News Source: http://smackdown.blogsblogsblogs.com
Published: Sep 21, 2007 - 09:56 am
Story Found By: mvandemar 1710 Days ago
Category: Sphinn Zone
56 Comments
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.
News Source: http://smackdown.blogsblogsblogs.com
Published: Sep 21, 2007 - 09:56 am
Story Found By: mvandemar 1710 Days ago
Category: Sphinn Zone
56 Comments
Upcoming Conferences
Search 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:
- SMX Advanced Seattle - June 5-6, 2012
- SMX Paris - June 7-8 2012
- SMX Melbourne - Sept. 5-6, 2012
- SMX East - Oct. 2-4, 2012
- SMX Stockholm - Oct. 15-16, 2012
- SMX Social Media Marketing - Dec. 5-6, 2012
- SMX Munich - Apr. 9-10, 2013
- SMX West - March 2013
- SMX Toronto - April 2013
- SMX Sydney - May 2013
Latest News From Marketing Land
- Yahoo Shutters Livestand iPad “Living Magazine”
- Marketing Day: May 25, 2012
- Marketing Biz: Tracking Google’s Dune Strategy
- How Performance Marketing Is Influencing The Next Generation Of Internet Startups
- New Google+ Android App Adds Vivid Imagery & Additional Functionality
- - See more news at Marketing Land -
Upcoming Webcasts
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Search Marketing Now. Upcoming online events include:
- Search, Social and Mobile: What Travel Marketers Must Know - June 26, 2012
Latest News From Search Engine Land
- Google Releases Penguin Update 1.1
- Microsoft: Yes, We Do Send Takedown Requests To Bing, Too
- SearchCap: The Day In Search, May 25, 2012
- Search In Pics: SEO LEGO, Facebook Cooler & A Happy SEO
- Google Disapproved 134M Ads And Disabled More Than 800K AdWords Accounts In 2011
- - See more news at Search Engine Land -
Comments
Michael, please don’t ever read my blog. :-) (kidding!)
This is an absolutely brilliant article. I especially can’t understand Rand’s point #6. It’s like he criticizes directory owners who add listings on their own. Thanks for the well thought out response.
Dude, I don’t know if Rand kicked your puppy or what, but there’s a difference between criticizing and attacking. What you constantly do in your blog posts about SEOmoz and about Rand is make childish, personal attacks. I don’t care if you criticize me, the company I work for, or the boss who employs me, but you’re not being professional about it. Case in point: "Ok, I know I said I wasn’t going to make this about Rand and his Geraldo Rivera (without the talent) tactics..." This is just childish. When you inject petty little digs like this into your posts, you make it pretty difficult to deduce that you don’t have some sort of weird personal vendetta against Rand and SEOmoz. Also, just because you have an issue with one post Rand’s written doesn’t mean SEOmoz should have a "For Entertainment Purposes Only" disclaimer for all of our content. You’re making gross generalizations and benefiting from it like a run of the mill tabloid journalist.
I couldn’t agree more with squishee. This little item caught my eye, " . . . this is not a critique of Rand’s somewhat slimy efforts to cash in . . . ", which made me go from trying to view it as a serious criticism to seeing it as another "I get big points for picking on Rand" post. It’s really hard to take it seriously with that kind of stuff in it.
"Also, just because you have an issue with one post Rand’s written" Rebecca, I’ve read Rand’s writings, both on forums and in the blog, for longer than you’ve been working for him. This is not even CLOSE a "one post" thing. It has to do with his complete and utter lack of anything coming even close to resembling journalistic integrity for what is going on several years now. I am very sorry if my occasional injected sarcasm completely blinds you to the fact that he has no clue what he is talking about, and the accurate appraisal throughout the article is hidden to you by some "omg he’s attacking Rand!" reaction you seem to be having. I suggest that maybe you print out both his article and mine, scratch his name off throughout, put in the name of someone you don’t care about, and attempt to re-read it with some degree of objectivity. Then come back and tell me I’m wrong. As to the rest of the writers on staff there, I made it very clear I was not critiquing them.
This article is a perfect example of why "Sphinn needs a dumbass button"
Michael, I guess that since you’ve been reading Rand’s posts more than I’ve been working for him, that means you know more about Rand’s professionalism, SEO knowledge, personality, and demeanor than I do. After all, you occasionally read his posts while I only see and interact with him every day. You’re right. Rand doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about, and he’s been successfully fooling respected SEO colleagues, Fortune 500 companies, and revered news publications for years. Thank you, Michael Vandemar. You are the Michael Moore of the SEO sphere, exposing slimeball shysters like Rand Fishkin for the frauds they truly are. I’m so happy you spend your days dissecting Rand’s posts and obsessing about his profound lack of knowledge and journalism skills instead of devoting your time to other things that couldn’t possibly benefit society more.
It’s great being neutral.:) I once wrote a slightly anti directory piece and got slated for it. The people who went ape only got as far as the headline. Had they read what I wrote and took a deep breath or two, they might have had a different perspective. I like Rand he talks a lot of sense, sometimes he talks a lot of old bollocks too; but thats life we all do on occassions. As for the post, couldnt we all do with a ’tongue in cheek’ section or an ’Im being a little controversial today’ section, heck controversy marketing is a great tool, some even call it linkbait ;)
If you don’t think that’s a personal attack, show it to a few people without putting your name on it and see what they think. How can you claim that the site needs a disclaimer when, by your own admission, "I do need to make a quick disclaimer here. I don’t read a ton of posts at SEOmoz, and most of what I have come across at this point happens to have been written by Rand himself. The other writers there might have some kickass material that they do actually spend time developing." You’re disagreeing with a couple of posts, but you’re making broad generalizations about people and whole organizations. Does that make sense? And why call Rand a "figurehead"? He runs the company. A figurehead pretends to be in charge. Do you have reason to believe he’s faking the operation of SEOmoz? Then we’ve got this tidbit: "By the way, despite the facts that the post happens to be based around, this is not a critique of Rand’s somewhat slimy efforts to cash in on the recent penalizing of so many paid directories in Google, as if he had any clue that it was going to happen. True, while the debate surrounding his self serving review of Aviva may have in fact had some sort of butterfly effect that had something to do with their rankings dropping, it would have had nothing to do with any kind of foreknowledge that Rand himself held. However, this is not about him trying to exploit the impression some may have regarding him having some intimate knowledge about what happened. This is strictly a review of what Rand identifies in his post as, “Twelve Attributes of Obviously Manipulative Directories” (which, for those who are unsure, means “Signs Of Directories That Do Bad Things”)." What was slimy about what he did? In what way did he cash in on it? What was self-serving about his review of Aviva? If "this is not about him trying to exploit the impression some may have regarding him having some intimate knowledge about what happened," why do you spend much of this paragraph implying a causal connection?
"Michael, I guess that since you’ve been reading Rand’s posts more than I’ve been working for him, that means you know more about Rand’s professionalism, SEO knowledge, personality, and demeanor than I do." Well, all I can say is I only know what he has posted. If there is some secret Skull and Bones SEOmoz gatherings where Rand discloses *actual* seo knowledge, and the inner non-public personality, to his staff, then of course I would have no clue about that, now would I? This is the second time of blogging about Rand. If his damn reputation is THAT fragile, then I highly suggest he *seriously* rethink professional blogging as a career choice. Why is it that, aside from the point of the tone of my article and your own personal attacks, you have yet been able to actually dispute the facts I presented?
"I’m so happy you spend your days dissecting Rand’s posts and obsessing about his profound lack of knowledge and journalism skills instead of devoting your time to other things that couldn’t possibly benefit society more." For the clamor and attention one gains from this type of strategy? Jason Calacanis?
"This is the second time of blogging about Rand. If his damn reputation is THAT fragile, then I highly suggest he *seriously* rethink professional blogging as a career choice." You are correct, being a blogger means having to be open to criticism and occasional negative remarks. However, while you may disagree with a particular post or two, which is perfectly acceptable, personal attacks don’t seem necessary. I am not a mozzlet or rand groupie or anything of the sort, but i do believe he and SEOmoz have brought a lot of great information to people and helped expand the SEO community as a whole. I rarely find their content ’for entertainment purposes only’.
Spunn this because it’s entertaining to read, but agree with other comments here. The personal edge to the article rubs me the wrong way; the tone is spiteful and petty. I’m here for critical, discriminating views of topics and issues that are important to search marketing. And practical stuff. And funny stuff. I think the directory issue is only a minor deal, more consequential for the directory owners than anyone else. But I’m willing to give the issue some time, anyway. Unfortunately, this article is using the directory issue as a platform for the author’s personal agenda. That’s just not cool.
What I couldn’t work out is the difference (to a search engine) between Wordpress theme publishing and, hmm, the Page Strength badges. If that kind of viral sitewide link really is so bad and liable to get you banned, surely the obvious thing to do would be to stick nofollow on the link. Both methods of viral linkbait already prevent you ranking in Technorati and tend to mean they don’t bother even picking up your content.
Well, hell Jill, since I have Rebecca do I qualify as well? :D And you gotta love the way 2 posts spread over a month and a half apart have coalesced into "spending (my) days" and to what I "constantly do in (my) blog posts about SEOmoz". {removed commentary on Rebecca’s own blogging skills -Michael}
hey mvandemar -- dude guess what? comments like this one just make you look like a tool, and lower your credibility. they don’t help, promise. moving on now
Michael, give it up already. We know you don’t like us, but don’t you have some work to do?
Michael, I find it laughable and sad that you think my Drivl articles are going to tarnish my "squeaky clean" reputation in the SEO sphere. I don’t try to hide my Drivl articles. Smart people know that Drivl is a separate client/endeavor than SEOmoz; hence, I am more professional on one than the other because I adapt to the appropriate audience. Still, nice try.
"Unfortunately, this article is using the directory issue as a platform for the author’s personal agenda. That’s just not cool." @AdamAudette - Actually, I’m sorry, I tried to make this clear before... I agree that many directories out there are probably worthless. That has never been my point. Mine has to do with poor investigative and analytical skills, and pretending to know something you don’t. Most people with average or slightly better seo skills can evaluate a directory to see if they think it is worthwhile for them in a very small time period. Most people with even mediocre skills aren’t going to confuse a typical paid directory with, say, the additional links page of Harvard University’s Molecular and Cellular Biology Dept., or think that there is any value whatsoever in trying to compare the two. Rebecca, you need to quit taking research lessons from Rand. Those weren’t in reply to any SEO reputation, they were in reply to you saying that I needed to spend time being more beneficial to society.
Thanks for passing those posts along, Michael. HAHAHAHAH! Those were great! Found a new must read blog!
That drivl place is pretty funny actually, laughed out loud at the areola post, witty funny stuff! Ok, on with the show guys please (grabs popcorn) :D
for teh lulz: http://bp3.blogger.com/_FBXGhy-QmVw/RclUgCusgII/AAAAAAAAAdU/CzI1AERJoqA/s1600-h/card650.JPG
Drivl’s a client, Michael. Hence, my posts are beneficial to them. I do like your retorts, though. "Quit taking research lessons from Rand." Ooh, that stings! Zing!
Seconded Jill. :) Rand isn’t going to be 100% right all the time - that’s not his job. The task he’s set out is to report as faithfully as he sees it every minutae of his SEM/SEO work. I think the various hate directed to him recently makes him something of the David Beckham of the SEO world. And that’s not intended as an insult, in case anyone thinks it is. :)
Wow, no comments when I first saw this, 25 now. @mvandemar, I’d have edited out the "quite the peach our little Becca" stuff you posted as just getting too personal without needing to be. Stop that going forward. You want to raise points about Rand or others in your articles, that’s fine. You want to be sarcastic in them, that’s your choice (personally, I felt that did indeed weaken serious points you wanted to make). But in the discussions here, no, skip the sarcastic digs. They’re unnecessary and not helpful. Stick to your guns other ways. Yes, Rebecca’s "Dude, I don’t know if Rand kicked your puppy or what...." gets personal as well, and from the start -- so Rebecca, keep it not personal as well. But at least there, she quickly kept it to the points raised in your article. I felt like you started diving outward from the article to go after her in particular. With that, everyone, stick to the facts, to the article, and avoid getting into the personal attacks. If you feel Rand is personally attack (and disagree), the way to respond to that is to backup your disagreement with facts to support him.
Oh, I mean I’d have edited it out, but Rebecca’s already stepped up, so I think we’ll leave it at that.
Wow... I was this close to not commenting. First of all, I find it funny that a blog that recently posted an article about when not to respond to criticism can’t seem to keep from getting into a fight with Mvand. Rebecca, I’ve never met you but always got the sense that you were "good people" from your posts. I understand the urge to jump to your boss’s defense but this thread isn’t doing anyone at SEOmoz any good. Trust me. Danny, I think your last point about the best way to respond would be to refute the evidence Mvand presents. Whether or not you like the way he went about it, the accusations are still there and have not been addressed by anyone that I’ve seen.
@ iBrain, I don’t think his job is to be right 100% of the time but if you’re going to present something as fact, then you should make sure it’s correct. If it’s an opinion or a hunch or a gut feeling, clearly state that. The fact that Rand responded by saying all posts are by definition opinions does not help the matter. I believe, under all the personal stuff and sarcasm, that was the point of Mvandemar’s post.
@Danny - edited it out. "But at least there, she quickly kept it to the points raised in your article." Just to be a tad bit nitpicky, no, she only commented on the tone and the sarcasm of the post, not the actual facts. Her right to comment on those, of course.
"This is just childish. When you inject petty little digs like this into your posts, you make it pretty difficult to deduce that you don’t have some sort of weird personal vendetta against Rand and SEOmoz." "You are the Michael Moore of the SEO sphere, exposing slimeball shysters like Rand Fishkin for the frauds they truly are. I’m so happy you spend your days dissecting Rand’s posts and obsessing about his profound lack of knowledge and journalism skills instead of devoting your time to other things that couldn’t possibly benefit society more." "Smart people know that Drivl is a separate client/endeavor than SEOmoz; hence, I am more professional on one than the other because I adapt to the appropriate audience. Still, nice try." "Ooh, that stings! Zing!" "@mvandemar... skip the sarcastic digs. They’re unnecessary and not helpful. Stick to your guns other ways. Yes, Rebecca’s "Dude, I don’t know if Rand kicked your puppy or what...." gets personal as well, and from the start -- so Rebecca, keep it not personal as well. But at least there, she quickly kept it to the points raised in your article." Come on Danny, I realize it’s tough moderating a discussion like this but you can’t edit out one side’s personally attacks and not the others’.
Yeah, I’m waiting for someone to refute Michaels’s post, attacking Michael and what some people think are the reasons for his post is detracting from the points of Michael’s post, or is that the intention?
Ok, this is stupid. To Michael: why waste your days (and your life) nitpicking other people/resources/certain people’s dealings so vehemently? So you don’t like SEOmoz and the way they entertain & inform. Ok. Great. Write your blog post about it (sans the aggressive nature towards SEOmoz contributors) and move on. Here’s a novel idea: Don’t like something? Don’t read it. Avoid exposure. Life is too short to be waging a personal war towards a singular site in the thousands of SEO resources out on the intarwebs. Find the other 4,999 resources and read them. (That ’life is too short’ thought is brought to you by my daily watching of Dr. Phil with my girlfriend). I’m an SEO nub. I’ve been working for a small company in Portland for a year and a half. In this time I’ve come to realize that different SEO professionals have different views about, well, just about everything. Don’t like what someone says or believes in? Out of sight, out of mind.
"Here’s a novel idea: Don’t like something? Don’t read it. Avoid exposure. Life is too short to be waging a personal war towards a singular site in the thousands of SEO resources out on the intarwebs. Find the other 4,999 resources and read them." @Christian, if Michael’s points are accurate, then he could just ignore the site but what about the thousands of others that are eating it up assuming it’s gospel? I’ve been very critical of JohnChow’s blog in the past and received much the same type of response. Why not just ignore it then? By not ignoring it I’ve been able to open up at least a few people’s eyes to the inaccuracy of said issue. It just comes down to a personal choice really. Plus, disagreeing with the big dogs is usually good for exposure ;)
@ChristianBk - It’s not about me "not learning" at seomoz, just so you know. Btw, just posted a "nice nice" version. @Danny, should I include the second link in the comments?
mvandemar, in my opinion, this is a very close-knit industry. People are *very* approachable and from my past experience working in other areas, the SEO industry is by far the friendliest place. It’s a place where people will respond to criticism if handled properly. That said, if you disagree with something said by Rand or anyone, I think that the most appropriate way to go about things is to approach them directly. Start a conversation. Blogging about it is, in a way, just a way to stir up an unnecessary controversy that could have been avoided if you took the appropriate avenues and contacted Rand. I know that Rand is one of the more extremely approachable people in the industry and would even talk to you over the phone about it. I know this may sound ironic given that my recent blog posts are all about the flaws within Digg and how Kevin Rose is handling things, but believe me, before I took that route, I sent a ridiculous amount of emails to Digg and their staff and the pressing issues were ignored. I don’t think that Rand will ignore you, though, and if he has in the past, he’s been very transparent about his absence (vacation, illness, etc.). If you think that Rand is not providing value and that you yourself can offer more, I encourage you to speak to him as you both can learn from each other.
@Skitzzo: Yep, no problem with the issues being raised. I just felt the tone to be off-putting. Consider that without the tone, the debate then should have stayed focused on the issues. Also, didn’t edit anything out. I said I probably would have edited that one comment in particular, because I felt it started going over the line. Look, it’s hard enough not to get personal in a debate sometimes, and even harder when the debate is something that is, at its core, going to the reputation of an individual. The point is I don’t want to moderate a discussion. I want people to moderate themselves. And for the most part, the generally do. @mvandemar: Tad nit picky is fine. I guess I meant she commented about the tone of the article, rather than poking at you in particular outside of the article. And yes, looking at the fact would have been better. And yes yes, drop a link to the nice version :) @tamar: Kevin Rose tells me he dislikes you intensely and to stop calling him. He’s seriously about that restraining order. Heh :)
@ Danny, Ah, my bad. I should read more carefully. I agree with a discussion like this it’s nearly impossible not to cross some form of line. @ Tamar, I believe Rand’s offered to talk to Mvand about it over the phone in the past but made mention of NDA’s etc. In their previous argument (part of which occurred on Refugee) Rand did finally resort to ignoring Michael. I did ask another question after that but still haven’t gotten a response to it although I asked it on Michael’s blog and he might not visit there anymore. I’m usually a shoot first and ask questions later type person myself but admit sometimes it’s better to contact the person first. For example, I had a bit of a go with Hamlet Batista in which I was probably too harsh too quickly. However, this isn’t the first time these two have locked horns and if Michael believes Rand’s motives are malicious, I’m not sure why he would bother contacting him about it before writing.
Another linkbait gone way off the left field, like Britney spears at the VMA. I guess some SEOs think links and traffic are the end all be all - no matter what the cost. WTF do I gain from reading this garbage? Is Rand always right? No, but when he’s wrong he’s admitted it and that makes him credible in my book. Taking personal jabs at him with snide remarks is pathetic, even if facts are 100% behind you. What’s the point of attracting attention to yourself and racking up Sphinns if only to prove to the SEO community that you have no class?
@Halfdeck (and others) - This isn’t link bait, this isn’t about directories, this isn’t about 1 (or even 2) posts that Rand did, this isn’t about him "not having to be right 100% of the time". Out of respect for Danny, if you *do* want to know what this is about, then feel free to hit me up on a forum, preferably seor, or in private, and I will be more than happy to explain to you exactly where I am coming from on this. Many people have actually understood what I have said, although even there not everyone who agrees with me is actually understanding what I mean.
Btw, the "nice nice" version: http://smackdown.blogsblogsblogs.com/2007/09/21/why-rand-is-wrong-about-the-twelve-attributes-part-2-the-touchy-feely-version/
"Many people have actually understood what I have said, although even there not everyone who agrees with me is actually understanding what I mean." There’s an implication in that sentence that there aren’t people who have both understood and disagreed with you.
"There’s an implication in that sentence that there aren’t people who have both understood and disagreed with you." Well, no, I said there were people who agreed with me without understanding what I was saying, and I said that there were people who understood me. As it stands, in fact afaik no one has disputed what I said, just the manner in which I said it... that’s just not what I was saying in that particular sentence.
I just want to totally disagree with something Tamar wrote That said, if you disagree with something said by Rand or anyone, I think that the most appropriate way to go about things is to approach them directly. Start a conversation. Blogging about it is, in a way, just a way to stir up an unnecessary controversy that could have been avoided if you took the appropriate avenues and contacted Rand.Rand recently called out Robert Scoble on something for being wrongActually so did Danny and many SEOs, and we all did it with blog posts.Were we wrong?How did Robert respond - he linked to all these responses in a seperate blog post, without expressing additional views, just to inform his audience that there were differing opinions and discussions. He missed out a few (mine ;) ) but I think that is more to do with Akismet than Robert.Rand might not want to read Robert any more, but Robert is a better "blogger" because blogging is about conversation.SEOmoz might not even be a blog in many ways, anyone with differing opinion about something is almost universally destroyed with the thumb down button.Thus people respond to blog posts they disagree with... with blog posts, and some how that is suddenly the wrong thing to do, and you have to discuss things in private if you want to disagree?I am sorry... I disagree extremely stongly with that
lol, you’ve got to wonder what’s happening to the SEO world when this story gets so many Sphinns.If only the time taken to write the post was spent helping the SEO community or furthering the author’s own knowledge. :o(
I’ve sphinned it purely on the merit of the discussion / cat-fight here. :)Normally I mostly sphinn posts I find educational, this was purely for the interest factor! :)
Well, since no one has said it yet, I feel I have to: "Can’t we all just get along"... Weird thing is I was going to mention how much Rand and Michael look alike, might be the facial hair... Anyway, I know Michael through some of the sites, cool cat in my opinion, I don’t know Rand, but everything I have heard up to this point has been positive, so Im not going to get into the whole back and forth. The blog post, in my opinion, would not have had so much scrutiny I feel if there wasnt some kind of animosity there. Meaning if I had written it and I found flaws I think I would have said "I feel he is really reitterating the point on #4, but giving you a different slant" instead of "deja vu". Now whether its because Michael has found consistant problems with content on SEOmoz in the past, or if Rand truly did kick his pupp, I don’t know. If I found constant errors, yeah I would go off too if I thought people were holding one persons word to a higher standard and I kept seeing flaws in it all over the place. Also I dont have a dog, but you kick my cat, and we are going to have a major problem :)So I say read between the lines, pick out what you want to pick out. For now this has become a personal discussion and attacks back and forth and is only going to get uglier. If it were on one of the forums (yeah this isnt a forum, but its a community) that I am admin on it would be locked, I dont delete, I like the free information flow, but for now I think this is just going to become a bigger pissing match back and forth. For the record I will always win that one :)
Andy, you’re entitled to disagree (and you make a very solid point), but from what I’ve heard after I wrote this my response, Rand asked mvandemar to respond to him personally and mvandemar refused to discuss it with him. The point is that this isn’t the first time this happened. That’s what separates this from the Scoble incident. You’re right - there’s nothing wrong with having a conversation in the blogosphere. But at this point, this isn’t a plesant conversation. It’s more of a fight. I don’t think that this is an appropriate way to deal with it.
Well, from my point of view you can disagree with anyone and you have a right to voice this opinion. However, the point that Rand made is that there are valuable resources/directories that you should be looking at, if anything he was providing a resourceful opinion, based upon specific indications of fact. Rand did not (in my opinion) go to any search engine and request that they devalue a directory, however, he is providing information that is relevant, even if it is opinionated. Michael, unfortunately, did not take the high road in his tone or demeanor regarding the opinion that he formed after reading a SEOmoz post authored by Rand. Michael, your opinion is valid, in my opinion, you were not professional or considerate.SEO is about perspective, not your or mine, rather the engines that provide users to my/your websites. SEO is not about gaming the system, rather understanding it (based upon opinionated research) to provide what is necessary to deserve rankings for specific topic or keywords. Once you loose sight of this, you have done nothing but a disservice to yourself and the websites you represent.
Rand is still insisting that somehow badges from things like Page Strength are totally whitehat yet Wordpress theme sponsoring is evil.Unfortunately there is no clear cut line that a machine/bot can decide between one method of viral linking and another.I have seen themes based upon the original design of popular blogs such as DuctTapeMarketing and Michael Fortin kicked out of the WP theme directory, but those designs were from the original blog, and just cleaned up because many people had requested them. That there is a link back to the original site with some relevant anchor text doesn’t make it any more spammy than a link back to "SEO Tools".Bidvertiser rank for so many keywords because of using noscript anchor text smartly - people make the coice to put the Bidvertiser code on their sites, but how many realise they are helping Bidvertiser rank for "make money online" and "pay per click". (the results vary)Performancing uses taglines such as "The theme was authored by Design Disease and produced by Soccerlens in cooperation with Performancing. " - that was actually from their page, not the theme, but I remember the themes have similar verbage.Have you ever delt with outsourcing? The amount of work in project management is insane. The most valuable members of staff of a computer games company working with outside developers are the producers, not their top sales executives. They are the ones that make or break a deal, and are responsible ultimately in delivering bug free software on time and within budget.How can a machine decide what the involvement of each party was in the development?Should Google really be counting all those links to Wordpress.com, which then feed juice to their tag based linkfarm? Those links afterall are "The only way they receive payment" I have been in a situation where people wanted to discuss something "On their dime" before when I criticized their product or service - those bridges remain broken. That might not be the best option as far as building bridges and winning friends / influencing people, but I can rest easy at night because of it.I can however understand why someone might not want to question an article on SEOmoz on their "home turf" and everyone has their own personal way to respond to criticism and manage their time.As far as I read it, it seems Michael is using attack bait in exactly the same way as Rand - either neither of them are wrong, or both of them, or you could side with Michael becuase he does link through to SEOmoz albeit with a nofollow multiple times.SEOmoz rarely links out to differing opinions, for me that somehow makes them... less relevant.
"Andy, you’re entitled to disagree (and you make a very solid point), but from what I’ve heard after I wrote this my response, Rand asked mvandemar to respond to him personally and mvandemar refused to discuss it with him." - Tamar, just to be clear, what Rand asked me to do was to sign a non-disclosure agreement, which would have prevented me from discussing absolutely anything he said to me with the community to see if they agreed with his logic, and to discuss it privately over the phone, with no written record. I’m talking about the prior incident now, not this one. No, that was not something that I was willing to agree to. Do you really think I was off base for that?
I think you made a judgment call that you were entitled to make. I just think that we should all be friends. :) Clearly, people disagree with each other here, but making it sound like Rand knows no "*actual* SEO" is a bit harsh.
Andy - I’m a huge fan of your blog and your writing, and I’d hate to have you think badly of us. I certainly can understand your perspectives on some of the facets I described as being part of potential negative attributes for directories - there’s plenty of room for argument and discussion there.And, yes, I’ll certainly try to link out in the future to more dissenting opinions (I used to do it more and I’ve gotten lax, but there’s no excuse). Also - feel free to do so in the comments at SEOmoz; it’s one of the best places to add conten to a post, and I’ll very frequently (probably 1/10 posts) go back and update the blog after someone has left an insightful or valuable comment/link.
I don’t think anyone really thinks badly of anyone, it’s just that they are getting tired of people coming across as "experts" when in fact their postings are "opinions" and not actual secrets or inside knowledge. Please, let us not forget this.
I wasn’t expecting or even hoping for a link, but it was appreciated. I am glad you will be linking out more. One glaring example I was thinking about was actually the quiz where even though you acknowledged there were differing opinions, you didn’t take the opportunity to link out to them. I know lots of people had read them anyway. (I didn’t write about the quiz btw, so this isn’t in any way self promotional) I am not perfect in this, there are always time restraints, but I do support trackbacks and pingbacks.There are aspects to the comment system I must admit I am not a huge fan of, maybe that is something I will blog about sometime in the near future, maybe even on Youmoz.
Andy - I thinkk anything you’d write would almost certainly be promoted to the main blog :)As for the quiz - I did try to collect all the criticism and re-crafted or changed up 8 or 9 of the questions that all of the articles seemed to be targeting. I haven’t yet seen anyone call out a question since (though that could be because it’s died down). We do have plans to re-create the quiz entirely in a month or two and try to make much more solid and factual from the start.
Rand, I think Andy’s point though is that you could do a better job linking out to the different views. It’s good that you changed the questions, but maybe mention that you changed them because of feedback from x, y, and z. It’s been a while since I looked at the quiz so if you did that, good on you. If not, that might be a suggestion for you moving forward.