Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 63
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: July 24, 2008 - 6:26 am
Posted By: Lyndon 79 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.cornwallseo.com) my network
Category: Blogging
18 Comments
Who Sphunn This Topic?
-
0thelisa
-
eKstreme
-
SimonHeseltine
-
DaveN
-
toddmintz
-
mpilatow
-
pratt
-
beussery
-
ANOnym
-
Lyndon
-
kevgibbo
-
rjonesx
-
liamvictor
-
dedmond29
-
UtahSEOpro
-
Halfdeck
-
Harith
-
kelvinnewman
-
jeffquipp
-
ViperChill
-
SearchBuzz
-
krumel
-
MarkBarrera
-
jphillips
-
seofactor
-
JstaTad
-
EricLander
-
SexySEO
-
TheNanny612
-
NickWilsdon
-
swags2804
-
nsmseo
-
gyutae
-
baiduyou
-
arieshu
-
Lodispoto
-
LtDraper
-
smodo
-
mban23
-
rishilakhani
-
thinkingserious
-
GarethGSINC
-
Makakman
-
uksaunders
-
heathercozad
-
sammy
-
dobata
-
Hannah
-
ChrisLang
-
dao
-
pancham
-
PaulTeitelman
-
yojpotter2
-
Maing
-
andrewburnett
-
promotionworld
-
stvalentine
-
seowriter
-
doorbell1
-
manujarch
-
IMBuzz
-
Germz
-
richardnday
Comments
Maybe what it comes down to is there's uncontrollable honesty and opinions going on lately. Names are mentioned, reviews are attached to the names, and there's anger and maybe even feelings of betrayal as a result.
SM is going to allow for more of this in massssss quantities as time goes by. And more people are going to disown those who don't resepect that. Stifling a person can't be good. It will backfire in the end.
My 2 cents. :-)
Lyndon, that headline was like totally misleading - more slags, less bait please!!
:p
A misleading headline! What, here on Sphinn?
If it wasn't for slags I would have never...... OK, myabe I shouldn't go there. I wonder if the mods would mind if I dropped a link to a certain two ladies in Viz, better not.
What the hell has gotten into SEOs lately?
And, SEOmoz what does "but we are considering what to do internally" mean when it's been up there for hours on end? Either stand behind publishing the piece and accept the consequences or pull the post. It's that simple. You look like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too by passing off responsibility but the buck stops at the owner of the site.
Eh. I think this stuff is funny. I do wish people wouldn't take it so damn seriously though. I can understand Matt's discontent. I'm sure G can get pissy when his name is mentioned and he is quoted. But everyone else?
Sticks and stones people. Sticks and stones. Besides, I have a crass sense of humor as well. In person, it's very easy to tell that I am in no way offending anyone on a personal level. But in email/writing, I have been called into many an office to explain myself. So, before you feel offended, consider that it's not that serious. Really.
"I do wish people wouldn't take it so damn seriously though."
Seofactor, I understand some people may not see much harm in personal attacks, but regardless of Marty's damage-control spin on the insults that they're "satire" ("hoax", "april fools post", or whatever else floats your boat), the insults may hurt the reputation of the people who were attacked and they will most likely damage SEOmoz' brand. Even if Lisa, for example, takes it as a joke, what if other people read that post and believe that the insults are true (why not, they're published on a reputable site)? That'll end up harming her rep. And if Rand allows SEOmoz - a site with 28,000 RSS subscribers - to become a platform for smear campaigns, that will come back to bite him in the ass. Openness and honesty is good, but you can have both without people resorting to negativity and personal attacks.
And while Rand said Rebecca is responsible for YouMoz posts, ultimately, responsibility rests with him. The longer he prolongs inaction, the more people will begin to think that SEOmoz either endorses those insults, or doesn't take them seriously enough to do anything about them.
"Even if Lisa, for example, takes it as a joke, what if other people read that post and believe that the insults are true (why not, they're published on a reputable site)? That'll end up harming her rep."
I can certainly see where this would get to be a problem. I guess the thing was that I read it, and didn't even see the shots at anybody. This may be because of my sense of humor that I didn't even see it, but I wonder how many laymen would have caught it.
I'm not really keeping up with it, but I don't see that any of the people mentioned have even said anything about it. It seems to be others feeding the fire (I may very well be wrong about this).
"And while Rand said Rebecca is responsible for YouMoz posts, ultimately, responsibility rests with him."
This I do agree with. I know it's her "baby." And I know we don't want to stifle anyone, but in the end it is a business. Posts on disagreements about SEO facts are one thing, personal attacks (whether I personally see them or not) are something different.
I'm just sayng that I didn't see the big deal. However, if the Internet has tought me anything, it's that my opinion is not the only one.
I still think it's funny though.
Its too bad that no one is debating the content of the original article - creating fake user profiles to game social sites.
@Chris1
Amen. Donna recently wrote that all this stuff may be because we are all bored. Now, a good, debatable article comes up, and we concentrate on something else. Good point, sir. Let me get on my 17 other Sphinn accounts and vote your comment up....
....
I mean....
"Its too bad that no one is debating the content of the original article"
Agreed Chris1 but Marty's to blame for that.
The post is now redirecting to YouMoz, with an apology from Rebecca attached, and with the offensive material stripped out:
http://www.seomoz.org/ugc/tiers-of-transparency-the-ethical-brand-ambassador
And people wonder why there is such a distate for SEO on most social networks.
Where's the talk about Avatars? Advice: Watch the Tonight Show or Letterman. Watch Lou Dobbs on CNN. Our society is made of thinkers with strong opinions. I am not to blame for anything accept speaking my mind and under-appreciating what it means to quote a semi-private conversation with Matt Cutts.
"I am not to blame for anything accept"
You mean except.
You're to blame for mispackaging an interesting idea; isn't that marketing 101? Use bait (attack bait, controversy bait, whatever) to get attention but don't let the bait be so much of a spectacle that your message fade into the background.
"I don't see that any of the people mentioned have even said anything about it."
Then you should have seen Twitter when it happened. Lisa was, and is, certainly upset by it.
"I am not to blame for anything accept speaking my mind and under-appreciating what it means to quote a semi-private conversation with Matt Cutts."
Words fail. If you can't take responsibility for the words in your own blog post and the effect they have on other readers, then you shouldn't be blogging. Period.
I am trying really hard to understand how 45 people found that article interesting or informative.
Is sphinn now about voting for theories we like, rather than the quality of the writing? Cause the article didn't really add much to mmy knowledge!
Unrealated: WTF does it require 50 characters to desphinn? Spam is 4!
Sigh... this has a serious feeling of groundhog day to it. Who will it be next week?
As for the article in question, I was particularly surprised to read this perspective from Marty. Marty has written some fantastic articles over at aimClear regarding appropriate and ethical social media participation. One in particular that came to my mind is Don't pee in the pool
This new piece seems to directly contradict it.
Again, our social media avatars bring more holistic participation, support and energy to communities (unselfishly) than most users we meet. @halfdeck...thanks for the grammer lesson.
"@halfdeck...thanks for the grammer lesson."
Marty, that's a lesson in spelling, not grammar.
"Lisa was, and is, certainly upset by it."
I noticed. http://www.seomoz.org/ugc/tiers-of-transparency-the-ethical-brand-ambassador#jtc65320
It takes balls to apologize when its so much easier to pretend to be in the right, but even a child can see the emperor's got no clothes on.