Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Pink Truth: How dare you use our content without our permission... And now for something completely different...

DS (That's me): making introduction Pot, Kettle. Kettle, Pot.
Pot: to kettle Wow... you're really black.

...Pink Truth Copy/Pastes a Sales Director's Entire Presentation Notes... Copyright Infringement Anyone?...

Honestly, I didn't even read it. Skimmed through a couple of times though. Seems like there are some good things you could take away from it. These are obviously the notes of someone that is listening to a presentation and trying to get as much written down as possible.

Which leads me to the irony of the very first comment:

"First of all I can't believe the bad grammer in this piece. Was this taped then transcribed by someone or the actual speech Rhonda gave. If so, she has a lot to learn about the English language."

Methinks perhaps someone should get a better grasp on their spelling... coughgrammercoughshouldbegrammarcough... before they start criticizing the grammatical errors of someone else.

There actually are a lot of comments on this one... seems there are a lot of people that have time to read (carefully I might add) every word that is coming out of Mary Kay these days. Perhaps someone here would care to comment on a comment over there. Please do. That is what this site is here for.

I will point out one that made me raise my eyebrows a bit (no wait, it was more like the corners of my mouth... you know that kind of half-smirk you get when you see someone that is lying, and you know that they know that you know that they are full of it, but that they know that you know that they know that you can't convince the people they are lying to that they are lying, and they look at you with that, "ha, I am getting away with lying because you can't do anything to stop me" look, and all you can do is just kind of smile because you know that the significance of their ability to deceive a handful of people is so grandiosely overestimated in their minds that it isn't even worth trying to correct them? It was that along with the eyebrow thing.).

Tracy in response to "Tracy, how many members do we have? How many estimated lurkers?said:

"Ah, if only Mary Kay knew those numbers. They're dying to get their hands on them, and sites like Alexa (which attempt to estimate traffic) are notoriously unreliable and easy to game. We have 4700 registered members and way, way more unregistered readers. That's the best I can tell you... although I will say if MK had any idea how many visitors we really have, they would wet themselves."

Yup. I don't know about all of you, but I just wet myself. ;)


  1. When it comes to stuff that's blogged online, I wish everybody would stop saying "blaaaah, yargh, you're stealing my content!" Here's the deal: If you correctly attribute the source, you aren't stealing. If you claimed it was *your* writing, then you would be. You say loud and clear "this is from pink truth." That's giving credit to the source. Likewise, if pink truth says "this is from Rhonda Shasteen," once again that credits the source. I know fair use laws are circling the drain, but I'm still flying the fair use flag...or at least trying to.

  2. I have a question! (raising arm, waving, waving!! yoo-hoo!)

    If readership/traffic is "way, way" more than registered members, then why don't the page hit counters reflect this? Some days the page hits are pretty low.

    You don't have to be logged on to read a document. Are the counters only active if somebody is logged on?

  3. Smirk...... smirk....

    Would love to comment in detail, maybe will have time later...

    but... David, One word... Depends

  4. i dont get it..what are they complaining about?
    It sounds like a lot of good info to me. I think Rhonda was making some good points.

    It reads like someone was trying to put the main points together anc classify them in outline form and maybe used a little makeshift short hand or something..no biggie

    Maybe I am missing something

  5. I wonder how many of the 4700 she spoke of are the ones she has banned and not taken of the registered list? And since from expter's on other sites, reports were that many of them registed with different names after the were banned and then registered with another name after they were banned again... guess that would help inflate the numbers, wouldn't it?

  6. I'm still wondering though (seriously) wouldn't the page hit numbers accurately reflect the amount of traffic to the site?

    They remind me of the counters on eBay so you can monitor the traffic to your auction. Doesn't her "number of hits" at the the top of the comment thread reflect the traffic?

    I think discussion boards are the same. Except you can watch the traffic live on most. For example, you can see who is signed on and reading a specific thread and also the number of watchers.

    Am I correct in my assumption?

  7. mk4me,
    I think you are right about the banned people making up a lot of the registered users. Not too long after I was banned I received an e-mail saying that my username was re-activated so I tried to sign in but my password doesn't work anymore. It appears that my name is now listed as an active user but I have no access to the account. Convenient for number boosting eh?


For Further Reading...

This Week On Pink Truth - Click Here
Pros and Cons of Mary Kay - Read or Contribute or Both!
First Post - Why I Started This Blog
The Article I Wrote For ScamTypes.com (here) (there)
If this is your first visit please leave a comment here. I would love to hear from you!
If you want to email me: balancedmarykay@gmail.com
But you are probably better emailing mk4me: mk4me2@gmail.com