News Source: http://www.ericlander.com
Published: May 20, 2009 - 02:57 pm
Story Found By: Skitzzo 1465 Days ago
Category: Vertical Search
46 Comments
Sorry this site requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser. See the following guide on How to enable JavaScript in Internet Explorer, Netscape, Firefox and Safari. Alternatively you may be blocking JavaScript with an advert-related or developer plugin. Please check your browser plugins.
News Source: http://www.ericlander.com
Published: May 20, 2009 - 02:57 pm
Story Found By: Skitzzo 1465 Days ago
Category: Vertical Search
46 Comments
Upcoming Conferences
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:
- SMX Paris - June 6-7 2013
- SMX Advanced - June 11-12, 2013
- SMX East - October 1-3, 2013
- SMX Stockholm - October 14-15, 2013
- SMX Milan - November 7-8, 2013
- SMX Social Media Marketing - November 20-21, 2013
- SMX Israel - January 2014
- SMX West - March 11-13, 2014
- SMX Munich - March 25-26, 2014
- SMX Sydney - April 2014
- SMX London - May 2014
Latest News From Marketing Land
- Microsoft, Google To Build New Windows Phone YouTube App Together
- Advertise To Facebook Users By Recency With Time Range Targeting
- Missing Facebook Page Insights? Users Reporting Only Seeing Data Up To May 15
- Marketing Day: May 24, 2013
- Bill Gross, Founder Of Pioneering PPC Search Engine GoTo, Launches UberAds Mobile Ad Solution
- - See more news at Marketing Land -
Upcoming Webcasts
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Digital Marketing Depot. Upcoming online events include:
- Email+Social = profitable client retention - Jun 26
- Enhanced Campaigns: New Effective PPC Techniques - Jun 19
- Taking your PLA Campaigns to the Next Level - Jun 4
- Increase Shares, Tweets, Likes, and Pins to Fuel Search and Drive Engagement - May 30
- The Future of Digital Marketing Services: Where Will Agencies be in 2014? - May 15
Research:
- Enterprise Social Media Management Software 2013
- B2B Marketing Automation Tools 2013: The Buyer’s Guide
- Enterprise SEO Tools 2013: A Buyer’s Guide
Whitepapers:
- PPC Bid Management Guide
- The Marketer’s Guide to Driving ROI From Facebook Advertising
- Collaborative Customer Interactions Management
- How To Create a Data-Driven Dynasty
- Top 10 Ways to Improve Digital Experiences
Latest News From Search Engine Land
- SearchCap: The Day In Search, May 24, 2013
- Google Glass Diary, Part 4: Local Search & Navigation
- Search In Pics: Google Robots With Lightsabers, Bloomberg Cutting Google Cake & The Simpsons Street View
- Google Voice Search Coming To iOS, Chrome For Android Gets An Update
- 5 Excel Skills Every Marketer Should Know
- - See more news at Search Engine Land -
Comments
Thanks for the Sphinn, Ben. Now... How long until this is desphunn? I’ll start the countdown...
As long as it goes hot desphinns don’t matter =P
@Harith - did you read beyond the part you copied and pasted? I openly researched it, wrote this as an opinionated piece and thought that was clear. If it wasn’t, I apologize. I’m sorry it wasn’t up to your standards though and certainly appreciate you sharing your view.
Eric,You disappointed me.Your post’s title says: "Google: The Internet’s Organized Crime Family"You haven’t presented one single fact to support your post’s title.
I think you need to read it again, Harith.
JillShould I understand you agree that the title of this post is true and correct?
I read beyond the title of the post, Harith, which you apparently didn’t. I can’t say as I 100% agree, but Eric does make a compelling argument with some interesting points to think about.
I have no plans to Sphinn this, as I do have problems with it. And I certainly have stood up to people who unfairly diss Google when they don’t like something. But I take deSphinns very seriously. It’s why I don’t like Reddit - everybody is always voting your stuff down. Perhaps it is just that I am Canadian and was brought up to be too polite, or that I am also American and believe in free speech in (almost) all cases. I have to admit that the title of this sub borders on slander, but the description makes it clear this is an opinion, not presented as fact. I think it should stand and be ignored - no botes up or down (as if anybody cares what I think).
@harith interesting that you assume a sphinn indicates "I agree 100% with every aspect of this" - often times people sphinn up things that are simply interesting conceptually or stir debate on a topic. this is a place for disucssion - and everyone is free to disagree - and hopefully will agree to disagree respectfully. but please, debate - give your perspective, don’t seek to silence those with opposing viewpoints (as you did with your misdirection of the topic on twitter).
MichelleSheesh. I thought you meant what you posted on twitter " where I live - freedom of speech is prized.".Am I not allowed to discuss what I like on Twitter? Where is my freedom of speech, Michelle?
Harith - can’t believe I have to quote what i wrote just a few lines above - here’s your freedom of speech:<div></div><div>"but please, debate - give your perspective, don’t seek to silence those with opposing viewpoints (as you did with your misdirection of the topic on twitter)."</div><div></div><div>I was simply requesting that you use your freedom of speech to debate instead of censor. Your choice entirely. </div>
MichelleIts your choice entirely too when accepting today title "Google: Internet Organized Crime family". Tomorrow you would accept another title "Google: Internet Nazi".I don’t wish to be part of such community any more.Leaving you in peace. So much for freedom of speech in your country ;-)
"Google is more like a government than a crime family""The mob is self aware. They don’t pretend to be anything other than what they are."Comparing Google to organized crime is less apt than comparing it to an extremely wily and ambitious politician. Such politicians (demagogues) understand the following, not always consciously, but with frightening certainty:- What groups they must please in order to build a power base (that’s where Google’s obsession with The User comes from)- To what issues / arguments / symbols / gifts those groups react very well (Let’s give them another free service to play with this week, too... oh, and kick Microsoft in the face once again)- How they can capitalize on their power|fan base to weaken and eliminate competitors- How they can avoid closer scrutiny for a long time, thanks to the hype and adoration they create around themselves- What lazy, fat, established players can be effectively attacked and their wealth appropriatedGoogle is less a John Gotti than a Hugo Chavez.
I like the point that "WyrdestGeek" makes in the comments of the original post:"Google is generally nice about their World Domination whereas M$ is not. Google gives away the smack for free (so to speak) whereas M$ has traditionally forced you to either pay or become a pirate."Which is why most of us do love Google. Who wants to live without our free smack? Not I!
Lol.. funny post, like listening to pick-pocketing small timers pointing fingers at multi-billion dollar operation ganstas.Unlike in the SEO gang, Google’s got no "you rat and you’re dead" policy though. Which is blacker, the kettle or the pot? The grass is always greener in your own back yard and your dog is much cuter than your neighbors.
Sphunn because if this was a Matt Cutts post, Harith would have been fawning all over it like a school girl gushing over her teen rockstar.
I found this article interesting because I almost took on partnership with a graphics firm until I found out they were backed my organized crime. haha
This artcile is 100% correct because I am quoted in it and it links to my blog. Nuff said.
Just when I thought Sphinn was nothing but the same old regurgitated articles over and over this came along. Different, thought provoking, well writen, and entertaining. Thanks!
Maybe not a crime family :-)
I Sphinn this article mainly because that we often get news, updates, tips etc but this one stands out of the other. I understand the pain that Eric has taken to write such a post. This doesn’t mean that people who sphinn are against Google.
i desphunn this article because i can.
I was gone when this story hit Sphinn, traveling for three days, so didn’t have a chance to catch up on @harith’s repeated demands for me to somehow weigh in on the topic. He yelled out again on Twitter tonight, and since I have a minute or two to spare and kind of not happy with some of the things he said, sure.First, I don’t oversee Sphinn day-to-day. Rob Kerry, @evilgreenmonkey does. So no one should be expecting me to watch over things on a day-to-day basis. That’s why we have an editor here, to do exactly that.@harith, you clearly disagree with the article. That’s fine. That’s one of the nice things about Sphinn. People can agree or disagree with people, debate ideas, as long as they are respectful to each other.In particular, you don’t seem to feel the title of the article is accurate. Well, it’s an opinion piece. That’s how I read it. Eric wants to compare Google to an organized crime family, and he’s totally fine to do that. Doesn’t mean he’s proving the point, but people can compare Google to lots of things. Heck, I compared them to having a "hive mind" in this:http://searchengineland.com/the-google-hive-mind-14832Thomas Friedman once had a headlined article asking if Google was God:http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/opinion/29FRIE.htmlOpinions are not facts, and I find it hard to believe that anyone would think Eric was presenting some factual news story.As discussed, plenty of people Sphinn articles that they don’t entirely agree with, often because they like the discussion or because the agree with some things or even sometimes they don’t agree but thing the topic should be discussed. You’ve been around here long enough to know that.Looking at what @michellerobbins wrote above, I see absolutely nothing, nothing, that was suggesting you couldn’t talk about your opinions here. I gather she was concerned about how you might have been representing the thread in your tweets.Well, what you tweet is your own business. But then again, I looked at some of the things you tweeted:Ethical SEOs & Ethical Marketers. Please leave Sphinn: First they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew...I haven’t met a single Ethical SEO calling Google "Internet’s Organized Crime family". Only Blackhat SEOs attacking Google ;-)Its harmful for our SEO industry reputation when some SEOs call Google "Internet’s Organized Crime Family"SEOs interests best served by establishing good relationships to search engines. Search engines aren’t our public enemy #1 ;-)Sphinn is governed by immoral Sphinnmaster terrorizing Ethical SEOs and Ethical marketers to leave Sphinn.So let me get this straight. Google can’t be compared to an organized crime family, but Sphinn gets compared to the genocide of millions of Jews?And Michelle in no way asked you not to comment, but that gets turned into terrorizing people?I think perhaps you need to get some perspective on your statements. I think you also need to realize that plenty of white hat SEOs have issues with Google. I think you also need to realize that Google is not some unified mind. Actually, as with any company, there are people internally who may wish their company to change in many ways -- so external criticism can help them win that change.In short, it’s not harmful for people to criticize Google. Goodness knows plenty of other industries do. And plenty in our industry also praise Google.If it’s criticism, I just hope it’s fair and supported. Eric feels he’d done that. For me, sorry Eric, honestly -- it was a bunch of bulletpoints that didn’t add up to a mafia-like organization. I agree Google has huge insight across the web, but I guess my own view is that they are more like the railroad companies of old, which controlled tracks, stations, land around the area and so on. But that’s my rough metaphor -- you’re free to use your own.I think you’re mainly off on the part where you say they sniped the competition by somehow controlling the flow of quality searches. Yahoo was free to build their own crawler at any time, and eventually it did through acquistions of its own. Microsoft could have done the same -- could have bought Yahoo, if it wanted, years before last year’s drama. AltaVista didn’t have to go the portal route. And some of those 50 leading acquisitions you cite have done nothing for Google. Buying dMark was a disaster; Dodgeball died, and I’m just top of my heading here.It wasn’t that Google beat the competition to death; the competition didn’t even try. And damn right, in its early days, Google courted good PR. Crime family? Um, that’s just marketing. And it wouldn’t have worked if Google also didn’t have a good service. Otherwise, I guess we’d all be loving AIG right now. Just crank up the PR, and you’re good.Again, while I don’t agree with you on some of your points or perhaps the overall metaphor, I do agree that absolutely, Google’s managed to build a nice closed loop system in many ways, one that ultimately might bite back at its success due to all the anti-trust stuff going around.
One great thing about an opinion piece? Others can weigh in and leave comments that encourage conversation, and we can all grow from it if we choose.Thanks for leaving your thoughts here Danny. It’s good to see how you view Google’s industirial rise and I appreciate you taking the time to disagree in a way that we can understand.
Hi Danny Thanks for answering my call for a feedback. very generous of you. I have to make a difficult decision. Should I post my reply to your feedback on Twitter where I feel more comfortable and sure that my tweets would stand untouched, uneditted and undeleted. Or should I return back to Sphinn which I left and post my reply here. In respect for you, here I’m at your house replying to your above comment. I would focus my reply only on few main points. The rest I have already discussed on Twitter. It all started by a Desphinn! When i Desphunn the current article, it was because I thought it isn’t worth going hot to reach Sphinn front page. I haven’t thought at all that Desphinning would be misunderstood by anyone as a way "to silence those with opposing viewpoints " or to deny them their freedom of speech. My followers on Twitter know very well that I use to promote my Sphinn submissions on Twitter asking for my followers "Sphinn it if you like it". In the same way I promoted my Desphinn on Twitter keeping in mind a "Desphinn is not "to silence those with opposing viewpoints " or to deny them their freedom of speech. As far as I recall, here are my first and second Tweets promoting my Desphinn: - Please Desphinn this nonsense. Thanks! http://sphinn.com/story.php... - If you don’t agree @mattcutts & other decent Googlers are "Organized Crime Family", pls Desphinn http://bit.ly/34dlD At that same time pupped up on Twitter and we had few tweets exchange about censorship and freedom of speech. So far so good. Its therefore I was chocked and surprise to see Michelle Robbins at the same time posting the following accusations her on this thread: "but please, debate - give your perspective, don’t seek to silence those with opposing viewpoints (as you did with your misdirection of the topic on twitter)." As I said the only thing I done on Twitter at that time was posting two tweets promoting my Desphinn. How could that be called I’m seeking to silence my opposing viewpoints? Danny, You provide us with ability to Desphinn. When we practice it, your Sphinnmaster accuse us of seeking to silence our opposing viewpoints! Michelle Robbins , The Co-author of current article, The solicitor, The judge and the jury! When discussion take place among two Sphinners it take place on level ground where both parts have only their own arguments to "fight with". I.e discussion carried out on equal basis. But when discussion taking place between a regular Sphinner like me and a Sphinnermaster Michelle Robbins who have the power to edit my comments, delete my whole comment or unsubscribe me of Sphinn, such discussion wouldn’t be carried out on equal basis at all. Therefore when MichelleRobbins posted here comment her accusing me of seeking to silence our opposing viewpoints because I Desphunn and promoted my Desphinn on Twitter, I was chocked. Further more reading the rest of MichelleRobbins comment was frightining indeed: "I was simply requesting that you use your freedom of speech to debate instead of censor. Your choice entirely. " First accusing me of " seeking to silence our opposing viewpoints". then "REQUESTING" me to debat instead of censor! None of MichelleRobins accusions I have commited! Knowing that MichelleRobins is a kind of co-author of current article as Eric wrote on his current post ((@MichelleRobbins) provided a lot of assistance in creating this article. She offered up an editorial review and some recommendations,...), she is Sphinnmaster, she has the power to edit my comments, she has the power to delete my comments, she has the power to unsubscribe me of Sphinn. I didn’t feel comfortable at all of being on the receiving end of MichelleRobins "bombs". Among other reasons I have a lready mentioned on Twitter, therefore I left Sphinn. Google: The Internet’s Organized Crime Family I mentioned my reasons both here and on Twitter of opposing the title of Eric’s article. there is one thing I wish to add. When talking about corporates, lets keep in mind corporates are not stones. Corporates are people justvlike you and I. Corporates are employees, their kids and their families too. When you describe a corporate as "Organized Crime Family" you are harming employees of that corporate too. When kids of those employees read an artyicle similar to Eric’s current article and ask their parents: Dad! Whom you work for? Wwhat would you expect those parents to reply? I work for Organized Crime Family Corporate? Danny, I recall you mentioned once on Twitter your boys saying something: dad on the phone talking to Google. Dad is visiting Google etc.. If your sons see the title of current article. Would your own sons be proud to see you talking or visiting Organized Crime Family Corporate? Michelle Robins mentioned in her comment: "this is a place for discussion - and everyone is free to disagree - and hopefully will agree to disagree respectfully." I don’t regard the title of Eric’s article posted her on Sphinn "Google: Internet’s Organized Crime Family" which Michelle Robins has assisted much in creating it as to differ with Google respectfully at all. Thanks for providing the bandwidth.Leaving you in peace. Back to Twitter!
Harith, I’d guess your calls for desphinning were interpreted by her as you trying to silence the story -- and yeah, you have a right to ask people to desphinn a story that you disagree with, and I’d expect her to stand up for your right to do so. But I think you also described the story as if it was somehow saying personal Googlers were members of a crime family -- and that’s where the misdirection aspect probably came in, in her opinion. I guess looking at your tweets -- it seemed pretty all-or-nothing to you about this story. So I can see where you both are coming from. But no, as long as you’re being respectful to those around you, you’re free to discuss the story with whatever view you have.In terms of the issues of Michelle having the power to edit comments -- she’s one of about 10 moderators who have that power. Does that mean she can stifle conversation? Potentially. So could I. And whereas she is NOT the coauthor of that article, I have been the author of several articles that have been controversial on Sphinn. I don’t run around killing comments I disagree with on them. Neither have I known Michelle to exhibit such behavior.None of this is new. If you haven’t felt comfortable with it before, then you couldn’t have ever been comfortable here. If that means you trust the moderators, including Michelle, so little because they have the power to edit, then I guess you will have to leave. Or we can give up our moderation powers, and you can enjoy Sphinn with link drops to online poker sites and flame wars with foul language erupting.Also, just to be clear -- none of your commnets were edited. She expressed a desire for you to debate here but in her personal opinion not to mislead people. Rather than argue your that your view of the situation wasn’t misleading -- and back it up -- you declared there’s no freedom of speech on Sphinn and left.Finally, back to the article and your concerns that a corporation has real people behind it. True. But a corporation itself is NOT a person. I disagree that if you describe a corporation as a crime family that you’re declaring everyone who works there to be a criminal. I similarly disagree that if you describe a corporation as God-like, that you’re declaring every employee to be God-like.I’d expect, if an employee’s child asked about a particular negative article about Google, for the parent to explain why or why not the article is true. I have to reinterate that you are very mistaken if you think that every employee within Google would disgree with a negative article. The opposite -- some of them will nod their heads at external criticism and be glad someone has spoken out.
Harith, unless I’ve missed something - you’re trying to make something out of nothing. If you’ve got a problem with Sphinn or someone in our team, send me an email or ping me on Twitter. Your rambling comments on this post just make you look like a crazy person though. I’m happy to help you out, so feel free to ping me your problems in 140 characters @evilgreenmonkey. :o)
I’ve seen alot worse, a SEJ blogger comparing Google to the Gestapo and TLA selling SEO bloggers comparing Google to Al Qaeda. And let’s remember this post is just a rant.Still, its clumsy when mods chip in on a controversial story like this purely out of loyalty and rep management. Not only do the comments come off as biased from the get-go but they turn into an official Sphinn endorsement of a propaganda piece and you create the impression of mods "piling on." Then we go from a discussion about a rant to something else. Michelle made valid points in this thread and I understand people’s impulse to stand up for their friends or people they like, but the best thing to do here was to ignore Harith. And if Jill is already commenting, let her to all the talking and other mods stay the fuck out of the ring :) What kind of company lets all their "employees" run wild?Did Harith overreact? Probably. Does he care too much about Sphinn "community" that doesn’t even exist anymore? Absolutely. But unnecessary controversies like this - no matter how successful you are in making Hairth look like a "crazy person" -- isn’t going to help your business.Next time, let Eric fight his own fights - he’s fully capable of it - and keep Sphinn’s brand out of controversy.
@Harith I honestly believe that this is a mountain made out of a molehill that didnt exist with to begin with. Eric was sensentionalising - press do it everyday. Its a way to get noticed - and he did. Maybe as an analogy it wasnt the closest, but as an article its a great read and makes some good points. I am not a big fan of all of googles policies either - see my post Secret Societies Big Agendas (nowhere near as well written as Erics piece, but a similar sentiment) None of us work FOR google - it provides us all a means to make money, learn sure - but that doesnt mean that we are all diehard fans. The same way people use many Windows products dailly but hate Microsoft. Its possible to admire an entity, and not like it as well. Getting hung up on one persons view isnt the best use of time, nor is it fair making many statements you are prone to. When you say:Ethical SEOs & Ethical Marketers. Please leave Sphinn: First they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew......you offend many people. Me included. How can you define my code of ethics? Just because I may or may not follow Googles guidelines? Many blackhat techniques, including link buying ARE ethical - just not reccomended by google.
<div>I’d like to clarify a few things that may be obvious to most people, but has clearly been lost or gotten muddled somehow for others.</div><div></div><div></div><div>1) I was not seeking to prevent anyone from having people desphinn this topic. All day, every day, I see people both pimping for sphinns and trashing other sphinn articles on twitter and I don’t intervene one way or the other. But perhaps I could have been more clear in what I said both here and on twitter. I was asking Harith not to distort the issue *in seeking* the desphinns. Had he simply been pimping for desphinns, it would have gone unnoticed. I was honestly, appealing to reason. That’s not a mistake I’ll make again.</div><div></div><div></div><div>2) I’m not the author, co-author, puppeteer, man behind the curtain, or any of the many slurs that have been and continue to be hurled at me over the past number of days. I reviewed the article, gave Eric some comments, and then also gave a quote. I had an opinion on the matter, and gave it along with the others mentioned. How I became the focus of a campaign of slander, continues to baffle me. I stand by my comment in the article, and if you’re bored enough to follow along - ;) - you can review the exchange about it I had with Matt Cutts on twitter which further clarifies my opinion on the topic: http://search.twitter.com/search?q=mattcutts+mafia (click "show conversation" on the first link) . </div><div></div><div></div><div>3) I’ve never *ever* threatened a member of this community. Here or elsewhere. I take my responsibility as Sphinn admin seriously. I take freedom of speech even more seriously. I disagree with an awful lot of what gets tossed around, but would never deprive a person of having the opportunity to toss it out there. Just because I - legitimately, as a member of this community - chime in on a topic, does not mean I’m threatening anyone in the debate. Many of the mods here are active in discussions - rightfully so, as they are also very active in the search community as a whole. To imply that the mods should sit on the sidelines and only referee is, well, censorship.</div><div></div><div></div><div>4) The mod staff, myself included, are subject to the same TOS as all other members of the community. If anyone *ever* feels that I or anyone on the mod staff is overstepping the bounds or behaving capriciously, by all means, speak up and let us know. Danny would be the first person to put a leash on me, Rob or a mod if we were abusing this power in any way.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Finally, Harith’s account remains active. He has not violated any TOS, has not been accused of such, has not been threatened publicly or privately in any way for his engagement on this issue. His comments here remain active, unedited and live. You can view his still live account here: http://sphinn.com/user/view/profile/Harith If he chooses (or has chosen) to leave Sphinn as a result of this discussion, it is by his choice. I add this final point because I note some confusion about this on Twitter as well.</div><div></div><div></div>
"To imply that the mods should sit on the sidelines and only referee is, well, censorship."Whether you like it or not, mods are referees. When you chime in, you’re making an endorsement. You’re declaring a victor. Mods removing their mod hats whenever they feel like it can make Sphinn look bad. If this silly spat stayed between Eric and Harith, it would have made less of a mess. That’s not about censorship. It’s about business and knowing when to say when.@HarithYou’d better apologize to Michelle for accusing her of threatening you, which never happened.
What is very unique about conversations such as this one is the fact that Google is a corporation, not an international organization to serve anybody, anybody but themselves that is.Those who overly support Google should not, and those who expect some sort of super humanitarian effort on Google’s part to always do the right thing should not either.You cannot walk thru life making Google the end all be all, because Google is in this to benefit themselves.It is a corporation for crying out loud, and just because so many here depend on Google should not mean that you have to bow down at all times and not express what you think.Google has changed a lot from what I have seen in the past 10 years, and it started happening when the corporation went public.Idealism and a strong desire to improve were what made Google what it is today, but since Google went public, the business aspect too over priority.You can look at any large corporation and detect similarities to the mafia. Business is business. When someone starts attacking Google, it can be because people in the SEO business are starting to realize their own dependency on the search engine and feel humiliated by their own inability to create something similar on their own and instead are forced to pick up the crumbs which their success is dropping down.Regardless, I think that this post is really not worth having such a long discussion over.Harith seems to genuinely like Google and the employees and I do respect that.I on the other hand tend to be more hesitant, but there is no reason to be so dramatic and compare a corporation doing corporate things to an illegal organization which has learned to implement business tactics and enforcing them with ruthless manners in order to maintain their lawless authority within so many parts of our society.Mike Damman
@MichelleRobbins I apologize if I have expressed myself in any way which indicates you have threatened me. You haven’t.
"If men could only know each other, they would neither idolize nor hate."
HalfDeck I disagree on the part about the mods here and them not being able to contribute without their mod hats on. I commented on threads at sphinn long before I was a mod. and continue to do so in that regular member capacity. My opinions in this thread were exactly that, opinions of a Sphinn member. If I comment as a mod. I try to make that clear by saying so. Otherwise, you can assume I’m not.It doesn’t make sense to me that since I already commented here that Michelle shouldn’t. Of course she should if she wants to. 10 Mods could comment if they want and it shouldn’t affect anything else.
"It doesn’t make sense to me that since I already commented here that Michelle shouldn’t. Of course she should if she wants to."Yeah people *should* be able to say whatever they want whenever they want. It doesn’t mean saying whatever you feel like saying is always a smart thing to do. I should know.Should you and Michelle be able to comment without the mod hat on? Absolutely. I don’t even see you guys as mods. But sometimes you guys jumping into the ring all at once creates too much of a mess. Some people left Sphinn because of the excessive drama. But if drama is what you want, go nuts.Nothing either you or Michelle posted in this thread is abusive or out of line. But here’s the problem. When a guy goes ballistic on Sphinn and multiple mods jump on a thread, it usually escalates the problem because the guy feels like a cornered rat. The last time John Andrews decided to shoot up some fireworks here, same thing happened. All the mods threw in their me-too-2-cents and the discussion turned more and more belligerent.People also see mods voicing their support for a propaganda post as an official endorsement. When Spostareduro wrote a post making personal attacks on cre8pc, her submit was rightly deleted. Imagine if instead the post went hot and all the mods high-fived Spostareduro for making thought-provoking points even though it marred crep8pc’s reputation in the process.Yeah this post was a rant against a company, not an individual, and a mild rant at that. But to some people it’s still offensive. Let the sphinn members endorse it and keep the Sphinn brand out of the drama.Besides, what’s so special about this post that Michelle just had to comment? Before this thread, she commented here over 50 days ago. Her spat with Harith started on Twitter, not on Sphinn. So why even drag it over here unless she wanted to escalate her pillow fight with Harith? Anyway if I was Danny I would put a leash on all of you just for the hell of it :)
@HalfdeckAlthough if Danny put a leash on the mods, wouldn’t that validate the idea that our comments are an ’official endorsement’ on a post? As it stands, while we uphold the Sphinn rules, we’re free to put forward our own voices and contribute objectively to the discussion :)
Anyway if I was Danny I would put a leash on all of you just for the hell of it :)Well, that’s cuz you’re just kinky ;)
@Jill Yep we need to get UKgimp on Sphinn. Richard could be relied on to bring the ’S&M’ into SEM... :)
Amazing how much tempest can be created in one small teacup. I enjoyed Eric Lander’s article but felt no compulsion either to sphinn or desphinn. Note: if this had been submitted to WaterCooler I may have given it a sphinn.That said, I am continually surprised what so many find worthy of community attention; the community is either serially ignorant of industry basics or believes attaching their names to such continual repackaging is reputation enhancing. Amusing. Depressing.As is the glorification and demonification of Google. Google, as MikeDammann has said earlier, is a corporation and behaves, indeed must behave by law, in the best interest of it’s shareholders.Stop anthropamorphising a business entity. When someone, anyone, feels the need to go ’outside’, i.e. Twitter, to promote or demote a Sphinn submission they have failed - not in marketing, that depends on how well the effort succeeds - in the sense that it’s value becomes uncertain having been replaced by the value of the network. Lastly, to say that the Sphinn mods/admins should not comment as members would immediately remove the input of some of our industry’s most knowledgeable and capableindividuals. Such a prohibition would be, imo, simply stupid. Such a lot of individual squalls from one satirical article. Congratulations, to all.Is Sphinn in line for a TV reality series?
"to say that the Sphinn mods/admins should not comment as members would immediately remove the input of some of our industry’s most knowledgeable and capableindividuals."Nice little speech. Tell me when you’re done kissing ass.
@Halfdeck: <i>Nice little speech. Tell me when you’re done kissing ass.</i>Sorry. I never kiss ass in public. And never ever for business reasons. You’ve apparently confused me with someone else.That said - can you truthfully say that Danny Sullivan, Rob Kerry, Michelle Robbins, Brent Csutoras, Vanessa Fox, Michael Gray, Rebecca Kelley, Matt McGee, Jeff Quipp, Barry Schwartz, Mikkel DeMib Svensen, Tamar Weinberg, Nick Wilsdon, and Chris Winfield are NOT <i>some of our industry’s most knowledgeable and capable individuals</i>?Or that Sphinn would be a better place without their participation as members? <b></b>
"Sorry. I never kiss ass in public."You just did buddy.Read my comments again. You’re arguing against a point I never made. I didn’t say mods should never comment as members. Anyway I’ve said all I wanted to say. Have fun piling on more drama to this drama thread. "Such a lot of individual squalls from one satirical article. "Heh, you can say that again. #peaceout #lookatYourOwnEyeballsInTheMirror
Waste of bandwidth. Ericlander admits: "I must admit that drawing a comparison like this is a bit of a reach without conducting any research.".
i am desphinning this because i can. no other reason, just cause i feel like it.
I think that there is no need for posts like this one to reach more than a couple of disgruntled SEO people and leave the rest of us to deal with more important issues.