I would love to know what you guys think of

1. People thanking their advertisers with followable links
2. People frequently tell me I undercharge for the amount of time and effort I put into all my reviews, so that would make any links I supply in a review purely editorial (which is what I firmly believe) - I write my reviews partially as a kind of consultancy, but also to demonstrate that compensated reviews can be high quality, whether compensated by affiliate sales or by a direct payment.
3. Free software which is monetized by the links (many notable Open Source Projects)
4. Providing links to people who pay you a retainer as a consultant. When you get someone like Rand Fishkin mentioning a few of his clients in a blog post and deliberately (that is what it seems to me) not including a link to them, then policies on linking really need to be specifically clarified on a blog that doesn’t have a legal disclaimer
5. Links from charities where you donate
6. Other forms of donations to people who decide to give you a link back

Everything about the discussion was very much “black & white” whereas in fact there are so many shades of grey that are perfectly acceptable, and actually in many ways darker than a comprehensive review written for some kind of compensation.

Does a company like Hewlett Packard or Universal Music Group really need to buy links for SEO, or is it really just for Buzz?

Something to think about as I just started haggling over the terms of my first review purchased with the PayPerPost Direct system - it actually allows me to haggle over the terms under which a review will be made on a 3rd party “mediator” site.

I haven’t had the opportunity to do that yet with ReviewMe, mainly because my landing page with them doesn’t convert very well into reviews.

With Sponsored Reviews I have been authorised to get review criteria changed, but that was by email - I much prefer having a 3rd party record.