Zeal and affiliate links - banners vs in-line text links

Does it make a difference?

[skibum]

Zeal is of course the "non-commercial" part of LookSmart but non-commercial depends on who reviews your site.

Recently I had a bunch of articles yanked from the directory because they had some affiliate links included in the content. It seemed that the LookSmart folks determined that the purpose of the pages was to drive sales of particular products and services.

Other pages that explain products and services were presumably re-reviewed but remained in the directory.

The $0.15 question - when submitting pages to Zeal, are they more likely to get accepted with a simple page head banner instead of in-line text links if we assume the content of the page is exactly the same regardless of where the links are?

For example, instead of explaining how to best use widgets with a text (affiliate) link or two in the article, does it make any difference if there is a page head banner for the same product but the content does not have any affiliate links in it?

[steveb]

I think it makes a big difference. Even one text link in the body of the page will lead to rejection. This just happened to me (twice) when I dumbly left a single link on a page.

[Cossack]

skibum, I think you need to read their Guidelines first ;):
[zeal.com...]

"Whether they are considered commercial or not will depend on the amount of noncommercial content that there is in relation to commercial material...", so if an editor or zealot sees a promotional article with links in - the action is predictable and he/she is fully right.

[skibum]

Thanks Cossack

Essentially I'm just wondering what tips the scales.

Looks like its based on intent

".......an interview with a celebrity would be acceptable in a noncommercial category as long as the site's description focuses on the noncommercial elements of the site and does not mention any commercial activities that users could engage in on the site (such as shopping for videos featuring that celebrity)."

So it souds like if you want to be listed in Zeal, the content cannot contain affiliate links and use the copy to encourage anyone to conduct commerce or provide an inline text link that would enable anyone to buy anything if the entity owning the submitted site would derive revenue for it.

Since a page head banner is more "passive" and sites considered non-commercial with good content may have banners, the best bet like steveb sugested it to use banners and keep the content clear of any commercial overtones.

[jeremy goodrich]

That guideline is selectively enforced, at best. I've had pages rejected that had zero commercial content -> because the site had affiliate links, but not the page that was submitted. :)

Others have had the opposite experience -> nothing gets me more irritated than a directory whose policies are selectively, & not globally, enforced. Though of course, they're trying to make $$$ right?

[rfgdxm1]

One point Jeremy. Whether a site gets in or not may very well depend on how well the Zealot reviewing it reads the guidelines, and how closely he examines the site. Thus, it may not be selective enforcement as much as it is carefulness in review.

[Cossack]

Welcome skibum ;)

From what I see - in Zeal, as in any human community - exist human ranks or levels of "trust" ;), and all those detectives and sleuths awards just confirm it ;), but contrary to some other places - digits are matter in Zeal :).

So, while any zealot can remove a web page from Zeal - guidelines will be "selectively enforced" at least.