by the sites Fred cites I wouldn’t be writing a massive post with pictures and video. Hell even if he just didn’t use example so blatantly unlike EF ,(My view on politicians is relevant here I’m not surprised when they BS I’m surprised when they do it poorly.) I wouldn’t have written this. Sure there are problems with those explanation too but I wouldn’t have cared enough to write about it. However when you start feeding me the type of BS Fred did above (again making this clear I can and have personally have added links to over half the examples of sites he says use the same JavaScript encapsulation as EF simultaneously if that is not opposite of what EF is doing I don’t know what is) then I start to get up set when you insult the intelligence of you community by saying your doing it wrong even when it clear that we are not I get anger when you clam to be honest and instead of giving honest answer you pull lines from “Cover Your Ass: PR bull 101″ “: “it all the competitors  fault no one could ever not like me because of something I did”  on top of that, then I write the massive post. And like I said tip of iceberg many other people have had serious compliments about Fred and EF and you can read all about them in the link I included in the intro.

An Informed Decision

This is it about making an informed decisions and based upon the above I say Fred/who ever is feeding him these lines is full of shit. Part of the reasons this post has so many examples is that what was necessary to provide sufficient evidence to back my statement. Does this mean, I’m telling you not to shop there? No I’m continuing to shop there. What I’m presenting to you is my evidence that the president of EF is full of shit what you do with information is up to you. What would I do if I where you? If you want good prices on sex toys , we are in rescission after all, go ahead and shop on EF; if you want good features real size etc good ahead and shop on EF; if you want an easy way to way to earn free gift-cards and toys go ahead and shop on EF and join their various programs. However if you want a shop some where that actually promotes the virtues Fred calm he believe in:openness honesty, transparency, a sex-positive community shop else where. Positive communities aren’t based on feeding your members bullshit and them saying “ur doing it wrong” (and banning them) when people point out it is in fact bullshit.

I’m staying with EF (assuming they don’t ban me which they probably will) because it is the quickest means to an end, to get a bunch of sex toys (although I’m screen caping my affiliate commissions on a regular basis now). However don’t let this give you the impression I actually believe their marketing bull. Not only is EF not honest or transparent, Fred is clearly breading a culture of deception (just look at the above sea of non-encapsulated links in sites that supposedly use the same tech as a site that encapsulates all links), they are the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing.

While a good place to shop and review for the idea that Edenfantasys is open, honesty, transparent, positive, community is bullshit.

1. their blogs use WordPress [↩]

No related posts.