Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 66
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: May 16, 2008 - 6:47 am
Posted By: SpostareDuro 69 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.jonathancrossfield.com) my network
Category: Other Social Media
22 Comments
Who Sphunn This Topic?
-
tamar
-
billslawski
-
MattCutts
-
TheMadHat
-
DaveDavis
-
thejenn
-
kevgibbo
-
rjonesx
-
northrock
-
bhartzer
-
kimber
-
wrttnwrd
-
UtahSEOpro
-
incrediblehelp
-
MariosAlexandrou
-
jeffquipp
-
SearchBuzz
-
onreact
-
MarkBarrera
-
Jill
-
SexySEO
-
skinner
-
mridout196
-
DVOLA
-
Kalena
-
torka
-
Chris1
-
theGypsy
-
ericnicolaas
-
Kimota
-
sza
-
Mani-Karthik
-
gunjanpandya
-
inkodeR
-
MattSawyer
-
JamesDuthie
-
rishilakhani
-
SpostareDuro
-
thinkingserious
-
seanmag
-
alvinyudistira
-
martinbowling
-
Shado1
-
Jeeb90
-
babychen
-
hjortur
-
netgeek06
-
VinceQuattrin
-
vikramprashant
-
BousaMan
-
MacBookForMe
-
soniyashrma
-
coreyhammond
-
Avinio
-
richmcl1
-
KenJones
-
HafizD
-
KevinCheng
-
Erika
-
shoppingcart
-
wanimayuresh
-
Disco-Stu
-
MichD
-
Bukowsky
-
warrior007
-
bmikol
Comments
Ta for the submit SD. Go get some sleep now. ;-)
It amazes me how quickly some people can publish their thoughts. Five hours ago this issue didn't exist. Now we've got responses to Lyndon from Kimota & Andy Beard. Nice piece Kimota.
It was more a case of I couldn't get my work done until I'd got it off my chest! ;-)
Ha... yes I can tell you are passionate on the subject. And I'm certainly on your side on this debate. Let's hope this one gets as many Sphinns. I'm sure it will go hot tomorrow. It looks to be a hot topic! I'm guessing it will dominate the blogosphere for days.
Ok _ sphunn this not because I am 100% sure about the end stance, but I do see the need for further discussion amongst SEO's and link baiters.
Real life analogy - spoof press that doesnt check their information which it produces - The Sun that printed this, News of the World. I dont think I am convinced Lyndon went too far, but at the same time I believe I understand Jonathans and Andy Beards stances. Some arguments against the bait was the end site it went on and - does the bait need to have a quality of ethics based on the end result? Maybe if it went to a poker or a pron site, the tactic fits the business model better?
Do reporters have the responsibility to check the veracity of web info? Yes. Absolutely. BUT should they build up trusted sources such as money.co.uk where they shouldnt have to? Maybe.
I am on the fence, but I do want to know what the majority believes.
I appreciate your considered response rishil. ;-)
Part of the reason for my horror was the site is was placed on. If it was on a site that had more of a reputation for back-hand style tactics, it could be different.
I'm also not sure whether Lyndon's mistake was in putting the article up in the first place or in not correcting the mistake when it went huge under a false impression that is was factual. That was where there was a willingness for people to be duped.
And I'm not a big fan of the argument that says it's their fault if they're duped in much the same way as I don't consider it my fault if someone rips me off. Sure I should check who I am dealing with first, but that doesn't excuse the other person for instigating the rip off or going through with it when they know it's under a misunderstanding.
But yes, a debate worth having. I've yet to see an argument that makes me want to jump the fence though.
I also got "tricked" by this story in the sense of believing it. I voted for it on Digg. Would I vote for it again? Yes. Would I publish it in a newspaper (I'm also a part time journalist, very part time) I wouldn't. It's sensationalist and it's a tabloid story. Diggers are a bunch of horny teenage geeks playing with themselves or their gaming consoles so no wonder this story worked fine with them. Now who is to blame for the press coverage? The press itself. The web is full of deliberate fakes and hoaxes (remember the bonsai kitten?) and anybody who is just a little web savvy will check the sources before republishing such a story.
So this here only shows the poor state of the media and the blind reliance on the web. Now as an ethical SEO I wouldn't make up such a story myself. I would find a similar one and then push it instead. The story could have happened in a similar manner or at least we're used to such stories from the tabloids. Especially the UK audience. I congratulate Lyndon on this huge success but I am appalled about the media just taking truth on the web for granted.
"That was where there was a willingness for people to be duped."
@Kimota - there was a willingness - in fact a desire, for people to be duped from the onset. I can't believe that all of a sudden, a relatively significant percentage of this community has turned into a bunch of holier than thou's over this because a great many people (including "reputable" news sources), may have been ignorant enough to believe it and run with it - without asking the singular question "Is this true?" Read the story again - tell me you couldn't see right through it.
The father, a lawyer said he had been too busy, but would take him on a surprise trip to Disneyland instead.
Asked why he ordered two escorts, Ralph said he thought it was the thing to do when you win a "World of Warcraft" tournament. They told the suspicious working girls they were people of restricted growth working with a traveling circus, and as State law does not allow those with disabilities to be discriminated against they had no right to refuse them.
FoxNews ran with this as truth? Are you kidding me? Do you think they didn't know it was satirical? Do you have any idea what they need to go through before running with a SERIOUS story? They knew darn well it wasn't true and they ran with it because it made for good tv.
I'm predicting money.co.uk weathers this little storm and picks up another 5,000 links or so on the backlash.
Kimota, I agree 100%.
I fail to see the ingenuity in this kind of link bait.
If you create a televison ad that features an ugly fat woman farting and somehow manage to get it aired during Super Bowl, will it create a buzz? Sure it will. But not because it's so damn ingenuous. Rather because 99,9% of advertisers would be decent enough not to do an ad like that, so yours will easily stick out.
A link bait like this sticks out not because it's so original and creative, and not because absolutely nobody ever thought of anything similar. Instead, most people would simply refrain from such a low-rent tactic, so it's unclaimed territory, that's all.
Is it good for a laugh? Perhaps, if "funny" stories about the perverseness of this world are your kind of thing. But a million jokes are good for a laugh without any stink of amorality lingering around them. This isn't even particularly funny, just stuff most creative people (in fact, anyone working for a tabloid) would spit out after drinking a couple of beers with friends.
Aliens land on White House lawn, kidnap Bush and party all night in Vegas...story at 6.
Linkbait is the Paris Hilton approach to online marketing. Your site becomes famous for being famous, not for having any redeeming qualities. While I totally get it, and recognize the ancillary linking benifits, i.e., trickle down, spillover and me too, I worry about the collateral damage. More crap for engines to decipher and ultimately ignore. Me, I prefer my linkbait to be useful beyond the headline, and useful to the exact people a site was designed to reach. To each site its own linkbait, to each baiter his own internal compass.
incrediblehelp: partying with BUSH? not likely. ;-)
Whilst I appreciate that the views expressed in the post are sincerely held, I do feel that we are in serious danger of introducing Mr Storm to Mrs Teacup and then encouraging them to get jiggy.
Lydon wrote an article, in the style of The Onion. His employer (not full time) chose to run with it based on the benefit it would provide for SEO. Would I have done the same if it were my site? No. Does that make what Lydon does in any way wrong, immoral or unethical? Absolutely not.
A similar post to this was submitted to Sphinn with a phrase along the lines of 'the issue that is polarising the idnsutry'; no, the issue that is giving those in the industry who have the time to hang out on Sphinn something to talk about on a Friday afternoon. 90% of those working in search will have no idea that this is even going on and (rightly) probably wouldn't care if they did.
Again, I appreciate that the views held are sincere, but think that questioning Lydon's morals/ethics verges on being really insulting. Which is, in itself, not very ethical or moral.
Shall we all move on now? Haven't we got a Calacanis/Shoemoney flamebait story to fall for & link to?
After various conversations with people and racking my brains - I have come to the following conclusions:
1. We as marketers have a job of promoting our clients products, how we do that or what ethics we put into play should be derived from their business strategy and NOT from what we feel is moral or ethical. If you dont agree with a job, dont take it. If you want to do it, do it well. Like Lyndon did.
2. I appreciate the discourse that this generated and the various conversations it stimulated. I dont however think its fair to flame people on either side of the fence - I have seen some of this and I dont think its fair or useful in anyway.
3. The client in this case had the full right to run editorial rights and so did the various reporting organisations. If the client chose to run it in its form, then thats their decision and they have gained from it. The reporting however, was not done correctly - a newstory should have facts if its being reported as fact - the client had an agenda, but they were aware that the story was fabricated. The reporters however saw juicy news filler and went for it without verification - which is their own fault for perpetuating the falsehood.
4. I believe that this tactic isnt one I would use for ALL my clients - however, I see scenarios where its worth the risk of running.
I'm a bit surprised at the short-sightedness here. Sure, this story is excellent linkbait and will generate thousands of inlinks. And probably money.co.uk will recover from the negative attention. But I see no difference between this and spamming.
Spam is done because it works, even though you use unaccepted methods. Saying that it was the journalists fall to believe the story is incredible. Yes, they should have checked the sources. But they probably trusted money.co.uk, which they will never do again. I'm pretty sure this has done big damage to money.co.uk's reputation within the media industry and I wouldn't bet on that to recover.
It's a cheap way to get links and only damages the industry as a whole and it's reputation. I would not do this for any of my clients. My role is to take the truth, spice it up with good narrative style and spread the word, not cook up fictive stories that ruin trust and reputation.
THis story was just SPAM!
hjortur, such a terrifically simple, yet factual way of telling it like it is. overall, what it amounts to is the poor reflection on every marketer online or off. we are already under the microscope of doubters. in the long haul, trust is slowly destroyed, leaving us to fight harder to prove integrity and build trust. with every vote for lyndons post, we have encouraged dishonesty for mass amounts of people to see. why is it that we want to make rep management so much more difficult than it already is? (as if this were the only drawback or something)
fyi..since lyndon has removed his post, here's a link to his post in full
http://www.widerfunnel.com/traffic-building/when-linkbait-goes-mental
Excellent, excellent post!
I posted similar sentiments here.
@onereact ...nice line..."Diggers are a bunch of horny teenage geeks playing with themselves or their gaming consoles"...
SpostareDuro - i'd venture to guess that bush would be the life of the party, most especially with aliens in vegas. cont me in.
i think the linkbait was great. it's hysterical to me that legitmate news ran with story. before reading lyndon's entire post i checked out the link to the story and immediatly new it was fake. i always look for an author and a reference to some trusted news source. i always want to trace any kind of news i find back to the original source. in this case there was no original source to track back to leading me to believe this was fictional straight away. and with no author the article screamed "don't trust me!" now i'm a bit obsessive but find it unbelieveable that so many including news sources fell for it blindly.
i do see the struggle with right or wrong here. not because people were dumb enough to believe it. but just that although, yes the article was about credit cards it does seem to bring about credibilty issues for money.co.uk relating to relveance and honesty. but then they had to have known what it was they chose to publish on their site. But also it does somewhat bring into question the credibility of internet marketers as well. those snake oil salesmen will do anything for attention and a link!
i'll hang back and watch the fall out from the controversy unfold now. maybe you'll score an interview on fox news, not saying that'd be a good thing. ;-) good job lyndon, makes me smile!
an interesting experiment. It definitely scares me to think that so many media outlets prefer to assume that an article is fact rather than doing the footwork themselves.
This type of linkbait is a one-hit wonder though...if the tactic was widely adopted or repeated conspicuously, returns would diminish rapidly.
What Cornwall should have done was this. Put a tiny sentence in a thick block of text in the about us page of the site that clearly states that sometimes fake stories appear on the site. I seriously doubt the existence of such an innocuous thing would have stopped the media from going crazy over this story. They wouldn't have noticed the disclaimer.
Then Cornwall would have had the ultimate defense, and the whole thing could have just been chalked up to media laziness/we don't really care that it's fake because we want ratings.
I heard this story again repeated on a local radio station this morning, so many people still haven't gotten the memo that it's fake.
The media is at fault. End of story. No excuses. No way for them to defend themselves. Called basic fact checking. They were fooled because the site looks professional and has a professional sounding domain name.
How the HELL can anyone say the media isn't completely at fault? All they would have had to do was just the slightest bit of fact checking, which they're supposed to be doing anyway.
I have been trying for days to get hold of Lyndon .. But unfortunatly his phone has been ringing off the hook with job offers !!! (fully booked) I am with Kimber on this ... this whole thing makes me smile everytime I read another post about it saying how successful it was as this makes his phone, IM and email go even hotter with job offers...