Wedding Planner

How many mistaken for vendor?

Question:

> I was just wondering how many others were mistaken for a vendor trying to > advertise on this site.  This has happened to me twice now.  Do > vendors/advertisers usually have a signature that says "Jane marrying John > 9/9/99" ??  Sorry, it just kind of hurt my feelings. > Crystal (marrying Joe, 8/19/99)

The nice thing is, if you’re innocent of the vendor charge, it will be obvious as you stick around and continue to post.  Probably people are quick on the draw, but no real harm done if you stay around and and continue to participate.   If you do elect to post messages that promote sites of products, it might be wise to add a disclaimer about who you are and why you’re posting it.  That may stop some people from jumping on you.

Response:

<snipped down to relevant passage> > seem to be *very* fond of >telling people about the free wedding planner (which isn’t free after all)

To clarify: I was the one who pointed out that the planner mentioned was *not* free for everyone. However, it seems that it *is* in fact free to those who live within the planner’s "advertising support regions." Not that this affects its actual usefulness, or the appropriateness of posting the URL for said planner in this group, but I wanted everyone to be clear on this situation. M.

Response:

>I would love this site.. I am actually trying to find sites.. Can you send me

Are you trying to find email sites or any wedding-related site?  I don’t have bridal account email links but if you need anything else, I can help. I do not have a website – I’m not trying to get business.  I do have links on my favorites menu that I’ve collected for myself and for those who may need/want them. Crystal (marrying Joe, 8/19/99)

Response:

> > So get a grip.  Checkout some of the pages. You might just find > something you can use. > Okay, now I’ll say something nasty.  I seriously doubt it.

I second this! Personally, when *I* see some generic post along the lines of "<Company Foo> is a great source for <Product Bar> for your wedding.  Check out the website at <URL Frobnitz>.  I do not work for <Company Foo> and am not affiliated with them in any way I just thought somebody would find this information helpful." I just assume that the non-affiliation statement is a line of bull and that it’s an ad.  And in the past few weeks, I’ve seen an increasing number of this type of ad on the newsgroup. Over the past few months, I’ve posted replies to people asking for suggestions on vendors in my area, and I’ve never once received a FAQ email from Noe.  So, I don’t know what the differences are between my posts and Roseyrains — I don’t even recall the posts she’s mentioning — or between mine and those of anyone else who’s gotten a FAQ email, but for the most part I just ignore anything that looks like an ad.  If I ever *do* get one of those emails from Noe, I’ll just double-check my post and either ask her (Noe, privately, by email) what it was that sparked the FAQ reminder (if I can’t figure it out myself) or just chalk it up to an editoral oversight on my part and post more carefully in the future. Regarding those increased ads, I figure that if I respond to one & say "ooh! this is an ad!  that’s a no-no!" that it just means the company’s name gets posted again in the reply, and again in the reply to my reply, and so on. . . . just my opinion. Wendy

Response:

> what if I was to tell you I knew of a site where you could get a > free e-mail account that was designed just for brides and grooms and from > the same place you could send free wedding and engagement e-cards.  Would > you care or better yet don’t you think others in this group would want to > know? > Or should such a service go un noticed and un used because posting a note in > this group would be considered "SPAM". > Oh and by the way I am not talking about the WeddingMag website.  (please > note hyperlink not included)

Just an idea, if you’ve been FAQed, that might prevent future FAQings: Post the basic info, describing the service offered (just as you have above, except without the defensiveness) and invite anyone interested in checking it out to send you an email asking for the company’s url.  Personally, if I saw something I was really interested in, I would send the email asking for the info.  (Yeah, you might have to reply to several people’s emails, but then you could either send a reply to them all at once, or just forward the first reply to any subsequent url-requesters.  The likelihood that you’d get hundreds of requests that swamp your mailbox and prevent you from getting other work done is realistically pretty slim.) Hope this helps, Wendy

Response:

> I was just wondering how many others were mistaken for a vendor trying to > advertise on this site.  This has happened to me twice now.  Do > vendors/advertisers usually have a signature that says "Jane marrying John > 9/9/99" ??  Sorry, it just kind of hurt my feelings.

If I have sent you e-mail regarding a post which is not in keeping with the FAQ,then it had all the makings of an ad violation. One does not have to be a vendor in order to violate the group’s "No Ads" policy. In checking your history on Dejanews, I see where you have posted several ads that should have triggered the "please don’t post ads" notice from me, but I only recall sending you one for your most recent post of "Free Wedding Planner" on 9/13/98. According to your history in Dejanews, you seem to be *very* fond of telling people about the free wedding planner (which isn’t free after all) and about the web site where you bought your dress. (If I recall, you also posted a method of trying on dresses at a bridal store, but then doing business on-line instead of with the store that tended to you.)  You also made a post about links, which skirts the FAQ since alt.wedding is non-commercial. Overall, your history of posting on alt.wedding is not very favorable in your corner as most original posts either resulted in no threading whatsoever or flaming, both of which are undesirable attributes on a discussion forum. By the way, Karen Simmons, a vendor who posts advice (when asked) on this group is also getting married, so yes, there are vendors who walk both sides of the street in this group. In my humble "keeper of the FAQ" opinion, it would seem more prudent to stay away from posts which do nothing but point people to a web site – especially if that information has not been asked for – and stay away from those repeated posts which clearly invite flaming. Hope this has cleared up the matter for you. Noe — Disclaimer: This answer may preclude those whose religion requires otherwise, those whose cultural upbringing demands otherwise or those who have community norms practiced without exception to the contrary.

Response:

In article >OK Donna, what if I was to tell you I knew of a site where you could get a >free e-mail account that was designed just for brides and grooms and from >the same place you could send free wedding and engagement e-cards.  Would >you care or better yet don’t you think others in this group would want to >know? >Or should such a service go un noticed and un used because posting a note in >this group would be considered "SPAM". >Oh and by the way I am not talking about the WeddingMag website.  (please >note hyperlink not included)

I would love this site.. I am actually trying to find sites.. Can you send me Thank you. Linda D. Mom 2 David Engaged to Angel http://member.aol.com/kc6533/e.htm

Response:

Hi Mrs. Eric Sanborn! — Sorry, couldn’t resist, I know you’re Robin My unnecessary and probably redundant opinion is this: I think posting a site’s URL is okay only if it’s posted by someone not affiliated with the site. It’s far to easy to set up a fake account, post the appropriate question, then post your sites URL and say "but it was in response to a question…" To me, that’s one reason why it’s ALWAYS wrong for commercial sites to post their own URL for any reason. If the site’s good, and alt.wedding users find it useful, they’ll get the word out. On the other hand, if a site is 100% non commercial (i.e. doesn’t sell anything, no ads, no "sponsors," no nothing) I think it’s okay to post your own site _when it’s in response to a question in the group and your site is a genuine resource for that query_. Of course, there’s already a guideline for the group, so who the hell am I to pose my thoughts anyway… Kris – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> OK Donna, what if I was to tell you I knew of a site where you could get a > free e-mail account that was designed just for brides and grooms and from > the same place you could send free wedding and engagement e-cards.  Would > you care or better yet don’t you think others in this group would want to > know? > Since we’re all here, obviously we already all have email and probably don’t > need another account.  Free web-based accounts are everywhere these days.  There > are plenty of places from which you can send a free greeting card, or you can be > creative and send a (much more personal) email message. > Or should such a service go un noticed and un used because posting a note in > this group would be considered "SPAM". > Even if it’s not SPAM, it is in violation of the group’s "no-ads" policy.  This > policy was created *by the newsgroup members* because it’s something *we want*. > So no, we wouldn’t want to see an advertisement for the above service.  The > owner of the hypothetical above service needs to find other ways of advertising > than violating the FAQ of a newsgroup.  That never makes friends. > Oh and by the way I am not talking about the WeddingMag website.  (please > note hyperlink not included) > Um…good?  Who cares? > — > While this email address is valid, I don’t check it due to spam.  Please post all replies.

Response:

>This >policy was created *by the newsgroup members* because it’s something *we >want*. >So no, we wouldn’t want to see an advertisement for the above service.

Actually, I’d like to have as many links as possible.  I’m always needing help with planning my wedding. Crystal (marrying Joe, 8/19/99)

Response:

Since you asked[1], my personal responses – bob >> You might just find something you can use donna >> I seriously doubt it Bob >> … a site where you could get a free e-mail account Bob >> that was designed just for brides and grooms and from Bob >> the same place you could send free wedding and engagement Bob >> e-cards.   No thank you.  I have several email accounts already, and I do not want one custom designed (or labeled) as a ‘bride’ email. Those whom I wished notified of my engagment were done so in person, by phone or (as a last resort) in mine and my father’s Christmas letters.  (Quite difficult, given that I lived a continent away from all but two family members, but it was important for me to do as much as possible in person.  YMMV.)   Wait, one person was notified (ahead of time) via computer – my MOH. bob >> better yet don’t you think others in this group would bob >> want to know? Crystal has asked for links, so yes, it appears she wants to know.  But a question for you, if every URL of the slightest relevance to weddings was posted willy-nilly to the newsgroup, would _you_ still be reading it?  I wouldn’t.  And my guess from the "no-ads" policy is that neither would many others. If you don’t like the policy, try to get it changed.  (And not by telling me to ‘get a grip’ since I can’t even begin to conceive how that would accomplish this goal.) – Donna [2] of the infinite footnotes [1] Apologies if I’ve somehow mixed an unsigned post from continuing conversation, and I treated it as such. [2] Who re-iterates that sending "nasty" email accusing people of "spamming" is neither something I do, or encourage to be done.  It is not polite.  It upset Bob.  And it upset Crystal to be mistaken for a vendor.[3] [3] I sympathized with Crystal for having her intentions mis-interpreted.  Not for being mistaken as a vendor.  (I do NOT hate vendors.)  In fact, I tried to spin the matter s.t. being mistaken for a vendor could have been taken as a compliment!  (Unlikely, since people sending such emails are unlikely to word things ambiguously enough to be complimentary, but oh well.  I can hope.)

Response:

>> So get a grip.  Checkout some of the pages. You might just find > something you can use. >Okay, now I’ll say something nasty.  I seriously doubt it. >- Donna

OK Donna, what if I was to tell you I knew of a site where you could get a free e-mail account that was designed just for brides and grooms and from the same place you could send free wedding and engagement e-cards.  Would you care or better yet don’t you think others in this group would want to know? Or should such a service go un noticed and un used because posting a note in this group would be considered "SPAM". Oh and by the way I am not talking about the WeddingMag website.  (please note hyperlink not included) Bob

Response:

> OK Donna, what if I was to tell you I knew of a site where you could get a > free e-mail account that was designed just for brides and grooms and from > the same place you could send free wedding and engagement e-cards.  Would > you care or better yet don’t you think others in this group would want to > know?

Since we’re all here, obviously we already all have email and probably don’t need another account.  Free web-based accounts are everywhere these days.  There are plenty of places from which you can send a free greeting card, or you can be creative and send a (much more personal) email message. > Or should such a service go un noticed and un used because posting a note in > this group would be considered "SPAM".

Even if it’s not SPAM, it is in violation of the group’s "no-ads" policy.  This policy was created *by the newsgroup members* because it’s something *we want*. So no, we wouldn’t want to see an advertisement for the above service.  The owner of the hypothetical above service needs to find other ways of advertising than violating the FAQ of a newsgroup.  That never makes friends. > Oh and by the way I am not talking about the WeddingMag website.  (please > note hyperlink not included)

Um…good?  Who cares? — While this email address is valid, I don’t check it due to spam.  Please post all replies.

Response:

> I don’t see what’s wrong with a "vendor" putting information in the > newsgroup about their site. > If it is pertinent to the bride to be and they have never seen the site then > they are doing the group a service by letting you know it exist.

Lord save me from all these people doing me ‘favors’.  If a vendor posts "visit my website" completely unrelated to a question, then they are doing *themselves*  a service.  They are using the medium to get free advertizing.  Don’t pretend otherwise. > For example I posted that the [snip - site URL] website had a new facelift > a couple of weeks ago and I got a nasty note from someone about spamming.

Well I’m sorry someone sent you nasty email.  However, it certainly was not me.  I would also modify your definition of spamming – you _can_ spam one newsgroup with one post, simply by the virtue of it going to many many people.  Not recalling your original post, I’ll make no judgement on it. > So get a grip.  Checkout some of the pages. You might just find > something you can use.

Okay, now I’ll say something nasty.  I seriously doubt it. I do often check out posted sites.  I have found the ‘personal’ ones more useful than the professional ones (caveat – Karen’s was quite useful.  Not the most useful – that would either go to some woman named Amy, the soc.couples.wedding support site, or JMH) but certainly quite useful.) – Donna

Response:

: Crystal – : : As an occassionally over-sensitive poster myself (which is : being born out in another thread I certainly sympathize. : Thank you for posting, and reminding us (by which I mean : generic newsgroup people, not an attempt to speak for the : newsgroup as a whole*) not to be so quick on the draw. : : Perhaps the easiest way for brides to differentiate their : posts from from vendors-pretending-to-be-brides’ posts is : to explain _why_ information/service was important to you : and may be useful to others.**   <related points snipped for brevity> : However, "I found this useful BECAUSE" is (a) more useful : to other in immediately determining it’s relevance/usefulness : to them and (b) is less likely to be mistaken for a vendor : trying to reel in potential customers. <another snip for brevity> : ** Heck, I’ll make that a general request – not simply a : suggestion on distinguishing innocent posters from clever : marketers.  More information on why (generic) you’d recommend : instead of simply saying that you do.  Thank you in advance. Well, since I’ve only misinterpreted Donna once, I hope I can make up for it here (with apologizes for snipping valid points that are not relevant to what I’m about to post … I’m 100% in agreement here.  It seems to me that it would be useful for the poster to identify *why* they are giving a recommendation.  Both in the interest of explaining more about the product or service, and providing more information on why this product was particularly useful, compared to the others out there.  Sure, I can read the vendor’s website, but I value the poster’s advice because they are (presumably) a happy user of it.  Or, in the case of negative recommendations, I want to know more about why I should steer clear of it. Following up on that, would the group interpret it as advertising for the poster to begin their post be saying: I’m a photographer, or I’m a wedding planner or whatever? Stating their affiliation right off the bat could be seen as introducing a commercial element that may not be welcome.  I see it as explaining that the poster has no hidden agenda and is not trying to reel in customers by insinuating themselves into the bride/groom’s trust.  Since a lot of the hoopla lately does seem to include some concerns with the way vendors get their message (both advice and business-promotion) across, it seems we might want to clarify this point. <soapbox> It’s hard for the cynical among us to believe (and no surprise… the wedding world is full of shifty sorts) that it’s actually possible for a resource like this to flourish on the Internet without having some sort of catch.  And vendor-posters are suspected of being here for other than completely altruistic motives.  I would imagine that very few of the vendor-posters actually generate enough business from this group to justify the time and effort they put in giving free advice.  Some people just love what they do, they like people, and want to share their knowledge of a confusing industry with people who could benefit from their knowledge. </soapbox> Despte appearances, I’m really not trying to be on a vendor soapbox and am *not* looking to take Chet’s place as the White Knight for vendors. There are a lot of sleazy people in this industry.  Some of them find about this here "Internet" thing, log on to a trial account, stumble across newsgroups and post away, assuming that everyone here wants to know about their candies, honeymoons, etc. without bothering to get familiar with the community. But some vendors do take the time to try to find a place in this community, and the group needs to balance the need to avoid becoming another alt.wedding.marketplace with the need to share information, some of which may be of a commercial nature. Chris

Response:

> I would imagine that very few of > the vendor-posters actually generate enough business from this group to > justify the time and effort they put in giving free advice.  Some > people just love what they do, they like people, and want to share their > knowledge of a confusing industry with people who could benefit > from their knowledge.

Chris,  RIGHT ON!! I am a DJ who has been hanging around this NG for over a year now (didn’t start posting until a few months ago though), and I can’t believe *some* of the *stuff* I have had to put up with in responses to my messages and/or advice… I guess because I am in the *wedding business* (I also do many other venues) I am looked at as some sleazy vendor by some… But I have NEVER put my companies name, phone number or web sites addresses in any of my messages… I don’t really believe that is what these NG’s are for… They are for NEWS and Q&A’s and other such info… But just because some jerk SPAMS groups (or members of groups) doesn’t mean we all do it!! I HATE SPAM as much as any of you do!!  But I DO LOVE what I do (DJing) and I do want to share info with people who are or could be confused, mislead or simply just want to understand more about DJ’s and the way they could/should act and work (IMHO of course)… I give away LOTS of free advice, and people can take it or leave it… I GET lots of free advice also, some I take, some I leave… DJ Alan

Response:

> I don’t see what’s wrong with a "vendor" putting information in the > newsgroup about their site. > If it is pertinent to the bride to be and they have never seen the site then > they are doing the group a service by letting you know it exist. > There are hundreds of sites with very usable information out there that you > will never find in search engines or at least not within the first 10 or 20 > pages or so.

"There are hundreds of sites…" is the key phrase here.  If they all were "doing the bride a favor" by posting a pointer to their web page (and rest assured one post will never be enough) the newsgroup would be innundated.  The alt.wedding web page and the soc.couples.wedding web pages exist to point brides to all those interesting web pages you describe. > As long as it is wedding related information it should be acceptable, if its > not then true it should not be submitted.

Under that criteria, ALL ads become acceptable as they are all wedding related. > For example I posted that the www.weddingmag.com website had a new facelift > a couple of weeks ago and I got a nasty note from someone about spamming. > To me spamming is sending a note to hundreds of newsgroups that have nothing > to do with the subject matter.  

It is unfortunate that you received such email since Spam is exactly as you describe it.  Personally I prefer the rather public torching of errant advertisers as opposed to email confrontations.

Response:

This is actually a followup from Chris – but I have no idea if it will register as such, or as a followup from Nathan’s followup from Chris.  Here goes. > Well, since I’ve only misinterpreted Donna once, I hope I can make up > for it here (with apologizes for snipping valid points that are not > relevant to what I’m about to post …

Yowza.  No apologies needed.  I did start off (posting in this thread) saying I was occassionally overly-sensitive.   Perhaps cranky is the better word? > Stating their affiliation right off the bat could be seen as introducing > a commercial element that may not be welcome.  I see it as explaining > that the poster has no hidden agenda and is not trying to reel in > customers by insinuating themselves into the bride/groom’s trust.  

Opinions based on business-experience are just as valid in the group as opinions based on personal-experience.  It’s always nice to know where a poster is coming from when they respond or introduce new topic for discussion – and so I’m all in favor of stating affiliations/conflicts-of-interest/ what have you.  Not as a requirement, but as a courtesy to other readers who are trying to figure out (assuming the content doesn’t obviously speak for itself – which it more often than not does) why this person’s advice might be considered useful. (That’s supposed to be an agreement of Chris’ statement.  With any luck, it even comes across as such.  ;) – Donna

Response:

> I would imagine that very few of > the vendor-posters actually generate enough business from this group to > justify the time and effort they put in giving free advice.  Some > people just love what they do, they like people, and want to share their > knowledge of a confusing industry with people who could benefit > from their knowledge.

Chris,    Thank you for posting this.  Yes, this is exactly true, at least for some of us.  In the (three?) years I’ve been here, I have never once gotten any business from this group.  There have been some nibbles, but none that have panned out that I know of.  On the other hand, I have received dozens of "thank-you" emails from people whom (I assume) I have helped, and that has been rewarding enough. Nathan Shafer, Alpenglow Photography http://home.earthlink.net/~shafers Photographic Artistry Nationwide: Weddings, Portraits, Nature & Wildlife

Response:

I don’t see what’s wrong with a "vendor" putting information in the newsgroup about their site. If it is pertinent to the bride to be and they have never seen the site then they are doing the group a service by letting you know it exist. There are hundreds of sites with very usable information out there that you will never find in search engines or at least not within the first 10 or 20 pages or so. As long as it is wedding related information it should be acceptable, if its not then true it should not be submitted. For example I posted that the www.weddingmag.com website had a new facelift a couple of weeks ago and I got a nasty note from someone about spamming. To me spamming is sending a note to hundreds of newsgroups that have nothing to do with the subject matter.  Not making a simple announcement about a related site with current information. So get a grip.  Checkout some of the pages. You might just find something you can use. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Crystal – >As an occassionally over-sensitive poster myself (which is >being born out in another thread I certainly sympathize. >Thank you for posting, and reminding us (by which I mean >generic newsgroup people, not an attempt to speak for the >newsgroup as a whole*) not to be so quick on the draw. >Perhaps the easiest way for brides to differentiate their >posts from from vendors-pretending-to-be-brides’ posts is >to explain _why_ information/service was important to you >and may be useful to others.**  Admittively, I’m out on even >more of a limb than usual here, because I don’t actually >recall your posts which generated any vendor-backlash emails >or followups.  (They weren’t the ones saying you’d collected >a lot of links, were they?  If so, I’m rambling irrelevantly.) >But a post that simply says "I just thought I’d let you know >about this useful thing" requires a reader to go investigate >the site/product in order to determine for themselves whether >it’s useful in their circumstances.  A traditional practice >for even reputable businesses. >However, "I found this useful BECAUSE" is (a) more useful >to other in immediately determining it’s relevance/usefulness >to them and (b) is less likely to be mistaken for a vendor >trying to reel in potential customers. > Twice, when I posted some information I thought would be helpful > to people, I was mistaken as a vendor advertising a website. >You know, you _could_ interpret this as "she has such an >awesome site, she *must* be a professional" and be flattered. >;) >- Donna >* who will probably continue to provide these little aside >interpretations of her words/meaning for another post or >two, and then give up.  ;) >** Heck, I’ll make that a general request – not simply a >suggestion on distinguishing innocent posters from clever >marketers.  More information on why (generic) you’d recommend >instead of simply saying that you do.  Thank you in advance.

Response:

> >I was just wondering how many others were mistaken for a vendor trying to >advertise on this site.  This has happened to me twice now. > Many of the netiquette guides (see the group news.answers for Usenet > FAQs) suggest that you include a disclaimer when you recommend a product > or service: "I have no financial interest in this company, but I thought > it was a resource that might help someone else".  Too many people > try to be clever and post "fake testimonials" only to have the web > site eventually link back to their e-mail addresses. > — > JMcM

And it doesn’t help when we’ve just had a rash of these fake testimonials either.  You go to the web site mentioned and lo and behold, the business email address is identical to the poster’s.

Response:

Twice, when I posted some information I thought would be helpful to people, I was mistaken as a vendor advertising a website.  It was quite upsetting to me. Maybe I’m just a little too sensitive.  I was just wondering if this had happened to anyone else. Crystal (marrying Joe, 8/19/99)

Response:

Crystal – As an occassionally over-sensitive poster myself (which is being born out in another thread I certainly sympathize. Thank you for posting, and reminding us (by which I mean generic newsgroup people, not an attempt to speak for the newsgroup as a whole*) not to be so quick on the draw. Perhaps the easiest way for brides to differentiate their posts from from vendors-pretending-to-be-brides’ posts is to explain _why_ information/service was important to you and may be useful to others.**  Admittively, I’m out on even more of a limb than usual here, because I don’t actually recall your posts which generated any vendor-backlash emails or followups.  (They weren’t the ones saying you’d collected a lot of links, were they?  If so, I’m rambling irrelevantly.)   But a post that simply says "I just thought I’d let you know about this useful thing" requires a reader to go investigate the site/product in order to determine for themselves whether it’s useful in their circumstances.  A traditional practice for even reputable businesses. However, "I found this useful BECAUSE" is (a) more useful to other in immediately determining it’s relevance/usefulness to them and (b) is less likely to be mistaken for a vendor trying to reel in potential customers. > Twice, when I posted some information I thought would be helpful > to people, I was mistaken as a vendor advertising a website.  

You know, you _could_ interpret this as "she has such an awesome site, she *must* be a professional" and be flattered. – Donna * who will probably continue to provide these little aside interpretations of her words/meaning for another post or two, and then give up.  ;) ** Heck, I’ll make that a general request – not simply a suggestion on distinguishing innocent posters from clever marketers.  More information on why (generic) you’d recommend instead of simply saying that you do.  Thank you in advance.

Response:

I was just wondering how many others were mistaken for a vendor trying to advertise on this site.  This has happened to me twice now.  Do vendors/advertisers usually have a signature that says "Jane marrying John 9/9/99" ??  Sorry, it just kind of hurt my feelings. Crystal (marrying Joe, 8/19/99)

Response:

: I was just wondering how many others were mistaken for a vendor trying to : advertise on this site.  This has happened to me twice now.  Do : vendors/advertisers usually have a signature that says "Jane marrying John : 9/9/99" ??  Sorry, it just kind of hurt my feelings. What do you mean? Chris

Response:

>I was just wondering how many others were mistaken for a vendor trying to >advertise on this site.  This has happened to me twice now.  

Many of the netiquette guides (see the group news.answers for Usenet FAQs) suggest that you include a disclaimer when you recommend a product or service: "I have no financial interest in this company, but I thought it was a resource that might help someone else".  Too many people try to be clever and post "fake testimonials" only to have the web site eventually link back to their e-mail addresses.   — JMcM

Response:

Filed under: Wedding Planner