The need for blogging transparency is something that many people (Edelman included) have learnt through mistakes. Which is why I am shocked to find that the Guardian of all places should make such a mess-up.

In what promised to be a 'nice' travel-blog by a 19 year old about his forthcoming travels in South East Asia turned into a comment-smashing attack on the author. At first glance - Max Gogarty, seemed like a good choice. He can obviously write well - having helped produce scripts for Skins and is the right age to appear the Guardian's demographic. The title of the blog (with skins in the url was supposedly an accident that should have been changed before it got published so I'll leave this alone).

So why did his post create 474 comments - many of which had to be deleted by the moderator with the end result that the blog's comments were closed?

The simple question posed near the top of the comments was 'why did this person get the job when so many other people have travelled and wanted to do something similar?' - the answer according to the readers, with a little Google help, was nepotism. It appears that the blogger's father just happened to be the travel-writer for the Guardian.

At least that was what was commonly believed.

The travel editor, the next day, jumped in and explained that we got it all wrong and that his father is not the travel writer of the guardian but a freelancer. Even if this is the case - he had previously written for the Travel Guardian so wasn't exactly a stranger. What's more the editor continues, he was hired on his merits. (let's not get into his cliché-style of writing here).

I have nothing against nepotism. I am far too cynical not to understand that this happens and that many people get where they are not through merit but by contacts (heck, I got my first job that way). But what is wrong in this case, was that neither the author nor the Guardian made it clear that this was how he got the job. Had this been written in the beginning then perhaps there would have been a few sarcastic comments as oppose to the onslaught that followed.

Conclusion - be transparent.