Few people realize the enormous conflicts of interest that exist when a small Web site gives away its content for free and generates its revenue from advertising. The fundamental problem is that this association corrupts and compromises the content and the objectivity of the content, especially in the consumer and financial advice and information arena. There is no wall between content and advertising.

Consider Web sites devoted to investing. The vast majority of them develop content focused upon stock picking. Not surprisingly, this creates the perfect environment for the ubiquitous ads from online brokerage firms. So, don't expect to see articles explaining the virtues of conservative mutual funds or index funds, and why stock picking is a fool's errand, on these Web sites.

Free financial Web sites also are generally structured around content, news and information that is rapidly changing and therefore, highly addictive in nature. Popular financial Web sites find their heaviest users coming back numerous times each day - all these user visits benefit the Web sites in terms of ad revenue. And, beware that too closely following and overmonitoring of one's investments leads to bad habits - overtrading, making emotional decisions based on short-term events, etc.

Advertising creates other problems for Web sites. As mentioned earlier, there are insufficient separations between those who develop content and the advertising on a Web site. Having the same people overseeing both is often a major problem. Even if different people are responsible for each area, communication, cooperation and influence between the two areas can prove problematic. Web sites will be loathe to post negative articles about significant advertisers and, conversely, more likely to praise companies paying ad fees.

Another problem is the merging of editorial and advertising content into advertorials whereby a company or person pays a fee to a Web site for placement of their provided content, which is an ad in disguise. This practice is incredibly sleazy, especially when it is not clearly and boldly disclosed.

Now, this doesn't mean that all free Web sites (e.g. BankRate, MarketWatch) are bad or lacking in some redeeming content and that those which ban advertising and work on a subscription basis (like Consumer Reports) are perfect all the time. But, when it comes to financial content and advice, you should be generally wary of free sites built on the advertising model.

Whenever I go to a "free" Web site, I spend some time thinking about what the agenda of the site is. I also go to the "about" links on the site, as well as review any disclosures of advertising and affiliates. Affiliates are companies that provide referral fees and income for business that is directed their way and create conflicts of interest for Web sites. I don't believe that a Web site should receive affiliate fees (the equivalent of a kick back) when recommending a financial product, service or strategy because accepting such payments creates a major conflict of interest.

John Nardini, founder of the FreeMoneyFinance Web site told me, "Everybody draws the line differently - some identify affiliate referral links, others don't. Sites can make money selling financial software, providing insurance referrals, bank account sign-ups, etc." On Nardini's site, which he runs outside of his full-time job as marketing director for MooseTracks ice-cream company, he screens some of his ads and allows ads from things he uses himself or sees as a valuable service (e.g. not high-cost payday loans). However, he can't screen Google's ads, which are targeted for the financial nature of his Web site, because of the way in which they are delivered to his Web site.

The bottom line: Buyer beware surfing the Web. About 99 percent of what I have learned that has been most useful to me in the financial realm has been from resources that cost money - books, newspapers and letters, financial publications, etc. Be attracted to and focus exclusively upon "free" stuff at your own peril.