Lyndon Antcliff has become one of the most notorious linkbait…" />

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.

Patrick Altoft writes "What the hell does Lyndon Antcliff Know about Linkbait

Lyndon Antcliff has become one of the most notorious linkbait experts after a recent high profile project involving a hoax story was publicly “outed”.

The fallout from this has driven Lyndon underground to launch an exclusive new linkbait coaching program.

I decided to interview Lyndon to find out the truth about what’s been going on and see if he really knows how to linkbait."
Comments30 Comments  

Comments

Avatar
from g1smd 2270 Days ago #
Votes: 2

*** Being good at linkbait is an aggressive SEO technique. You win some and you lose some. In the case of money.co.uk Lyndon did well but Google manually intervened. Not much you can do about that. ***<div></div><div></div><div>*YOU* win some?</div><div></div><div></div><div>No.  It is the CLIENT that wins, or is screwed over.<div></div><div></div><div></div><div>***  Lyndon did well, but Google intervened.  ***</div><div></div><div></div><div>So, you’re saying that it would have been a good plan, if it had worked.</div><div></div><div></div><div>But, it didn’t work. And the site is now tainted.</div><div></div><div></div><div>How can anyone now say that it was a good plan?</div></div>

Avatar
from patrickaltoft 2270 Days ago #
Votes: 0

The linkbait was a good plan. If nobody had found out the story was fake this site would have got a load of good links.I’m sure the client was totally aware of the possible ramifications, they aren’t exactly white hat.

Avatar
from Kimota 2270 Days ago #
Votes: 3

I’ve got to agree that it is one of Patrick’s less inspiring blog posts. Sorry Patrick, love your blog, but then you already knew we were both on opposite sides on this one. I just don’t think this approach adds any value to what has already been discussed. As a result, it seems more like a one-sided puff-piece for a mate than any true analysis of the question posed by the title. ;-)Many of Lyndon’s answers provoke obvious follow up questions that are never asked because to do so would put Lyndon on the spot.Lyndon’s technique is to linkbait, what steroids are to competitive athletics. It isn’t linkbait, it is a trick, and all of Lyndon’s attempts to say he has somehow provided us a service because he "tapped into some kind of online social consciousness and raised an issue that people wanted to address," is just retrospective bluster in the face of criticism.I loved the line... "I haven’t time or space here to deconstruct the pychological motivators of the piece but it managed to reach into parts of the mind that other linkbait does not reach." This line demonstrates very clearly that Lyndon is prepared to analyse his technique only in the most basic of ways - in a ’see no evil’ self-delusion. The moment you do psychoanalyse why people responded to the piece, there would be some uncomfortable conclusions about people’s expectations of news and truth versus fiction, which would paint him into a corner. Money.co.uk may well have known the piece was fiction (I notice Patrick, from your last comment, that you still can’t say this for certain even after discussing the with Lyndon - another obvious and key question in the debate missed) and any black-hat technique or online trickery carries a degree of risk. But by assuming the failure was only due to Lyndon’s disclosure is worrying. There are other risks in play. A key part of Lyndon’s strategy was submitting the piece as ’news’ to Digg. When sopmeone submits a piece in this manner in an attempt to dupe readers, it isn’t their client’s reputation they are risking, but also the websites of the services other people use to source news. If Digg’s news became known as no more reliable than Digg’s comedy section, all value for that part of their website is lost.Yes, stable doors and bolted horses spring to mind, but where do we say ’enough’? Wikipedia was a noble idea that is now treated as a joke because of people manipulating the ’truth’ in the pages to serve their own ends. The ability of the internet to serve quality and accurate information is challenged every time someone uses a technique like this and spreads it through other websites under a facade of fact.it is scary to me that those of us with more influence over the shaping of the internet than most treat such issues so lightly.

Avatar
from BrentCsutoras 2270 Days ago #
Votes: 3

@patrick You make the assumption that the company knew what was going on but Lyndoman alludes in most of his artciles that they should have known and that they should have checked to see if it was true. That would indicate to me that they didnt know. Being as they fired Lyndoman and moved to correct the problem that occured, i would say they had no idea a person they hired to created viral content was going to write a hoax and propose it as news. On a further note how is that actually impressive. If you Patrick had access to a top level authority site domain and you wrote a story that could be as extreme or wild as you wanted, because it was bullshit, then you too could have the same success. Hell anyone out there who is willing to destroy their name can get away with 1 winner. I think the real successes are when people take a company that doesnt have an authoritative domain and doesnt have a super extreme "fake" story about kids, sex, and crime, and get the same result. Taking an example that violates all the rules and uses the absolute best viral points, being sex, drugs, and crime... how is that some expert skill? It is kind of like the SEO who finds a PR7 site that just wont rank well because they never added title tags. He says "you know, you should add title tags" and poof they rank.. I will tell you one thing.. only the people who are not succeeding in social media found this whole story about Lyndoman impressive at all... :(

Avatar
from Lyndon 2270 Days ago #
Votes: 2

@brent, You absolutely do not know what you are talking about, the client was informed, for frigs sake they were hiring a linkbaiter not a journalist. Why is it people always spout off opinions when they don’t know the full story.I was asked if it were true, and I told my client no, what more evidence do you want?As for the success of the piece and my own skills, I leave that to others to judge.

Avatar Moderator
from Jill 2269 Days ago #
Votes: -1

I was asked if it were true, and I told my client no...I, for one, would be interested in knowing at what point they asked and you told. Presumably, before it went live on their website?

Avatar
from Lyndon 2269 Days ago #
Votes: 1

It was when I handed over the piece Jill.

Avatar
from DVOLA 2269 Days ago #
Votes: 2

Why is every one else so concerned about other peoples business, I mean common ?  " I, for one, would be interested in knowing at what point they asked and you told. Presumably, before it went live on their website? "   whys that ?  why would you be so interested... I hardly think he would have said.. oh and BTW that link bait that I sold you last week was fake , so come and sue me ?  I have clients that have worked with Lyndoman and they only speak very highly of his business practises..

Avatar Moderator
from Jill 2269 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Thanks for clarifying that, Lyndon.  That’s a very important point as it puts the responsiblility squarely with the client.

Avatar
from DVOLA 2269 Days ago #
Votes: 0

I think the real successes are when people take a company that doesnt have an authoritative domain and doesnt have a super extreme "fake" story about kids, sex, and crime, and get the same result... @ Brent so I take it all your bait is a winner winner chicken dinner ?  as I know that I hire top writers and top people that write good stuff and even they fail !  not every bait is gona win every time no matter what you do ...

Avatar
from Lyndon 2269 Days ago #
Votes: 1

Your welcome Jill. I don’t think I know of anyone who would put such whacky material on their website and not question if it’s fact or fiction, so it puzzles me that people think I had somehow misled the client or even needed to. I guess people have their reasons.

Avatar
from neyne 2269 Days ago #
Votes: 2

so it puzzles me that people think I had somehow misled the client or even needed to. I guess people have their reasons.OF course they do. It so much easier to start piling up things on your side of scales, makes it easier to deal with those not-so-clear-cut issues of morality. So if we are not sure whether what Lyndon did can be defined under definitions of morality, let’s add "lier", "cheater" and "innocent client sinker" to the pile, so it would be easier to label him as "evil"BTW, if those b-tards fired Lyndon after he told them that the piece is fake, then it really is a good riddance. In the end everything balances out and they ended up with a penalty, while he ended up with a linkbait seminar to teach and make money on. Good for you Lyndon

Avatar
from justfred 2269 Days ago #
Votes: -10

You say you don’t take on clients- is it because you’re planning to be so successful with your linkbait coaching, or is it because you utterly screwed up your reputation and won’t ever be able to find work?Don’t answer that. It won’t be the truth anyway.

Avatar
from Harith 2269 Days ago #
Votes: -3

Lyndon,"I don’t think I know of anyone who would put such whacky material on their website and not question if it’s fact or fiction, so it puzzles me that people think I had somehow misled the client or even needed to."The most important issue here isn’t whether the client was aware whether the material in question was fact or fiction.The crusial question is; have you informed the client of the risk that they might get penalized by Google for publishing a fake story for the sole purpose of gaming Google system?Because if you hadn’t informed the client about the said risk, then you did misled the client indeed.

Avatar
from SlightlyShadySEO 2269 Days ago #
Votes: 4

@Harith: IIRC this was the case that estabilished there was risk to this technique. Remember the uproar? So how exactly is one to warn of Google’s decisions before they make them?

Avatar Moderator
from Jill 2269 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Curious as to why my comment had -4 votes?People here don’t see that as an important distinction?

Avatar
from BogglesMyMind 2269 Days ago #
Votes: 2

funny Jill finally we agree on something in this whole subject.  I gave you a positive vote for that one when I saw the -4 and then scrolled further down reading and found your surprise.I agree it is the client’s "fault" for posting the content, even though it was manufactured by Lyndon.  However maybe people feel that if the apple had not been offered to them...I still stand by my original feeling that this was a great piece of marketing, no matter what people may think of my morals.  No one got hurt by this story, and it came out as being a fake at the end.  happens in marketing all the time... http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/655404.html

Avatar
from Kimota 2269 Days ago #
Votes: -4

Jill, I think the negative response may be the implication made in your comment that if money.co.uk knew it was fake, the responsibility is solely their’s. But if I hire a hitman to murder my ex-wife, even though I know it’s illegal, it doesn’t mean the hitman is off the hook. (Sorry, was enjoying a fantasy there...)I think that may be why some are reacting the way they did to your comment. You are right that it is an important distinction, and the point needed to be made. IMHO though. it merely spreads the blame rather than transdfers it.

Avatar Moderator
from Jill 2269 Days ago #
Votes: -2

happens in marketing all the time...Which is why it’s so upsetting. You may think it’s okay because it happens all the time, but I certainly don’t.

Avatar
from Jeeb90 2269 Days ago #
Votes: 0

The responsiblity for this swilring out of the control (in a good way if you’re Lyndon) rests soley on the idiotic media.  Heard of basic fact checking?  This could have been an experiment to prove how dumb the media is.

Avatar
from Kimota 2269 Days ago #
Votes: -1

Could have, but wasn’t.  Another analogy. If I send you an email claiming to be a Nigerian Princess with millions of dollars I need to get out of the country and only need you to send me a few thousand for me to put a commission into your bank account, does the responsibility for falling for the con rest solely with you? You would be a fool, but the responsibility is still mine. I would still be arrested and charged and can’t use the defense "well, he should have checked".The media were fools and bear some blame, but Lyndon and money.co.uk are still not blameless.(And, before someone attacks me,  this is an analogy, people - not a claim that Lyndon is a Nigerian conman! Last time I used this analogy, that is what I was accused of saying! Go figure...)

Avatar
from Harith 2269 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Jill"Curious as to why my comment had -4 votes?"As the president of "Sphinn Minus Votes Club", I wish to thank you for joining us :-)

Avatar
from DVOLA 2269 Days ago #
Votes: 0

@ Harith..  The crusial question is; have you informed the client of the risk that they might get penalized by Google for publishing a fake story for the sole purpose of gaming Google system?In this case their was no need to inform the client as he is a well know SEO over here.. a major affilate player..  he knew the score...

Avatar
from Harith 2269 Days ago #
Votes: -3

DVOLA"In this case their was no need to inform the client as he is a well know SEO over here.. a major affilate player..  he knew the score..."A SEO shouldn’t assume anything. Lyndon should have informed his client about the risk in the said "operation".

Avatar
from DVOLA 2269 Days ago #
Votes: 0

ERRR  Did you not read my comments above?  He knew the risks ..

Avatar
from BrentCsutoras 2269 Days ago #
Votes: -2

@DVOLA @Lyndoman - Never said the piece was not successful and i absolutely expect Lyndoman to pimp it since it equals dollars in the pocket. As for do mine succeed.. Go to a conference once or ask around. About the only way you would know for sure is to hire me or talk to someone who has.. because I am not so arrogant that i would risk my clients future so i can brag to a bunch on non-social media folks to suck them into a seminar. My point was that anyone in social knows it is not hard to push super viral stuff. I mean i stuck a damn picture of a police officer pulling over a truck and hit front page of digg a few hours ago.. Took about 15 seconds and yay... but that crap is a dime a dozen.. This is all stuff you should understand... to have this debate.

Avatar
from Lyndon 2268 Days ago #
Votes: 2

Brent, I am sure you are very good. I have learned stuff from you and I know you go to a lot of the conferences. So I don’t doubt your skill.But, you seem to be a little wound up over this matter and perhaps lost your objectivity. I have never claimed anything I can’t back up. Arrogant, probably. A bragger, this is also true, I have a massive head. It makes it quite difficult to get through the door at times.Sucking people into an seminar, well it’s not really a seminar but lets leave that aside. Sucking suggests that people have no control over whether they join or not. I really don’t think I have the ability to "suck" people in. People read what I have to offer, they join or don’t join. Are you claiming that I am some way tricking people to join or promising something which I cannot deliver?People get to read the same stuff online as you do, it’s not like I hide. It’s not like I say that everything I do is the right thing, when I am wrong I admit it, I don’t hide.Congrats on your front page on digg, not really sure what you mean but I agree that getting the front page of digg is not the goal and stuff can get to the page that takes 15 secs. You’re right, there is a lot of crap that gets to digg that is not worthwhile, not sure what your point is.Look, I don’t really know what the problem is here. I understand that you don’t like me sharing stuff with the public as if I’m a member of some secret linkbaiting cabal. I don’t see you have any right to tell me to STFU and if I want to teach and share with people what I have learned I will.As for the content in question, it is what it is. I’ve made my thoughts clear on the matter, if you don’t agree with them, cool, I really don’t mind if some people don’t like what I do or even like me personally.I don’t think people are interested in what I have to say because of one piece of linkbait. I had planned my coaching program months ago, way back to January. I agree that people should not join over one piece of mental linkbait as it’s not really what I would advise people to do. I will still digg your stuff Brent ;)

Avatar
from DVOLA 2268 Days ago #
Votes: 0

@BrentYour surley not saying that absoultley everything you put out as bait suceeds ?  Thats got to impossible ?    But I do suppose it depends on how you would measure the success ..  just out of curiousity how many links would you say is a successful bait  ?   Then at least I know if we are singing from the same hymm book..

Avatar
from BrentCsutoras 2267 Days ago #
Votes: -1

@lyndoman I really don’t have a problem with the baits or the skill or any of that. Most of my comments are never direct responses or directed at you personally. Most... I think...I just thought that outting the client and the image it gives our industry is not worth the positive side you can get out of it. If you wanted to do your seminar or social media work, I would have sent you so many signups and clients over time, if i knew you were looking, that you would be set. But by outting clients and the tactics you use then you make it harder on me and the industry to get clients to understand that Social Media is not all about black hat tricks. It is not about the one bait... that is not even a tactic really to begin with. You actually never spoke about the tactics that I read and that is good... My complain is just about the public outting and declaration of a darker side of linkbait. I may come off as heated or emotionally invested  but I am not. I am just speaking my mind and I would love to sit around and debate it 1 on 1 with you sometime in private and non-prying ears. PS.. I also told Rand and Shoe to STFU as well, both of whom i respect and am very close with. Cheers...

Avatar
from BrentCsutoras 2267 Days ago #
Votes: -1

@DVOLA... There is a slide presentation or two on my blog with some case studies. Check em out if you like. A successful social media project can yield different results for anyone. The question is flawed so the answer is bound to be flawed as well. If you are a smaller company and need only 100 links versus a company who doesn’t care about links at all... However, I have had campaigns that yielded from 100 links to 10,000 links... some having no PR6+ and others have over 30 PR7-PR8 links...

Upcoming Conferences

Search Marketing ExpoSearch 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: