StomperNet’s Magazine, TheNetEffect, Is Full Of Factual Errors!

I’m reading the article Up For Grabs! in the latest edition of The Net
Effect. I am quite shocked by the low quality of the article. This
article is full of factual errors. Here are 3 I’ve found:

1: Article states that Squidoo pays publishers 10% of revenue from
their content. That is wrong! Squidoo.com says “Any time someone stops
by your lens and buys a product you recommended or clicks on a Google
ad, you get 50% of the royalties.”

2: Article states that EzineArticles.com only allows 4 resource boxes,
and does not allow custom resource boxes for each article. That is
just false. I have over 1,000 articles published on EzineArticles.com
and they all have a unique resource box.

3: Article states that Hubpages nofollows links if you have more than
two links to the same site in a hub, or if you have less than 3
published hubs. Again, this is simply false. Nofollows are added based
on the Hubscore of the author and the hub. I have hubs with 3-4 links
to the same site, and they are not nofollowed.

I must say that I find this completely unacceptable for a marketing
publication that claims to be written by experts that are actually
doing what they teach. Where did this article come from? The author is
apparently not even using these social sites much, let alone an expert
in using the social sites, or he would not have including such factual
errors in the article.

If an article in your magazine has such inexcusable errors, how can I
trust anything in the magazine? How do I know that the other articles
are not just as misleading? I have already canceled my subscription
to the Net Effect and the DVD of the Month.

I would appreciate hearing your feedback and thoughts on this issue.