I don’t think articles like this should be so quickly disregarded, even when we understand the recklessness of the thing. Such an article will critically influence many people. Maybe these sorts of pronouncements don’t impact anyone’s business, but there is a much more important issue at stake. That issue is promoting actual verifiable data about procedures done on the human body. The “greater good” is to challenge and work to establish the facts. I DO NOT take this article lightly, even if it was done “years ago;” yet re-posted 2 years ago.
Kein Berliner, aber …
I’m “going German” for a moment. Consider the numbers stated: 1,692 interviewed women in 2 years. And, these are supposedly specifically targeted women who are within childbearing age and had electrolysis (?), I assume … or what’s the point. Where did our “researcher” find all these women?
Okay that gives us 846 interviewees per year, 28.2 per month and (in a 5 day week), about 1.5 people to interview per day (a bit more than 7 per week). Can you imagine the logistics of conducting such a survey? Can you imagine gathering data, finding these women and arranging interviews with 7 people per week … for two years? This would actually be a full-time job and I don’t see anyone doing this “for free.”
I’m not exactly “ein Berliner,” but you have to consider the information given and then “figure the odds.” (Beate, was denkst du über meinen Fragen?)
After Dr. Shuster responds, perhaps this thread should be renamed “Electrolysis Does Not Cause Infertility”. Rebuttal can be put in the comments section on Facebook and Twitter where this has spread, as well.
How did that article get on examiner.com anyway? The author is confused about this, as well.
Well, well, well… Content Aggravators? All this nonsense makes sense now. What a waste of our time.
2009 / May / 30 / Writer games Examiner.com to make a point about content aggregators
Writer games Examiner.com to make a point about content aggregators
By Michelle V. Rafter on May 30, 2009 | 11 Responses
L. J. Williamson was frustrated with what she felt was a lack of editorial oversight on Examiner.com, the Denver-based content aggregator.
So she gamed the system.
Williamson, a Los Angeles freelancer with clips from big name publications like the Los Angeles Times, LA Weekly and Sunset magazine, wrote a series of Examiner.com pieces that she admits included exaggerations and half-truths, like this one about the dangers of playing tag. She explains the whole thing in an email she sent to Fishbowl LA, the Mediabistro blog on the Los Angeles media business.
Nothing happened. No phone calls from fact checkers. No emails from editors questioning her sources. Nothing, that is, until Williamson went a little too far and wrote an autism-related story about Jenny McCarthy the actress and alternative treatment advocate noticed and had her lawyers follow up.
In no time, Examiner pulled the stories and fired Williamson, although she argues since she hadn’t gotten a dime from the site it wasn’t really getting fired.
Williamson says she wrote the stories as an experiment to call out the shortcomings of content aggregators, Examiner.com in particular. In a comment on the Fishbowl LA story, Examiner.com’s editorial director Travis Henry says the site has a growing editorial staff that works with writers, providing them with coaching and daily training sessions.
Here at WordCount, there’s been a similar exchange of opinions on the value of writing for content aggregators recently. In a post and multiple follow up comments, a Helium representative explained the site’s editorial process and how much money writers can make. Several freelancers countered her with arguments explaining why they won’t write for content aggregators or why they did and wouldn’t again. I even chimed in with my own advice to write for a hyperlocal news site instead.
While newspapers and magazines figure out how to transform themselves into fiscally sound Internet businesses, the pay-per-click business model that content aggregators – my friend and fellow freelancer Heather Boerner calls them content aggravators - use to compensate writerscitizen journalists isn’t going away. Whether it will become the predominant online publishing business model in the future is hard to say. But it’s safe to assume the arguments over the merits of working for content aggregators will continue.
Forgot to copy and paste the 11 responses:
11 responses to “Writer games Examiner.com to make a point about content aggregators”
Tricia
June 1, 2009 at 9:45 am | Permalink | Reply
I know people write for sites like Examiner and Helium, but does anyone actually read them? I consume a crazy amount of media, as do most people I know, and I’ve never had a “Hey, did you see this great thing on Examiner?” conversation. I just can’t imagine I ever will.
It’s a small data point, but I know of one Examiner writer who uses his gig as a “restaurant reviewer” there to promote the clients of his and his wife’s own PR business.
The Renegade Writer Blog » Blog Archive » A New Term: Writer Mills
July 9, 2009 at 4:01 am | Permalink
[…] on Michelle Rafter’s blog is the post “Writer games Examiner.com to make a point about content aggregators.” In this post, Rafter described how one successful writer purposely wrote articles for Examiner.com […]
Ralph
September 10, 2009 at 3:11 pm | Permalink | Reply
Nobody is editing or checking facts on the thousands of articles written each day at Examiner.com.
The Internet has become the shout-box for anyone willing to listen, and now it takes 5 times as long to weed through all the junk put out by the “self appointed experts”.
Jada
December 14, 2009 at 5:31 pm | Permalink | Reply
Actually, I read the Examiner. And I think they have done a good job in helping people. I am frineds of one writer already and she uses examiner as a way to promote her business. I also think that most writers on Examiner are very professional.
Ron Snow
December 29, 2009 at 11:42 pm | Permalink | Reply
Examiner.com is a snow job.
Brian Lee
January 25, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink | Reply
Examiner.com is paying ‘writers’ pennies for their articles – what a scam, and it’s a prime example of corporations taking for granted the very content they’re in the business of providing – it happened to radio – as automation systems became available in the 80s and 90s and away went any kind of personality – and now they want to complain because no one’s listening!!
According to Alexa.com – Examiner.com is ranked in the top 175 sites – that is quite an accomplishment. One has to wonder though, how much of that traffic – is contributors, and how much is readers??
Wonder what kind of money they (Examiner.com) are pulling down as compared to what they’re paying the people actually doing the work!
Renna Panama
February 4, 2010 at 4:16 am | Permalink | Reply
Kudos from one braniac to another.
USA Politics Hamster Wheel - Page 80 - PPRuNe Forums
May 5, 2011 at 1:43 pm | Permalink
[…] for not checking the facts before publicizing their “headline grabbers”. For example: Writer games Examiner.com to make a point about content aggregators | WordCount Personally, I think you are “over the top” relative to hotel security and such. Was in […]
Child, Please!
June 13, 2011 at 11:58 am | Permalink | Reply
Well, as a new Examiner for Chicago Online Marketing, I have to say I’ve never recited any content I’ve stumbled across on this site, that’s for sure.
As long as there are writers, there will be plagiarism. Though unfortunate, it is what it is. It sucks to have individuals deficient in creativity use my research and snarky/playful wit as their own, but what can I do?
Sooner or later, everything “done in the dark” will be exposed. Believe that.
Michelle V. Rafter
June 13, 2011 at 5:00 pm | Permalink | Reply
This Examiner.com writer wasn’t copying anyone, she made up facts in order to expose what she felt were substantial flaws in Examiner.com’s story vetting process.
Michelle R.
Gaylord family sells OPUBCO
September 15, 2011 at 8:06 pm | Permalink
[…] also has been criticized for failing to fact check, resulting in the posting of incorrect and plagairzed […]
“All this nonsense makes sense now. What a waste of our time.”
Sure Dee, it’s all clear to me … like mud!
Can you please explain this to me? You’d better spell it out. Where or where does our “Hess — the fertility expert — Article” fit into this Denver scheme? Her article is not mentioned … nor is she. Examiner.com may be crap, but what about the article that is still being DEFENDED by the author?
I’m still wanting to klobber Frau Hess on the Kopf! (After I hear from Schuster, of course.)
You may start your post with "My dear Michael … " Don’t you just love it?
My [b]BEER[/b] Michael,
Does this help?
Denver is the base. There are over two hundred networks, one being in Los Angeles.
I appreciate the authors two responses, but she defends this for the fun of perpetuating the scam. Lying is so easy.
Why am I wasting my Friday night on this crap. My advice: don’t get your blood pressure up and tell Dr. Jim, NEVERMIND! FALSE ALARM!
Okay, I’ll just have a BEER! At the moment.
Still, I would like to give that ^&$#@* a nice knuckle rap. May I pleeeeeze?
It will be nice to hear Schuster’s comments. They should be delicious.
Is this a false alarm when folks are still reading this and believing it? Sad but true: Truth on the internet was the first victim. (My quote)
No violence necessary. 
We can take this as a good lesson to trust our initial instincts when pieces don’t fit, like misspelled words, poor grammar, outrageous data (her numbers) and her lack of following the scientific method. The laser statement was the biggest clue. I thank my four highly spirited children for sharpening my instincts over the last thirty years of snoophood, aaa…, I mean Motherhood.
PS: be sure to clean your HEPA filters everyone
This has been a fantastical stupid ride.
BOTTOMLINE: ELECTROLYSIS DOES NOT CAUSE INFERTILITY
Eigentlich wollt ich kurz antworten. Aber ich muss arbeiten… Kundin kommt gerade.
And that’s the key point. As is said earlier: semper aliquid haeret. There will always be something which remains. Led to the destruction of Karthago.
Intentionally spreading rumors in an apparently serious and not sarcastic manner may easily become dangerous.
Auch wenns hinfällig ist: Natürlich war Deine Abschätzung korrekt, und sie trug maßgeblich dazu bei, das als SCAM zu entlarven.
Truth on the Internet also helped shine the light on the cockroach.
Hairtell exists to counterbalance such lies and it worked. Now there is no need to be an outraged mob because we now know the rest of the story.
Good thing I’d swallowed my coffee before reading that!!! Otherwise…
I want to add that the author of the Infertility article has a website where she advertises her waxing services.
To date, the following is directly quoted from her website:
[b]"WAXING: (time varies)
Shelley takes pride in the speed in which she works, and the care she takes in making sure your hair and skin are properly treated. She even shows you that the papilla is removed"[/b]
How does one remove the papilla by waxing?
Happy Buddah. Expose others who mislead. Am proud of my colleagues here.
The information was obtained from her website.
http://www.facemaker1.com/services.htm
Take a look at Hess’ website TODAY and you will find the following stated:
“Through the use of current that electrolysis uses, it sends a signal to the lymphatic system to go on red-alert! The complete explanation is very lengthy, but in a nutshell, the lymph nodes that sit over your ovaries are forced to deal with the electrolysis current. While there, the soft jelly edges of your ovary eggs are crystallized and hardened. Therefore, normal sperm to egg contact is disrupted.“
So, “no big deal,” Dee? Are you comfortable with this continued attack on electrology? Ready to call off the “mob,” as you say? Look at her website right now!
What about the many (silent) electrologists in the “818” area that have to put up with this, explain it and most likely lost patients. What about the patients that are frightened by this idiocy? Maybe they consulted a doctor and paid for tests? Legally her statement is postured to directly influence her business (and to take business away from others). “Interference with fair trade by making false statements” is actionable.
Of course the “falseness” of the statement is yet to be determined, but her methods of inquiry can be verified since she has publicly stated them here on Hairtell. I don’t think “intent” will be too hard to prove since she is in the same business.
The word for these types of women? “Barracuda.” (Another word for men with no ethics … “men” … okay, just kidding!)
Fair trade and False statements
I’m reminded of an event that took place in the mid-1980s. Through one of my patients, I discovered that Nancy Van Tassel (a local electrologists and friend) was telling EVERYBODY that I had AIDS! She even told her story to Jim Paisner (Ballet), and others “high up” in the profession. I was stunned, because I had always helped Nancy (one of those poor souls that always needs help).
When my attorney heard the story, his first question was: “Does she own a house? What are her assets?” He assured me that we were going to “clean her out.”
Long story short, I didn’t sue her, but she had to write letters to everyone she had lied to. It ended up being 350 letters! This woman was intent on ruining me, and trying to build up her own business. (BTW, I do not have HIV!) But one reason I didn’t sue her is that I didn’t want to insult the people that do have HIV. You know, that it is some TERRIBLE thing. I didn’t want to do that in such a public way.
The point is that her story was a confirmed lie (yes, by blood test to prove the point). She told the story with the INTENT to harm me and to build up her own business. This is, again, pretty much what we probably have with the Shelly Hess story. Let’s see how this unfolds.
Just for the fun of it another quote from her website:
The second class was on micro current. This works directly on the muscle structure under the skin.I have brought back to my facial room a wonderful micro current machine. I will be adding this special treatment to all of my monthly facial clients. And it will be FREE to them!.
In what way is this not in contradiction with her statement on electrolysis and pregnancy? Why does this micro current thing not cause infertility - her reasoning, as meaningless as it is, has never been specific to electrolysis.
Do you want to remove those quotation marks, Mike? I did not say “no big deal”. I think I uncovered a fraud that wrote an article on a website that does not question the information presented to them, nor do they require sources. So now we understand the situation. I hope Dr. Shuster does not invest too much of his precious time with this. If he does, I respect his patience.
Now, if you are stirred by her comments, take it to her directly and educate her. You live near her, go see her. In fact, any electrologist here on Hairtell can contact her. All the electrologists that are on Facebook or Twitter who have been buzzing about this outrage can contact her and educate her. We always stand together against these attacks on electrolysis and a logical next step would be taking action and directly contacting this misinformed beauty consultant. You also have the option of calling your lawyer on behalf of the electrology profession.
Now, what about those quotation marks?
Very good point, Beate. It is curious how the harmfulness of a current can change depending on suitability for the application. ha ha ha
The quotation marks do not refer to your exact statement. If they did it would say, Dee SAID: “ … “
The quotes paraphrase what you said. (That’s the way the quotation marks were used in this case. Perfectly correct use of grammar.) Indeed your last few posts were that this whole thing was not worth looking into. You know “have a beer and chill out.” Not nit-picking here, just remembering your advice to others and me.
What you did say is:
“All this nonsense makes sense now. What a waste of our time.
“Why am I wasting my Friday night on this crap. My advice: don’t get your blood pressure up and tell Dr. Jim, NEVERMIND! FALSE ALARM!”
Your intended meaning WAS “NO BIG DEAL.” And I don’t need to apologize.
But, let’s agree not to make this a “you-know-what match” between us. You continue to have “the big ones” for me … try to focus that animas on the actual people injuring the profession. There is a bigger issue here that I will be dealing with. Wheels are already in motion.