Calendar
Network
Feeds
AutomotiveSEO
Ya, but it's such a good story on linkbaiting it should appear once a week, every week for the next 2 years.
Story: Is Izmocars Spamming Us?
As someone who uses Sphinn (and other social media sites) AND who works in the automotive marketing industry, I am absolutely appalled by this. While I do SEO for car dealers, we NEVER submit them to social media sites. It isn't social media, isn't interesting to people on social media, and should be condemned.
I have two motives for proposing that we contact the dealers, as they have NO IDEA that this is going on. I guarantee it.
Motive 1) They (Izmo) are a competitor who has stooped very, very low indeed.
Motive 2) I love social media and Sphinn and I hate seeing worthless spam used just for the links.
I will be sending a link to this thread to all of the above mentioned dealers. They need to know that the "Rainmaker" that they signed up for is a "Spammaker" that is giving them a bad name.
#6 You had plants, as far as you can recall, but there are now just baskets of dirt with dead brown leaves in them. You vaguely remember having a dog as well. Also, there’s a strange smell in your apartment.
Hey, I'm the worst submitter in Sphinn history. Brian was making fun of me, so now I'm bound and determined to make the front page someday. Even if I have to monitor all of the top blogs every minute of every day, I will. I will make it. I can't be that disliked!
(am I?)
Tanner, only I can submit 30 stories to Sphinn with none hitting the front page. Even submitting one from doshdosh wasn't enough.
I'll probably have to wait until Google publishes its algorithm or something before a story I submit hits.
Squinn... you've never heard about it?
It's a social media site that talks about morons who can't type properly. I'm the only member, founder, and yes, I need typing help. I think the q and the p are the two farthest letters from each other on the keyboard.
(edited to not appear like such a moron much longer than I should)
In case anyone tries to pass judgment without reading the story, it focuses on the concept that people who are SEOs who contibute to social media and also occasionally submit their's or their clients' works are not the Spammers. Those who submit "buy cheap viagra" are the targets of this article. They're the ones that give SEO a bad name, and this article tries to differentiate.
DD - Social media is currently our only source of traffic. 0Boy researches and writes well, but there's no point of putting it out there if there are no readers. Now that some of the more established diggers are on the feed and submitting the stories (IvanB, ThinkingSerious, Verge, Webcure) we should be able to end our aggressive campaigning and settle back into the lovely world of reading and digging stories from across the web without having to worry about whether the story will FP on Digg and other places. Fear not, my highly respected friend. The blog should have legs of its own soon enough.
BTW, why am I not your friend? I might not FP 20 stories a month, but I try!
Dosh and Tamar -
First, Dosh, "kinda cheap" - absolutely. In fact, you're being kind. It was plain old dirty Digg baiting to the extreme, and I was against the headline and the story until I was convinced otherwise...
I argued exactly what you two are saying. On the surface, it seems obvious. But here is the counter argument that convinced me otherwise:
"JD:: you're assuming that headlines on Digg equate into publicity that can change opinions. SEO to members of Digg is a topic that falls into one of three camps-
1- those who know about it and don't like it -2- those who know about it and like it/understand why it exists, and -3- those who don't understand what it is.
If SEO were a brand, this headline would be bad. If it were a person, it would be bad. It's a profession/trade, and with any profession or trade, you either need it or you don't.
So, those who fall in category 1 will have their opinions perpetuated. Bad on the surface, but not when you consider that close to 100% of those people will have that opinion with or without the story. No harm.
Those who fall into category 2 either know the difference between seo spammers and real seos or they don't. If they don't and they read the article, they'll understand a bit more and therefore will know that there is a difference in styles. That knowledge helps you by giving them knowledge that there's a difference.
Category 3 is the money category. Anyone who doesn't know about SEO who reads the headline may read the story and possibly enter the market. They may Google SEO and enter the market. There will be some who form a negative opinion based on the headline, but keep in mind, there will be very few cat3 people who do this, and they weren't the people who would ever seek the services in the first place.
Rule #1 in creating awareness of services- any publicity that starts a research process is good publicity. ANY story that hits the front page of Digg with the term "SEO" in it, regardless of the spin on the headline, will have tenfold more benefit to the industry than detriment. This headline will not make people who liked or needed SEO to suddenly switch gears. What it will do is bring it to the forefront. We're not selling burgers. We're selling a service that is not understood. Any method of bringing people to research the topic is a positive thing. The only ones hurt by it are the SEOs themselves, but only their feelings. Nobody will lose business over this article, but I guaranty that some will gain business that would have never sought them out before."
0Boy is a spindoctor/PR manager by trade. It made sense, so I approved the story. If you think about it, it does make sense.
Fireworks. This is why I love Sphinn, Newsvine, places like that over Digg and Reddit. Intelligent conversation.
Dosh, I think I'm not expressing myself properly. I'll try again...
Despicable Digg/link bait? Absolutely. Negative slant? Absolutely.
The point we were trying to make is that, based upon Digg mentality in general, the negative effects of the headline and the article were microscopic. The chances of good coming out of it were stronger than the chances of bad coming from it. The PRINCIPAL behind it was bad -- it was morally wrong to "bash" SEO (as perceived by the thousands of people who read the headline). The damage done was nil. The damage done if racist propoganda were released and sanctioned by the government... I'm not even going to discuss the quality of the comparison
"Let's be realistic. Your statement sounds altruistic but we all know you're in it for the traffic. Sorry to blunt but I'm not a beginner and I don't think your story was slanted in the way you said it was... to bring awareness to the SEO industry and get them new business."
Of course we're in it for the traffic. I never claimed that the article had altruistic motives. What I was told in the little micro-marketing 101 email that I received and shared is that bashing SEO in that particular manner would not hurt, that it may help, but either way, it was an acceptable story to publish. I don't care if it helped anyone. My concerns were that it could hurt SEO as an industry. The message I got convinced me that it wouldn't.
I think the heart of the issue is that we, as SEOs, whether part time, full time, past, present, or future, don't like to be bashed. It isn't that anyone is concerned that a frontpage story on Digg will hurt business. Realistically, it did not change a single opinion (sorry to disagree Tamar, it's rare). The haters will continue hating, Digg story or not. The supporters will keep on supporting, Digg story or not.
There are a thousand other stories out there that truly bash the industry. This is not one of them.
Dosh, you nailed it. I think you are pushing a little too much of the negative and I'm pushing too much of the positive.
We will never know for sure what effect, if any, it had. In retro, I think I would have pushed harder for it to not be posted, knowing what I know now. Not because of any reaction, good or bad, from the thousands who read it, but because of the dozens who read it from here. The people in the industry are those that I really care about as far as opinions go. I have the luxury of working for a firm that has too many SEO customers all lining up, but I've been on my own before and I realize that losing one client can be destructive. I just lost site of that when I approved this article.
I'm not backtracking on my opinions - I still stand by my arguments above. All I am saying is that even if I believe that perceptions about the industry won't be changed by this story, I should have taken the opinions of my peers more to heart.
Sorry for the late reply. I'm the exact opposite of Tamar. I'm an SEO who understands Social Media at a relatively high level but who doesn't practice it is a way that would make me a top Digger.
With that said, we actually have a lot in common. One major difference - I don't care what the general Digg population thinks of SEO. It would be nice if there were no black hats or spammers. It would be incredible if the art and science that is true search engine optimization could gain the same exposure that is given to the minority who tarnish our image. Bottom line - nothing posted or made popular on Digg will change any minds.
Is a negative title on a headline perpetuating the image? Yes.
Would a positive slant on a headline that made it to the FP help reduce the bias? Possibly.
Would a positive slant on SEO make it to the front page of Digg? We all know that answer.
I have more respect for the opinions of the people in this network than all of the other networks combined, which is why I somewhat regret allowing the post to happen. Still, I am firm in my opinion that the only perceptions that had a chance of changing were here and not on Digg.
Tamar, the fact that you are not as SEO lends credibility to your opinion on the matter moreso than just about anyone else. You know the subject as well as anyone who practices regularly. I will take your comments to heart and make adjustments on future posts.
For those who checked yesterday and got a blank page, the Digg/SU effect has ended and the site is now live again.
Or is it "Digg this story or you'll wake up with a horse's head in your bed."?
Hi DoshDosh,
It is, of course, futile to argue with a respected member of Sphinn, but here are the reasonings for the "castings"....
Between Newsvine and Reddit, Newsvine seems to be the more "cerebral" of the two. It is also the most "outside of the family" in look, feel, and content. I understand the concern about Reddit - upon rereading the post, it appears that I am insulting Reddit, which was definitely not the intention. There is definitely an undercurrent of obnoxious, Sonny-like headlines that make it to the front page that would have a hard time making it on the more sedate Newsvine. I'm not saying that Reddit is "dumb" -- I enjoy it more than the others most of the time -- but rudeness and sensationalism is rewarded moreso on Reddit than Newsvine.
The rest of what you said, I mostly agree. StumbleUpon could actually fit anyone in the family, depending on the slant. Fredo/Propeller -- it was a stretch, but I was latching onto the idea that as the older brother, he felt that he shouldn't have to be secondary to Michael, just as Propeller/Netscape wishes they weren't secondary to Digg and Reddit.
Thanks for the Sphinn! I love your blog, btw.
Fictional? The Godfather was fictional? I thought it was a documentary!
I wanted to ask him how large his Reddit staff was and how much he paid them, but it wasn't a face to face interview.
I tried myself to submit, delete, resubmit, delete. Ended up getting into a comment dogging match. My Karma is 1800, so I get a few to the FP, but I'm having title troubles, can't get away from "anonymous_hater" -- that's his actual profile name -- yadayadayada.
SO, I deleted it again. Maybe someone else will have better luck.
Digg, it made it to 60+ before getting buried. Propeller, Sphinn, Stumble, Mixx -- great success at all three.
Still, it bugs me that I couldn't get it on the FP of reddit. It's about reddit with quotes from the top reddit-guru. Oh well. I'll let it go. Thanks for the submission, fantomaster. Visit any time.
There was a similar, less detailed story a couple of months ago that I wrote. Not as good as this one, but touches the basic points: Whether to Optimize for Google Alone or to Mix Efforts.
Thanks for the comments. Articles like that can be really cheesy if they aren't researched and done right.
Thanks Andy. Yours is a blog that I've been watching in this regard.
Story: Fake Hookers + Fake Credit Cards + Fake 13yr olds = Marketing?