Dan, Dan, Dan ... Here's A Clue

My good friend Dan Collins thinks I went to eleven today over Stacy and Donald. In point of fact, I reigned it in. I deflected my true anger and resentment into the meme about Cassandra and such, partly as it also gave me a chance to acknowledge some old and dear friends. And I didn't much care for seeing Cassandra's name being bandied about by two people who have all but lost any respect I ever had for them. Really, Dan, you don't have an issue with two fellows out here playing ping pong with a solid conservative woman's name on their blog? Well, that's another matter, but I certainly do. I don't' find them, or it funny at all. Why you said nothing of that troubles me a little, because I know you to be a decent sort. Won't these two adolescent morons ever buy a clue, or lighten up? They won't if they aren't told about it, that's for sure. So I told them about it in precisely the manner I chose to do it. Too bad. As for your take on it, that isn't really a big concern, or anything that impacts my friendship with you, I hope.

But this entire affair is greatly misunderstood, as it was by Donald at the start. My original group email on this had very little to do with him, or the video at all and everything to do with Stacy McCain and his game of rules. And that's my fault for not being as clear as I could, so allow me to set the record straight. It isn't Dan Collin's fault he is misunderstanding all this. It's mine.

Today, he hauls off on Donald Douglas and Stacy McCain in rather vehement fashion, over the whole Erin Andrews peephole video business and its blogospheric sequelae, and apart from this notice, I'm not going to get involved. As I wrote to Donald at the time, I wouldn't have written about it, personally. I can understand how people could consider publicizing such an invasion of privacy as being an accessory to the crime of obtaining it, particularly when one does so for personal gain.

How can I state this clearly? I don't give a good goshdamn about the Erin Andrews video. No, I wouldn't have posted it. Others did. I don't think it reflects well on them. But, beyond that, I couldn't care less.

What concerns me, as a reputable blogger, is the link rigging game being perpetrated here, instigated by Stacy as it was. Do you people really not understand how Wikio, Technorati and most other link rating services actually work? And what they mean? I can only assume you do, or you wouldn't be playing it. But, let's go through it.

They rate blogs on the number of inbound links. I mean, that is the deceptive, dishonest and manipulative game he has you all playing, right? So, what does that mean?

Traditionally, a blogger acquires links - and subsequent link ratings - by writing decent content that is picked up by other blogs. The better a blogger, the more links go to their count. Get my drift? Because it does matter, whether you think it does, or not. Believe me, it does.

So, what happens, given your little game? Well, decent bloggers - just like many of you, I might add - toil away, their little fingers typing up post after post. And if they are lucky AND good - they attract links. And their credibility goes up among various rating services due to the solid content they produce.

But someone like Stacy invariably comes along desperate for recognition as a blogger, but lacking any restraint, apparently, or patience though he has great talent, to be frank - so he thinks he's devised a great new scam to fool the system. And to some extent, he has. He's far from the first. This has been going on in one fashion, or another, for years.  

Unfortunately, many well deserved links that many a good blogger acquires can get wiped away by what amounts to self-serving spam posts by a group of bloggers getting themselves off by pumping up one another's rankings. So, what is it you want, Dan? You people want me, someone who has never played such games but has a decent ranking based upon his work, to respect you, somehow? To laugh at a deceptive and dishonest move to game the system to benefit you, while hurting others?

Sorry, I don't roll that way. You're trashing up the playing field with BS that's garbage, as far as I'm concerned. And while you're link ratings might go up - though Stacy's will and have the most due his status as ringleader - sorry, you're making yourselves worthless in my view - a sideshow, a veritable circus of the blogosphere. And it hurts blogging as a whole.

Playing such games can lift almost anyone up to where they get noticed, good blogger, or not. And in too many cases, people unfamiliar with blogs will click in on a search, or wikio link, only to find out the blogger isn't all that. So, they figure, if this is the best they got according to these rankings, why bother with the damned things? They're trash.

And all because you're rigging a system, exploiting it for your own gain and diminishing the value of good work by others in the process. And none of you either have the knowledge to know, or conscience to own up to the BS that you're pulling. And ignorance is no excuse in my book.

And the scammers most certainly deserve to be called out on it in no uncertain terms, which is precisely what I'm doing here - just so we're clear. And as for the Erin Andrews video? Jaysus. Who really gives that big a damn in the end? I certainly don't and never did.

Comments

[ECM]

Generally speaking, you come across as a pretty reasonable, rational, guy, but this post comes across as someone that let the heat of the moment overwhelm his normally calm, rational, demeanor and I'm sad to see it. (That said, it does, most certainly, show an ugly, petulant, unprofessional--perhaps even elitist--side that was previously undetectable and is a real shame.)

(Note: your previous post on this matter was semi-reasonable given that you were sticking up for a friend, but this crosses the line in far too many places to be useful to anyone except, perhaps, your ego--in the future, perhaps confine matters such as this to email and/or do what your mother, presumably, told you: if you haven't anything nice to say, don't bother saying it at all, and certainly not in a full-throated screed that aims to draw blood from, purported, friends.)

[Ran]

HAH!!

As a man who has faced well-deserved criticism from DR, I can say unequivocally that he was restrained and professional. Chipping a dude for acting like a troll AND earning his respect ain't easy.

[Bob Reed]

Dan,
Speaking as one relatively new to the blogosphere, this is stuff is kind of "inside baseball"...

The behavior you're referring to; is it where they post links to their blog on a million other blog threads in the hope of someone arbitrarily clicking? Or is there some kind of mass e-mailing going on? I confess that I really don't get it.

Regards,
Bob Reed

[Dan Riehl]

Bob - Well, it isn't a new trick and yes, it's coordinated via email. I finally got them to stop ccing me after I complained - which is what started all this.

WHen you get a link in from another blog, it's counted by spiders, from Google to Wikio, to wherever. By forming groups and all linking one another, they are creating links in to their sites, not because anyone found the content so valuable, but simply because they are agreeing to do it.

So, it's a link ranking scam and I'm not even sure half of them fully understand what they are doing. Though I did see Douglass braging about his WIkio rank,. SO clearly someone realizes how it benefits them for posting a bunch of mindless crap.

We did it years ago before we realized how it played with the system. It is an unethical practice in most reasonable adult minds. But the tactic also has short-comings they don't understand. SO, in the end, it might not be so big a deal. It'll eventually wash out. But I hate seeing talent go to waste. The people it hurts the most are other newer bloggers not in the game. It won't really impact me or other established blogs very much.

[Jimmie]

Actually, Dan, I do know what it means and what I'm doing and I'm jut a tad bit insulted that you consider me a link-scammer.

For me, it's very simple. People tend to link more to blogs that link them. You've been around long enough to notice that. I've spent years linking the big guns of the blogosphere and it's gotten me exactly ducksquat. Now, I'm willing to accept that I'm a terrible writer and that my posts are simply not link-worthy. On the other hand, it's also quite possible that my links are simply swallowed up by the other bazillion bloggers linking to them, too. After all, if you get ten thousand links a day, will you really notice the small fry who sends you a few dozen?

On the other hand, mid-range and smaller bloggers will notice, because my links make a bigger splash in their traffic numbers, and they will start taking an interest in what I'm doing. They, in turn, will start linking to my posts and even though they only throw a few links, tht's certainly better than the big pile of nothing I've gotten from the bigger bloggers.

And when I notice someone has linked back to me, I do my best to note their linking with a link of my own. Is that an attempt to game some Google algorithm? Well, you could say that it is. Alternately you could say that it's a simple expression of gratitude for their attention and the links they've sent. And if it sends a few more hits back their way, well, that's a nice little bonus isn't it?

In time, some of the readers of those blogs will start visiting my blog regularly not only because a blogger whose opinion they trust finds my writing worthy of attention and comment but also because they like my writing all by itself.

That's how I do it. And guess what? Slowly but surely it's working. My traffic has been sneaking higher and higher, not on wikio ranks or technorati hits but from other mid-range and small bloggers and RSS feeds. It sure as heck bets the years I spent trying to wheedle a link from "established blog" and getting the occasional link crumb thrown my way.

Like I said, my writing could be complete crap. If it is, you're certainly welcome to tell me so. But it seems to me that following a couple of Stacy's rules has helped my traffic, not because it's an old way to scam some traffic-flinging web site but because they've helped me build relationships with other bloggers that I hadn't been able to build before.

I'm quite sure that there are a couple bloggers here or there who are using the link-o-rama as a scam, but I'm willing to bet they are the exceptions and not the rule. most of the bloggers on the list you begged out of are folks in my situation and are using the rules like I use them.

I will ask you to consider one thing. If Stacy is using his rules as a big link scam, how is it that he manages to get routine notice from Glenn Reynolds (has Stacy gamed Glenn's authority algorithm too?) and Michelle Malkin? Is it that he's conned them or is his writing good enough to get and keep their attention? I will say this. Without his relentless self-promotion, he would never have gotten their notice.

I apologize if this rambled. If it's too long, you're more than welcome to delete it and tell me to get stuffed. But, really, it bugs me that you'd consider me a scammer because I'm trying to get a few more decent hits a day.

[Dan Riehl]

Jimmie,

I said Stacy is very talented and that he promotes himself releantlessly. I also said there is nothing wrong with that. He gets links from the bigs in different ways. I mean, he has gone down to DC to talk to souces and such. I am not questioning the above at all. Nor am I questioning reciprocal linking, which I try to do - and should do more of, myself. IE Checking technorati ot referrals to see who is linking to me and link them in return when I can.

So, toanswer your question, I don't think I am questioning what you do. And I am certainly not questioning the quaity of your blogging. I am talking about very specifi activities.

They would be building these longish posts and embedding link after link to particular blogs by pre-arranged design. One is not making a judgment about sharing their content with one's readers in any true sense in that case. It is merely checking off a list. And for the most part, those links provide no real traffic at all. Few people hang around one post taking the time to explore 35 links that are built in.

Others are even more obvious, providing links, one after another with no content involved at all. They are simply including the links to get links back in return. Those links are relatively worthless trafic-wise, as well. One is simply exchanging links and not really evaluating content for sharing in the least. It's a link scam.

I'm not criticizing a tendency for a group of blogs to link one another, assuming the link is fulfilling the role linkage genarally does.

I can also say that after working with some who gave up on the strategy, offering advice on how one really obtains links, I have gotten good reports back of getting good linkage that actually drives much more traffic to the blog.

Hopefully, that makes my position clear.