Calendar
Network
Feeds
squishee
This is kind of sad. Next we'll see a post titled, "What Does Matt Cutts Eat for Breakfast?"
I went through the list and was unimpressed. Maybe if the information were presented a bit differently than it just being a list of people Matt follows and what they do, it could have been more valuable. In its current state, however, I feel that the post is pretty weak. (Just my opinion, of course.)
This is a submission of a submission of a submission. I think the universe just asploded.
Why the hell would "SEOmoz Competitor Busted..." be a better title? Because it mentions SEOmoz? If that's the case, any article about an SEO company that's submitted to Sphinn should be titled "SEOmoz Competitor..."
The newsletter title was meant to be facetious. This is an extremely sensationalist Sphinn.
I don't doubt that you unsubscribed--what I take issue with is you alleging that we're threatening our members. I don't question the technique used because we tested a few different email titles to see which ones performed well. Clearly the "Read This or We'll Dock Your Mozpoints!" one got a lot of clicks, but if it also garnered negative reactions then I guess we just don't use that one, plain and simple. No big deal, it's called testing.
Step 1: Find a story to submit to Sphinn.
Step 2. Mention "Rand" or "Rand Fishkin" in the title.
Step 3. Front page, baby!
Kim, I'd have to argue that the voters had to choose who to vote for based on the nominations that were given. Sure, I bet that there are loads of marketers out there who sacrifice much more than any of the nominees, but the point of SEJ's awards was to try and give kudos to the people who are visible in our industry via blogging, conferences, etc. I do agree that the category wasn't ideally explained, so the people who voted had to cast their votes based upon their definition, and they awarded their vote to the person who best fit their definition of "giving."
Matt, I hope your "potatoe" was just you channeling your inner Dan Quale. :D
I'm happy to be aboard--reading SEL every day keeps me updated on search news and trends, so it's a good habit for me to get into.
YES. Tamar, I agree with this wholeheartedly. This has always irked me about SU. I stumble cool sites and then get mad when I forget where they were.
Todd, you're such a stinker. If this is being on your good side, I'd hate to see what you'd do to someone on your BAD side. :P
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.
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.
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!
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.
It's not really fresh content if it's someone else's, right? Aren't you just putting dup content on your site?
This isn't as big a deal, but I get a bit irked when people confuse "e.g." and "i.e." Then again, I have always been a Grammar Nazi. :P
Story: I'm Pretty Sure You Want Potatoes