News Source: http://seobook.com
Published: Nov 15, 2007 - 11:33 am
Story Found By: NickWilsdon 1549 Days ago
Category: Sphinn Zone
I think they both handled this well. Matt’s blog is not the place for personal attacks but it would be good to see more transparency on issues which are concerning the webmaster and internet marketing community. Some of which Aaron raised in the comments on Matt’s blog.
As Aaron writes, Matt’s job is tough, especially with criticism of Google reaching new heights this year. I don’t envy his position in the firing line.
10 Comments
Comments
That’s a bizarre post (Matts original). It seems almost that Matt is taking Aarons G dings personally, why else would he personalise this in the way he did? Maybe it was a safeish attempt at hitting back on all the negative publicity they’ve had lately;albeit in our little pond :SMatt’s a likeable guy, Google are lucky to have him. A less respected figure would get a far less comfortable ride. If Matt had a lot of his work trashed, in his view unreasonably, then perhaps he’d be a little more attuned as to why people get fired up over this stuff.
I really hate to see anything like this turn personal. Aaron is doing what made him successful in the first place: he’s talking about the important SEO issues of the moment. Those lately have focused quite a bit on Google’s anti-spam actions.It’s testament to Aaron’s clout that Matt should dedicate a blog post to him and the digs he’s been taking at G’s recent actions. There are plenty of bloggers saying angrier things about Google out there, but because of Aaron’s position he hurts them the most. However, I can’t imagine it would be in G’s best interest to go after Aaron. He’s pretty well-liked. It would be counterproductive if their goal is to turn down some of the negative attention they’ve been getting.
Well, Google deserves the criticism for non-transparency (and for not splitting a now $700/share stock, as I wrote on my personal blog). But Matt does not deserve criticism, even if he doesn’t answer all questions - just the ones with easy answers. Even though I don’t agree with Matt most of the time, even though i don’t know him, he seems to be a really nice guy. That counts for a lot.
Talk about damage control... That’s 1:0 for Aaron, and I can only cordially congratulate him on that.Whether it will stay this way remains to be seen. Seeing Google’s historic performance record in terms of nipping even the last remnants of webmasters’ goodwill right in the bud by rolling out a slew of different (often: conflicting) policies and statements, an SEO guy may be pardoned for remaining skeptical.After all: The good guy Matt Cutts may exert himself dancing the social engineering tune as lightfootedly as he will - all of that can (and very probably will) all implode in a whiffy, following a single press conference statement by Eric Schmidt, that prime PR effort killer incarnate...
I was afraid this might spiral out of control, but Aaron handled it like a true gent.
His recent marriage has mellowed Aaron.... we may have to see a sumo event at the next Google Dance.
I think I would rather be in M.Cutts position though. He is lucky enough to be calling the shots rather than being in an SEO’s shoes who has to change to there every move and deal with all of the panic’d clients. The SEO will lose clients/money, M.Cutts does get rained with questions from the industry, but it’s not like they’re really losing anything.Stock price down a hundred bucks this month? phew! what’s .5 billion? :|
I’m with Rob - that post by Matt was a little unprofessional and defensive. I’m guessing the "secret agenda" he’s referring to is probably nothing more than what Aaron’s already publicly acknowledged in his blog - a site that was banned in Google for breaking the rules many moons ago. Big deal.
For the 1000+ voters that took their time to read and vote on Matt’s site...gotcha! You’ve been played, suckas!
Yep. Matt’s own version of baiting? Not linkbait its for like AaronCallMe-bait. Guess it worked.