Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 49
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: January 21, 2008 - 5:15 pm
Posted By: dannysullivan 530 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.johnon.com)
Category: Sphinn Zone
22 Comments
Went Hot: January 21, 2008 - 5:15 pm
Posted By: dannysullivan 530 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.johnon.com)
Category: Sphinn Zone
22 Comments
Sphinn Sponsors
Be a Sphinn Sponsor - Click HereTop 10 Most Sphunn
In What's New
- It’s All About Local Organic Domina... (18)
- Free PDF SEO Guide Ebook by Hobo-We... (16)
- Where the European SEO industry rea... (14)
- Real time search engines; the hype ... (12)
- Mark Prints for Self on Other’s Blo... (11)
- Landing Pages On A SMB Budget (8)
- Bing says relative URLs pass less l... (8)
- Should I Advertise on Bing? (6)
- FAKE GUCCI GUNS!!! a lighthearted l... (5)
- The 3 SEO/SEM Conference Personas (5)
Latest Comments
- Found this site from a making extra money free info search..glad that I fou…
- Very Nice Read!…
- It has less results than Google and more trash. Bing is not my thing. M$ ne…
- Sorry to disappoint you, but it is not about minimizing barriers. It is …
- I am glad you have been saying this too :). Dont grumble :), just stick to …
- I remember something about eating the forbidden fruit of commercialism or s…
- I've always been saying this, but noooooooooooooo, *someone* always tells m…
- :) Thanks for the post. I'll be reading this for a while.…
- - read more -
Save the date for:
• SMX Singapore - July 2-3, 2009
• SMX São Paulo - August 4-5
• SMX East - October 5-7, 2009
• SMX Stockholm - 12-13 October, 2009
• SMX Mexico - November 11, 2009
Learn more about search marketing through free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site Search Marketing Now.
Upcoming Webcasts:
- How Large Offline Marketers Drive Superior Search Marketing Results - July 21, 2009
- Trademarks, Brand Terms and PPC Advertising: Updates You Must Know - July 22, 2009
- Attribution Management Buyers Guide - July 28, 2009
Comments
I must say that it's an interesting, thought-provoking parallel that John's presenting comparing Sphinn to Google.
It's really tough to disagree with him comparing Sphinning to Linking and as a result comparing buying/selling Sphinns to buying/selling Links. It really is not a huge stretch and the fact that Sphinn uses Human Moderation doesn't do anything to breakdown this comparsion.
I have to say I'm left a little confused as to where I stand anymore. I agree with buying/selling links. I don't agree with buying/selling Sphinns. However, I can't help but stare at those two sentences and realize just how hypocritical they look beside each other. I'm not too afraid to say it...
I don't know what the right answer is anymore.
I think we can do better than Google has done with nofollow and site/link penalties. I don't think Google's solution supports the community, only Google. I think the Search Marketing community can do a better job of solving the problem. I think Sphinn is a place that can serve that purpose, by fostering intelligent discussion.
My own view on Google and paid links is what I've said in the past -- they should reward links based on whether a link seems relevant, not try to prefilter it based on whether it is paid or not.
In practice, I suppose things like:
- Is the link from an authority site they trust? Then maybe trust the site will have some best interests in the web in mind
- Is the link sitewide and also appearing the same way across the web, especially with time elements that make it clear it was likely purchased. They already detect this stuff -- just get on without requiring the web to be a self-attributing police force.
I've wanted to make time to do my "The Web As Seen Through Nofollow" post and show how much of the web is now being blocked in some cases through the widespread use of nofollow. Really, I need that much on my FeedBurner log-in screen or all over Technorati or Delicious?I don't know if it can be applied as easily to Sphinn. I guess my view is that we wouldn't want Sphinns to happen period without them being deserved. That means we don't want them bought, sold, bartered or exchanged for favors.
To enforce that, we rely on two things: the community and the moderators. If the community sees something out of whack, the future Desphinn might help (or not -- it's to be tested) or they'll call moderators to take a closer look.
And that's where the work of the moderators indeed is work -- they'll have to look at the site in question and decide if it seems odd. We get reports of gaming, and you can sometimes tell that maybe gaming got something down the line but it might have gone that way anyway, been popular.
Well I'll just lay the parallels out there starting with one large assumption that not everyone may agree with.
If we consider a Sphinn = a Link.
John's post for 300 sphinns = a massive, uneditted reciprocal link exchange.
It mirrors in many ways the path a directory will take to grow in it's infant stages. In general since the whole idea behind such a page is to promote the very same people who help promote it, it ends up being a pretty fair exchange and a valuable piece of information. The issue is that all pages/posts/etc beyond the first (unless they can add some considerable, unique value) result in being pretty spammy giving the end-user an often incomplete, bias look at a particular market.
1. Voluntarily Sphinning = "Honest" Linking
2. Requesting for Sphinns = Requesting for Links
3. Selling Sphinns = Selling Links / Ad Space
4. Buying Sphinns = Buying Links / Ad Space
Obviously #1 is our perfect world. The evoluation of it all is that as the product/service improves and gains popularity there becomes a massive increase in requesting for sphinns/links. This is where the whole Buying/Selling paradigm emerges. Once Sphinn as a product is offering considerably value that a dollar amount can be attached to a Sphinn, then Buying/Selling of Sphinns will start.
How does Sphinn combat this?
Well first consider that maybe it shouldn't try to fight it. The goal isn't to try to stop Paying for Sphinns. It's to maintain high quality information and that the number beside that reflects the community's value of the submission. Regardless, there are 3 big factors I can see for "combating" and of course, they all fall on the moderation side.
1. Report as Spam
2. Human Moderation staff
3. Upcoming DeSphinning
#3 has been widely debated here at Sphinn, but maybe that's just the very thing that can help evolve this community. Giving the people the ability to moderate by DeSphinning posts that are of lesser quality could really take the load of the massive task of #2. (and point #1 really is just there to do this very thing as well) The fact that some high quality topics go hot quicker as a result of paying for Sphinns shouldn't really matter because the goal is high quality topics.
I think Paying for Faster Promotion is okay.
The issues is if DeSphinn either:
1. Can't "hold down" low quality topics that have been payed up.
2. High Quality topics end up DeSphunn as a result of a bias of a few people rather than the bias of the majority.
So after laying this all out there, I'm left with a good feeling about Sphinn in short term. I know that they've put a lot of thought into the DeSphinn button and how it's going to work. I think they have taken steps in the right direction to keep this place "clean". In the long-term though I'm starting to wonder at the usefulness of DeSphinning just b/c I don't know if it could work for Google if applied to Links.
Overall, I guess I'm back to where I started. Waiting for the DeSphinn button and anxious to see what impact it has on Sphinn.
This thread definitely hasn't evolved how I expected. I have to say that I didn't expect for my opinion on this issue to lead to a promotion for the DeSphinn button.
Well regardless, I put my thought process out there. Hoping some others will too.
@gamermk I think you're off to a great start, but I feel we need to focus on the value aspect. Sphinn's have value, even if small. The currency is attention, which is valued in dollars in marketing. We might "use" Sphinn to gather attention, which is then monetized. Using it has a fixed cost...a consulting cost for example, and there is risk of no payoff as well (risk has to be managed - usually by rewarding it with higher returns). The economic model (any economists out there?) would take all that into consideration, but I don't see any doubt that the Sphinn action has a value much like a lead has a value.
If we assume the action of Sphinning a post has monetary value, how could it not be traded? The argument that "there is no honest Sphinning" could be approached in light of issue framing and market shaping... I tend to Sphinn Todd Mintz posts partly because Todd has done a great job impressing me as a diplomat. Sphinning him is, perhaps subconsciously, rewarding unselfish diplomatic behavior. I err on the side of "give a Sphinn". Similarly some individuals resist their impulse to Sphinn my stuff... maybe as a form of risk management...maybe not. But you cannot deny that our brands influence people's Sphinn actions, which are monetized via the attention they funnel. Therefore Sphinning, like voting, is not truly an "honest" act but one influenced by the market for information. Once we recognize it is subject to influencing, someone will pay to influence it (Social Media Marketing). Why resist that? We marketers make a living off that market for information... how can we deny it exists?
What is it "worth" to sit atop the Greatest Hits page on Sphinn? Silly question... put it up for auction and you'll find out.
I'm afraid DeSphinning is nothing but a "necessary illusion".. a tool that appears to be democratic but is actually a tool of quiet community management (not self-management). Craig's List Flagging is a wonderful tool of control, which is heralded as "democratic" yet wielded almost effortlessly for commercial gain. This would be true of de-Sphinning UNLESS there is a market for trading/buying/bartering DESPHINNS. Then a deSphinn has a value just as a Sphinn has a value, and the market is free to determine relative values based on performance (the management of the flow of attention).
Not simple stuff, but is it really too hard to think about it? I think the "lazy solution" is just to say "here's how it will be" based on some assumptions that moderators are unbiased, moderator time is basicaly free, most Sphinn/deSphinns are "honest", and that the people will grant authority to the community's controllers based on an acceptance of those assumptions. That didn't work for links, and I think the outcome of "waitng to see what happens" is irresponsible - I think we have enough experience with community moderation and Google's link market to do better than that.
*** I think the issue of 'hey Sphinn and get a link' is far more serious -- exactly like Rob says, we don't want Sphinns being bartered, incentivized or sold and reserve the right to remove stories if we feel they've gone popular through this. ***
I would still like to see the "I'll Sphinn yours, if you Sphinn mine" issue addressed, as the rot starts right there. That, and Sphinns for Links, is the exsct same issue, just in different degrees. They are both bad for users and for the site.
@Danny you have my vote for a noise cleanup above as you see fit so the conversation can focus. I'm offline for a few hours at least.
"Therefore Sphinning, like voting, is not truly an "honest" act but one influenced by the market for information."
As with everything else in life, really.
I agree with what (I think) you're saying in your last paragraph John; that the fundamental flaw in both deSphinning and Google's link market remains the inescapable point of human nature. However, all that seems to be coming up here is statements of "this isn't going to work"; but in all these threads (please note, not saying just in this one), I'm yet to see alternatives.
I don't have any, but I would hope that somewhere along the line someone smarter than me will supply some, along with their criticisms.
Done, John -- and better for it. Sorry for not picking up on the main point, at first, but we got there in the end.
I've been a big fan of John Andrews for a long time, but quite frankly, this post (the original one Danny linked to) is insulting to me and anyone else who frequents and loves Sphinn without abusing it or using it for our own purposes.
And you know what? It takes a whole lot for me to be insulted, so that's saying something.
No, John, everyone here doesn't ask their friends to Sphinn up their posts. Surely I can't be the only one who doesn't do that. (Ok, to be honest, I once asked Jesse in my office to Sphinn one...so guilty as charged.)
There are many of us who see Sphinn as a community. We enjoy each other's company and like to hear about some of the latest news in the search marketing industry.
John, your participation here has not been very visible, at least not during the time that I've been participating, unless I'm somehow just not crossing your path. I think you have a lot of chutzpah to make such generalizations about the Sphinn community.
It's true, that your chutzpah is what I've generally liked about your posts in the past, but this time I think your're simply incorrect and I'd even go as far as to say that you owe the Sphinn community an apology for casting them in the light that you did.
Yeah there are some spammers and scammers here. That's why the Sphinn admins and mods are working to give us the appropriate tools to fight it. They're constantly trying to improve it, which takes a lot of time and energy. My fear for Sphinn at the start was that it was going to be a huge repository for spam, but thankfully I was proven wrong.
Not allowing sphinns to be cast in exchange for links is a good thing. Not allowing the twittering of sphinn requests would also be a good thing, but the mods can't police every other community that exists to make sure it doesn't happen.
I think John's post just was meant to frame an issue and kick off the discussion we see here. I think it would be a mistake to read anything else into it.
Top SEO's see tears in the fabric of search algorithms and exploit them for the benefit of themselves & their clients. John saw some tears in "conventional logic" that he deemed to be hypocritical...that's why he wrote the post.
Jill, he's not insulting anyone or anything...he's just insulting the hypocrisy that he is seeing.
I had assumed that 'reputation' would fix all - I don't want to be known as some ho who will spin anything for a link.
Yes, I am more likely to look at something if 'you' ask me to, but if 'you' submit poor quality linkbait, I'm not going to sphinn it - it would be embarrassing in front of my peers when they look at who sphunn it!
Ignoring the use of sockpuppets, it should be self correcting.
Like leadegroot, I have always thought that reputation would be a big part of what gets sphunn...just like what gets a link. I wouldn't sphinn or link to anything I'd feel ashamed of admitting to my peers. However, this won't "fix all" because not everyone values their reputation in the community as much as others.
If you've got the most power/friends/money, then you've likely got something worthy to share. I say every man for himself...do what works for you and the best content will generally rise to the top.
I'd even go as far as to say that you owe the Sphinn community an apology for casting them in the light that you did.
You're completely missing the point. It has very little to do with Sphin beyond the familiarity of a specific market with the target. It is not about sphinn at all. It is about marketing and if you are offended by it you are losing out on the EXTREME value of one of the most insightful posts I've ever seen. As a marketer, you shouldn't be offended, you should embrace the concept.
1. Voluntarily Sphinning = "Honest" Linking
THIS has always been the thing I most wished I knew how to change. there seems to be this very strange perception that paying for what you want is somehow less honest than just hoping it happens. There is nothing dishonest with paying for what you want that you don't own or control. In fact it could be argued that in many ways it is far MORE honest.
You may think that Google does not understand that concept because of their war on paid links, but I believe what John is trying to point out is that they DO understand it far better than most of the people calling themselves seartch marketers.
@Danny that was a lot of work but I agree it was worthwhile; moreso if we go farther.
@Jill I will apologize to you since you expressed that you felt insulted by my words. I won't debate whether or not people trade influence via Sphinning... just as I won't discuss whether people are basically good or basically evil. I'd like to stay on topic.
@Lea @SisterSledge I am of the same feeling... I have confidence in Sphinn I don't have in Google. I don't think we need intervention... but if Sphinn's mods decide to intervene (as they did on this Greatest Hits post) I smell trouble ahead. I would rather see Sphinn (the community) figure this out than see Sphinn (the mods) try and regulate what is really just people doing business. Google's mishandling of link buying is not an example of how to do it right, just a good example of how to secure a fortune in the face of disorganized pioneering.
One more clarification: for me, the hypocrisy was marketers whining about how Google is managing paid links, when the marketers themselves are choosing to play blind to the paid links as business model problem (with an example being the Don't Trade Sphinns Because It's Not Honest thing) rather than addressing it and figuring out how this BUSINESS can manage the BUSINESS of traded links/sphinns/votes/marketing. WE are doing the trading; WE should be able to figure out a solution to Google's problem rather than complain about Google taking action in its own best interest.
I still say the marketing community has what it takes to solve the paid links problem as well as the paid Sphinns problem. I know that if they wanted to, they could tell Google what has to be done. Am I overestimating the potential?
Its the size of the community that is the difference - Digg is huge, Digg gets spammed. Google SERPs are huge, and get spammed.But if someone puts effort into spamming here - it will be obvious, and everyone will look down on that person. The community here can't be huge - I can't see a memberlist to get an idea of the size but surely it isn't more than 100s, and 80% of those probably aren't active.While a link out from these pages is a link, what is the cost if everyone in the industry thinks you are an idiot?
[quote]I've been a big fan of John Andrews for a long time, but quite frankly, this post (the original one Danny linked to) is insulting to me and anyone else who frequents and loves Sphinn without abusing it or using it for our own purposes. [/quote]
It's not insulting to me in the least and I'm in that category. It's critical, not insulting. The mods (I'm assuming you're one) should be taking this constructively instead, well, you've publicly posted your sentiments.
Have a look at the number of sphinns to this and the other post. Seems to be a truckload of folks that think his opinion on this is worthy enough to sphinn it.
Jill isn't a moderator. And yes, the moderation staff does take things constructively. That also goes back to John's comment above:
The overall guideline for the Sphinn community is what I posted early on: The Basic Common Sense Law: Sphinn's Terms, Conditions, Guidelines & All That Stuff.
In short, it says that we don't have to have a guidelines for each and every thing for the moderators to act in a way that they feel is best for the community. It's similar to the basic speed law I grew up with in California, which says even if you didn't violate a posted speed limit, if you're driving faster than the police feel is safe, you can get a ticket.
If we see something that we think goes against common sense (common meaning that we're pretty sure the community would back us up), we might take action. I don't see any trouble at all with that.
In particular, I don't see trouble because we well know that anything we do can and will end up being discussed on Sphinn itself. The community serves as a sort of higher court to judge if what we've done makes sense or not. If not, I have no doubt the community will either force a change or abandon the site.
To bring that back to Google, I've long written written that in the case of spam, I've disliked rules that say "don't cloak" or "don't use invisible text" because they focus on the technique, rather than the intention. Same thing with paid links. None of these things on their own are necessarily harmful to search quality. It's just that they are often heavily associated with attempts to (in Google's opinion), harm search quality.
I've prefer a much more open-ended set of rules. These are things we see that are often associated with attempts to go against what we consider acceptable. Do them, and we might decide to ban or take action against you. But we might not, if we don't feel ourselves they are that harmful.
So a paid link? Who cares if, like in the case of Yahoo, it's backed up by someone providing some editorial oversight?
I guess the key difference in that approach with what Google might do versus Sphinn is the lack of accountability. If we take action on a member or a story, as I said, I know we're going to be accountable here (even if we banned someone, you can bet they'll know someone else who could raise the issue).
With Google, penalties aren't always disclosed and even when they are, they don't impact the entire Google community. They are restricted to the webmaster/SEO community. The larger group of searchers don't know or don't care.
So hey -- maybe Google needs to consider allowing some outsiders to take appeals. Seriously, one long time suggestion is that it needs an ombudsman, someone who works for the company but is charged with poking at it.
Step back! The California speed law? "even if you didn't violate a posted speed limit, if you're driving faster than the police feel is safe, you can get a ticket." Are you serious! Is that still the law?
Yes, it is:
It's a good law. It makes you as a driver be more responsible, I feel. You don't think darn, I can't see a think with all this hail and rain, but I'll still drive 65 because that's the speed limit. Or if you still do that and are clearly unsafe, there's a legal action that can be taken against you.
In terms of social sites, I liked the concept as I posted in my common sense guidelines that we aren't going to try and itemize every single thing that might be a rules violation. I think common sense can go a long way to giving the flexibility and due consideration that black and white rules sometimes don't allow.
@dannysullivan - I think that makes excellent sense. I've always felt I'd be comfortable with a benevolent dictator who used common sense. Unfortunately that isn't always the Google model.