Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 23
- Sphinn It!
Stand Out From The Crowd: Say Something New
Went Hot: August 21, 2007 - 5:10 pm
Posted By: tonycohn 383 days ago
Topic Type: Discussion
Category: SEO
We all know about how to do SEO on social networking sites. We all know how keywords work. We certainly all know link building 101. Even if you dress an article up and call it "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Links," it doesnt make the article any more useful.
Stop groupspeak SEO and bring back some knowledge to Sphinn!
Say something new people.
22 Comments
Comments
And if I could add that I think we've all had enough of the "link bait" titles. Top 10 this, 5 ways to do that, 101 of these...it's bordering on embarrasing.
I'm all for sharing news and ideas but lets save the link bait stuff for another audience.
Yeah - it's getting to be a bit like a spammers' forum where people haven't yet grasped that they'd better spam some other audience, not their compeers.
How about "10 Things not to Post on Sphinn"? :)
Since moderation is minimal here, I guess it's up to us all to work a little harder. Make sure you don't Sphinn something that doesn't deserve it. So like a Google PageRank 0, a single Sphinn merely means its here but leaves open whether there is any value.
More importantly try to check a few on each visit that take your fancy. If they are worthy, make sure you Sphinn them and also add a comment. That way the cream will float to the top. :)
"How about "10 Things not to Post on Sphinn"? :) "
I love it and hate it all at the same time:-)
I sorted the what's new list by votes and here are the the "lists" that are on page 1 now:
Ten Commandments of Social Media Marketing
25 Things I Love About Search Conferences
21 Totally Free Web Analytics Learning Resources
11 Tips for the Perfect Online Press Release
2 Great Ways to Check Your Blog Health
101 Ways to Make A Lot of Money Using DigitalPoint - #1
1000+ Already Brainstormed Tweaks and Ideas
10 Things You Can Blog About On The Weekends
5 Reasons To Use a Folder Name URL Structure
Now some are very good but the titles are real turn off.
I think the membership is deciding quite well what is good and what isn't through voting...I have yet to see any very banal content gain enough votes to "go hot".
Participation should be encouraged, not discouraged and part of the learning process is submitting something that gets ignored...the person can either strive for better or go back to lurking.
Ease up on the newbies...you were one once:.)
About this comment above: "if you dont have anything new to say, dont say it."...I see. So unless its new, it does not have value? Though I do appreciate the exhortation to do some original thinking, which is a valid point, to imply that only new things be spoken here pretty much rules out all of the seo-related info that isn't "new". Which pretty much invalidates all of the things that veteran posters have posted in the past, have taught in the past and have learned in the past.
Of course this is ludicrous. There is much value to old, proven things. There is also value to fresher material. But because something is newer does not inherently make it better. To suggest that people speak new or don't speak is... probably going too far. How about this...if you don't like it, don't read it. And don't spin it. But just because something might be unimportant to one person does not necessarily mean that another did not find it useful.
But I do offer a solution that might be a compromise between the veteran camp and the n@@bies...How about, instead of there being two post-reading tabs, like the 'What's Hot' and the 'What's New' Categories, that a third one be added.
That third category can be more of an exclusive zone where those who, say, have had 5 posts go hot, will have all their new posts land. Kind of a Major League What's New and a Minor League What's New.
Those who do not desire to sift through the n@@bies posts (Minor League What's New), can go directly to the Major League What's New and find advanced articles with nothing but fresh, recently-discovered emerald gems of pristine seo-truth. And where the above author can share all of his deepest seo tricks, tips and tactics (provided they're new, of course.)
@todd: I don't think voting patterns here are way off the mark - but they're not real problem. Rather, it's all the noise in lieu of signal that's putting me off (and, it seems, at least a few others as well). Scrolling endlessly through lists of stuff that's quite obviously only being posted for the links and the attention (and maybe some traffic) is getting to become a real drag.
So that's what "popularity contests" are generally about, ok, but the quality level of submission could do with a hellavu lot of pruning. "Ease up on the newbies" is all very well - but that shouldn't be construed as a free-for-all for any old crap, either. Nor do I see this as a sandbox for budding SEO hacks, for goodness's sake!
@CattMutts: Yes, that adjective "new" struck me too, and in very much the same manner as you. Would have preferred "original" or "enlightening" or similar myself.
Still, "don't read it, don't sphinn" won't quite cut the mustard for the simple reason that this stuff's simply THERE, claiming screen real estate and diverting your (ok: my) attention, wasting time better spent on other tasks.
As for your suggestion - full support there, heartily endorsed, including your tongue-in-cheek presentation! (See? I actually READ this stuff -- LOL.)
The "Major League" could easily be determined by number of hot postings or, preferably IMV, by percentage - class, rather than mass.
For the most part, I think good stuff is making it to the home page, providing plenty of signal there.
What's New is way noisier. We still expect to do things there such as let you filter What's New by items that your friends are sphinning. I continue to suggest also using the sort by Most Sphinns So Far link as an option to filter noise in What's New, too. It might be that we could perhaps split the page so that the first few items are those with most Sphinns, then new stuff could show up below there.
By the way, there's plenty of moderation here -- but in a site where the nature is to let people vote for what they like, it's not something where I think you want the moderators to be yanking content just because they think it might not be that compelling. That's what the Sphinning is supposed to do.
I agree that the Home page stuff is generally much better than average, so yes, the voting process works fine.
What's annoying with the "What's New" page is that it's the main place to actually find, well - new stuff. Once I've parsed the home page posting (that may actually stay there for days on end - something I'm essentially fine with, too), I'll obviously want to see what's new.
Viewing the home page only (or first) may be ok for the casual visitor but for the more active people here everything works exactly the other way round: Hit the What's New section first an sphinn stuff - so when I've spun it and it finally makes it to the home page, it's basically an old hat to me (excepting the comments).
Don't you think that splitting the page, as you're mulling, might create some problems further down the road when you actually have plenty of quality people competing for that real estate? (Ok, so you could randomize initial placements, perhaps.)
Personally, I still find CattMuts's suggestion more appealing - as long as it doesn't established a closed shop kind of Old Boys Network, i.e. allowing people to actually join the crowd via qualification, it'll help save tons of parsing time.
fantom: Good input (as usual). Maybe your informal classifications might well be good names for different groupings of posters, and, thus, posts: Class as one grouping. Mass as the other.
Also, your idea of advancing by maintaining percentages, that is having x percentage of your posts get hot to belong to the upper crust, would likely work as a motivator for people to write less frivolous material. Which would accomplish what the original poster of this thread desires.
Nonetheless, there remains great value to the What's New as you described and I understand that the site owners must evaluate carefully before deciding best how (and if) to proceed. It is nice, however, to see that someone can air a valid opinion, such as expressed by the originator, and that constructive discussion can follow. For that reason, I will reluctantly have to give this one a sphinn.
Why can't I vote a crap submission down? Self-sphinning is bound to happen; SEO bloggers who are less visible than others (and in some cases justifiably so due to lack of compelling content) are more likely to Sphinn every post they publish not only for the extra eyeballs but for the link juice.
I'd also like additional categories like "News", "SEO 101", "Advanced Tactics", etc so I can filter out submissions like "Dave Secretly Shot This Video of SES San Jose" which is funny and all but watching it isn't going to exactly help you grow your business.
Aw, comon now. Just because something posted is already known to you, means it is useless? Well we might as well ax all the information already posted on the Internet, cause someone in the world already knows it, right? Flawed reasoning.
That's what makes Sphinn soo awesome. The "cutting edge" stuff floats right to the top, the old info sinks to the bottom, but what remains is an exhaustive encyclopedia of information for all. The concept is ingenious, IMO. So leave my Sphinn alone, k?
Point is - if all that pseudo-exciting, pseudo-useful regurgitated stuff should prevail without the chaff being separate from the wheat (which, admittedly, may mean many different things to different people), come another month or two and all you'll be left with is the third rate crap you're defending, degrading the entire venture.
Because the quality posters will take their stuff elsewhere in a whiffy - just like they did with Threadwatch when it was launched. Natural selection.
And guess what: Some people are simply too busy to waste their time on what is, after all, unpaid work if they consistently see it's getting drowned in what Google would probably term "bad neighborhood".
As it is, it's an open secret that the lion's share truly good, effective stuff (both black hat and white) isn't being discussed in public environments anymore but in private by-invitation-only forums etc. Not that I mind...
Why does this thread remind me of a bunch of Roman Senators sniffing the air and saying, "Yes, the mob do smell something awful".
The new page on Sphinn is like a big bowl of beef stew, you stick your spoon into the steaming mess and sometimes you get a big chunk of meat, sometimes you get a carrot and sometimes you just get the liquid.
A site likes this exists for everyone in the space, not just the learned (fantomaster I doff my cap in your presence), so of course the new story page is going to be a wide selection from the people who work in the industry.
"Stop groupspeak SEO and bring back some knowledge to Sphinn!"
As far as I am aware, Sphinn is all about groupspeak.
Are you saying that you have learned nothing from the amazing stuff already getttin to the front page?
I've stated twice in this thread that the stuff that gets to the front page is overall pretty good, and I don't have a problem with that.
(Ok, so personally I prefer a format which gives me some headlines and maybe a short teaser, but then leaves me the choice of checking out the source or not - rather than burdening people with all kinds of behavioral gimmicks such as "voting" or "sinking", and extending the capitalist rat race even to what are, after all, merely derivative aggregator sites. I do like the comments and discussions such as this one, but frankly I prefer to do that in forums rather than this kind of marketplace atmosphere. However, that's not really the point here.)
Like it or not, or even try shooting the messenger if you will - I've seen a few online communities rise and fall in my time, and the actual mechanics involved are generally the same: If you insist on an egalitarian format, what you'll get in the end is the quality people heading off in droves, period.
One example: On a private forum (don't ask me where...) that was recently opened, there's a policy thread titled "How do we keep the riff raff out and if we aren't the riff raff-- who is?"
Arrogant? Callous? Maybe so. But it does reflect a general attitude that's evolving at an unprecedented rate, as far as I can see. The Web is very conducive to accelerating such trends, you know - doesn't take a lot of resources, money of tech savvy to slap up a *really* private site and screw the rest...
As for groupspeak: Of course it is! And: It's what it's really all about. As well it should be, IMV. I mean, what else can you realistically expect on a topical, industry specific site? People will chat and chatter, will tattletale and will get into dogfights, they'll conspire and spread rumors - all of which is actually an indication of a maturing (if not yet quite matured) industry. And again: like it or not. You ever found the verb "to sphinn" in Webster's before? If so, please send me a link and I'll gladly stand corrected. So much for groupspeak. :-)
But seriously waste premium time reading the umpteenth mediocre attempt at (re-)defining SEO? Terrific, incredibly exciting meta tag strategies? How to update your content, and why you should? How to "stay ethical" so Google will pat you benignly on the back of your head for the good boy you're trying to be (and trash your rankings anyway, heh)? Still waiting for another salvo of "content is king, content is KING, CONTENT IS KING, you know!" - can't breathe properly anymore in trembling anticipation, and don't we all...
(Jeez - a minute or so ago someone's actually posted a piece about the difference between brown and white rice, duh. Another one was in Japanese, pimping a YouTube video. - Find the screenshot on my blog soon: You read it here first, LOL.
See what this place is coming to? And: I certainly don't envy the moderators, no siree! Because that's just the tip of an ever growing iceberg. Guess how hard it'll be to make this stuff rise to the front page? Fully automated?)
And don't get me wrong: Yes, all of us started out as newbies, and I'm certainly no exception. This isn't at all about looking down the nose at newcomers who are still learning the ropes. (Check out the forums where I do participate, and you'll probably find that I'm more than willing to help out newbies as best I can within the limits of my extremely tight time schedule.)
But heck, there's gazillions of sites catering to all that already, ebooks, videos, forums, blogs, some if not all of them doing a marvelous job, too.
So what's the point in setting up yet another noisome marketplace with a soapbox for millions of PageRank puppets to stand on, screaming at the world, vying for attention (read: links) no matter how or deploying whichever cheap clueless gimmick? And hell, guess who'll win that game in the end if they ever really set their minds - and their resources - to it?
No, it's not quite that bad yet - but give it another 2 weeks or so, that's what it'll have been reduced to unless this very debate we're having here (and maybe others that might follow) actually has some effect.
So yes, the mob doth indeed smell something awful - which isn't really the mob's fault, actually: Unless you teach, show, demonstrate and plausibilize some better approach, how are they supposed to improve, to learn, to evolve?
Maybe a bit of listening rather than screaming out loud might be in order, some serious reading and studying rather than churning out whatever mindless drivel comes to mind in the hope of gaining a few paltry links links links.
Ok, so it's a culture thing, a mere reflection of what's going on in meat space all the time anyway, sure. I'm not nursing any fond delusions that I'll change any of that. Or that we will. Or even that we should if we could. 'nuff said, I guess, at least as far as I'm concerned.
Excellent comment Fantomaster.
But let me propose something here. We don't know what Sphinn is for yet. Sure, the creators have an idea. But it will be the mob who decides which direction it will go in.
When I write a headline it's the readers ( I'll stop using the mob analogy before I'm strung up by the yard arm ) who decide what works and what doesn't. I merely present them with a choice.
All websites provide choices, a site such as this allows the reader to throw a stone in the pond, the ripples touching everything. Each vote builds the site into something. What that site is, I don't know yet.
It is upto those more experienced and knowledgable to persuade, tease, cajole, entreat the less experienced to throw their stones where it will build the most value for the site.
Sphinn needs its Senators, and it needs the mob, just like Rome did. It also needs a few gladiators to entertain the mob. OK I'll stop with the Rome metaphor before I point out who Caeser is.
More listening and less screaming? Absolutely. A whisper can be a lot more powerful than a scream in any case.
Unless weighted voting is introduced - I see a possibility - the readership will own Sphinn, just like the readership of Digg owns Digg.
I think Sphinn is a fascinating place as it is colliding various sections of the industry and not everyone wants to talk about the same thing.
But I will keep writing magnetic headlines for stories I think should be on the front page. If we think for a moment and ask, "should this really be on the front page?" It would cut down the noise tremendously.
But people are self serving, and my only hope is those who submit crap get no votes.
Again, excellent discussion.
Great comment Lyndon.
I like to read everything. Including classic literature, even though it is "old." And by reading "the classics" and even seeing many of them interpreted through the modern medium of film, I believe that I have learned tremendously from these "old ideas."
Therefore, I to will keep writing magnetic headlines for stories I think should be on the front page, but also look back over my shoulder towards those and the ideas and standards that came before me. Then, I will ask myself, "should this really be on the front page?"
"From now on, if you dont have anything new to say, dont say it. "
I can't help but notice that your Discussion is not really saying anything new either :)
I think the problem here is that we have, at a minimum, two groupss of people: relative newbies who are posting real basics and possibly trying to make some noise in the sphere, and experienced SEOs who will just about shriek with monotony/boredom if they hear the basics yet one more time and will thus find less value here.
The problem with this is obvious. It's obvious that the newer folks are interested in what they're interested in, and the rest are not — but, while I'd kind of hate to divide posts into "bottom line basics" and "advanced stuff", I'm not sure what other solution may exist. It would be a shame to see more advanced and broader topics disappear.
One of the benefits of Threadwatch was that it was about news and current happenings, but almost never discussed the details of performing SEO (let alone the basics), and so it was of interest to old hands. I miss it.
I'm not sure how Danny and crew will solve this one, or if they want to solve it, but I hope they do.
I'm with ya on that Diane.
Anybody bored enough to throw in a greasemonkey script removing numbers in story titles?
I'm pretty sure that sphinn is for Search Marketers and not advanced Search Marketers. Although, I agree the top 10 lists and how to link 101 are a bit annoying, I just ignore them and scroll away to what's relevant for me. To moderate in such a way would make it cliquish and not useful for the less experienced (the mass you want to reach).
I for one, do not idolize anyone in this community, Bruce Clays' articles are no different to me than any of yours. If Sphinn started to moderate what they felt was relevant, they should just close it down, as the power of the user is stripped - and although working at your computer naked in the middle of the night is a common practice in our field - it's not something we wish to publicize or have managed and nitpicked by others. ew...