June 21, 2005
YAY! LINK-WHORING! (UPDATED 6-21-05 3:30 PM)
In an effort to help crappy blogs steal traffic from their betters, I've decided to institute a new blogroll:
WANTON LINK-WHORING
Which is WAY down in the bottom of my right sidebar.
No one will ever notice your name on it, and it will not drive any traffic to your site.
All you have to do to get on it is to leave a comment to this post that says "I'm a link whore" and include your blog's URL (either in the "personal information" box or in the body of the comment).
You don't have to blogroll me, you don't have to link me, you don't even have to know my name. Just leave the comment.
I do reserve the right to exclude porn sites that don't turn me on, though.
And feel free to let Puppy Blender know that he finally has a shot at getting blogrolled here.
UPDATE (6-21-05 3:30PM): As link-ho Boudicca of Boudicca's Voice mentioned in the comments, this makes me a link-pimp. I'm thinkin' I needs me a fancy-ass hat:
Posted by: Harvey at
01:01 PM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm a link-whore Daddy!
Posted by: Oddybobo at June 21, 2005 01:14 PM (6Gm0j)
2
I'm a link whore, you're a link whore, wouldn't you want to be a link whore too?
Damn, what commercial did I just take that from? It's the first thing that popped into my head.
Oooo, yeah, babeeee, give me more! I'm a linky whore!
(Guess I'll stay off the caffeine the rest of the day...)
Posted by: Bou at June 21, 2005 01:34 PM (z7nbM)
3
Reporting for my cheap link duty:
Beej, aka "Wanton Link Whore Extraordinaire and Sleazy Site Skeez"!
PS - I think the Puppy Blender may be too busy right now, he's experimenting with a new smoothie, it's called the Pomeranian/Bichon Frise Freeze...
Posted by: beej at June 21, 2005 01:34 PM (SGUNc)
Posted by: The (not so) Daily Me at June 21, 2005 01:42 PM (FryFn)
5
I so am a whore ... uuummmm I mean link whore dammit, no really I did mean link whore.
Posted by: Machelle at June 21, 2005 02:19 PM (ZAyoW)
6
I see no reason not to be a link whore!
Posted by: Jeff at June 21, 2005 02:39 PM (yiMNP)
7
This is starting to get like that one scene in Spartacus :-)
Posted by: Harvey at June 21, 2005 02:50 PM (ubhj8)
8
I'm thinking this makes you our link pimp, right? You just need some 'bling bling'. I'm channeling my Mom today. ;-)
Posted by: Bou at June 21, 2005 03:08 PM (z7nbM)
9
This is starting to get like that one scene in Spartacus
You mean the Pepsi commercial?!
hee hee hee
Posted by: Machelle at June 21, 2005 03:10 PM (ZAyoW)
10
Okay, even I chuckled at this...
Posted by: Erik Grayson at June 21, 2005 03:46 PM (cVopX)
11
I'm a link whore!
That reminds me, I need to go to the doctor!
Posted by: Sissy at June 21, 2005 05:28 PM (uXS+O)
12
Oh babeee, I'm diggin' that hat.
Posted by: Bou at June 21, 2005 05:47 PM (z7nbM)
Posted by: Sissy at June 21, 2005 06:25 PM (uXS+O)
14
Harv, you
know I am firmly in the pro-link-whoring column, so go ahead and add me!
I am a link whore.
They say admitting it is the first step, right? And the second step is enjoying it...
Posted by: Susie at June 21, 2005 07:18 PM (PWYyH)
15
Yay for link whorage and the $50 dollar bill!!...err...wait...uhm...wrong type of....nevermind
Posted by: BloodSpite at June 21, 2005 07:28 PM (RjRrb)
16
No comment from me, dammit... I ain't no link whore.
Posted by: That 1 Guy at June 21, 2005 07:33 PM (6G7e3)
17
You heard me, didn't you? Not. A. Link. Whore!
Posted by: That 1 Guy at June 21, 2005 07:34 PM (6G7e3)
18
A Link Gigilo, perhaps?
Anyhow, I disagree with the whole label. Whores? I don't think so.
Any women in the BE family would qualify as a link call girl at the very least.
Posted by: Graumagus at June 21, 2005 08:21 PM (5MeM1)
19
Just call me a link ho!
Posted by: songstress7 at June 21, 2005 09:58 PM (ie93s)
20
BloodSpite - Your link-whorage emanates from you like scalp-shine off Michael Jordan. You don't have to say a word.
T1G - You're a link-whore AND a bad liar.
Songstress - gotcha covered, sweetie :-)
Posted by: Harvey at June 21, 2005 11:26 PM (ubhj8)
21
I am a proud link whore.
Posted by: Kevin at June 22, 2005 12:05 AM (e7I2/)
22
What's a "link"?
Posted by: _Jon at June 22, 2005 08:17 AM (g9Y9+)
23
_Jon - a link is that thing I gave you by putting you on the Link Whore blogroll.
Traffic-stealing link whore! :-P
Posted by: Harvey at June 22, 2005 10:47 AM (ubhj8)
24
Harvey, you 'Link Pimp', you!
I plan on enjoying it, too ... *grin*
Posted by: Barb at June 22, 2005 02:34 PM (bF/st)
25
I am the missing link whore.
Posted by: LeeAnn at June 22, 2005 06:21 PM (v9jcm)
Posted by: Graumagus at June 22, 2005 08:28 PM (z53Wt)
27
i'm late to the game but I am such a link whore, it didn't matter...
Posted by: jody at June 26, 2005 12:19 AM (ByVKO)
28
Me too, Jody, me too. Hell, I'm such a wanton whore that not only did I make the wanton link-whore blogroll on my very first try, I didn't even know there was a game to be late for.
Guess that makes me a clueless wanton link-whore.
Thanks heaps Harvey. lol
p.s. that's one sexy hat
Posted by: Uber at June 27, 2005 05:29 PM (vYCja)
29
Dear Harry:
I'm a link-whore.
Your friend,
basil
Posted by: basil at June 28, 2005 05:26 AM (R0uvM)
30
Grim and I are both link whores
Posted by: Patriot Xeno at June 28, 2005 06:48 AM (z4SP5)
31
i wanna be a link-whore, too!!!!
:-D
Posted by: laurie at June 28, 2005 09:34 PM (c0Zuo)
32
Although it seems as if I am a little late for the party...I too am a link whore and the only way I can feel the satisfaction of being such is if I was added to the Wanton Link-Whoring blogroll.
Posted by: Martyr73 at June 30, 2005 07:45 AM (pW0IV)
33
I'm out there link-whorin and lovin' every minute of it!
Link me please.
http://www.doonesbury.com/
Posted by: Doonesbury's Garry Trudeau at July 06, 2005 03:39 AM (vYCja)
34
Ok, I'm guessing the last one was a joke, but I'll wait until Garry complains to take him off.
Posted by: Harvey at July 06, 2005 06:53 AM (ubhj8)
35
I'm a brand-spankin'-new link whore!
Top of Google. Nice going.
Posted by: Curtis G. at July 13, 2005 12:40 PM (RYhHv)
36
I'm new to the Alliance and out whoring for links...
Link to me, big guy - and make it hurt!
[Why do I have a sudden craving for a smoke?]
Posted by: Mr. Right at July 17, 2005 06:16 PM (EOGY5)
37
Fine,
I'm a link whore.
Thanks.
Posted by: Tyler D. at August 25, 2005 10:04 PM (dd9FX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
THE ALLIANCE OF FREE BLOGS: LINK-WHORE OR COMMUNITY SERVANT?
In his post on
the evils of link-whoring, the editor of Sobriquet Magazine had several colorful descriptions of the Alliance:
"The most blatant display of wanton link doping is The Alliance of Free Blogs"
"a nerdy joke"
"The Alliance of Free Blogs essentially amounts to the flogging of the vestigial detritus left long after the desiccated horse of a joke had begun stinking up the internet."
All of which are true. The Alliance is based on a joke that, in and of itself, stopped being funny a long time ago. After nearly two years, it's descended past the point of self-parody and into the realm of "pop-culture reference" - rather like the humor value of quoting Monty Python.
However, he also made an observation that I have to take some exception to:
"[an] idiotically haphazard [collection] of people who merely want to rank higher on The Truth Laid Bear's ecosystem"
To the untrained eye, this may appear so, but the fact is that the Alliance IS a community, and it DOES have a common trait:
Every member of the Alliance thinks it's fun - and sometimes even funny - to poke good-natured fun at Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit.
I'd like to point out here that - although he's not a member - this includes Glenn Reynolds himself, who recently made a self-deprecating reference to his status as "puppy-blender" during an interview on national television (at about the 5:22 mark in the video).
Now, I will grant that - from time to time - people will attempt to join the Alliance strictly for its link-whoring value. They'll post their quote, link and banner, get on the blogroll, then take them down. But we do check up on people now and then, and people who don't fulfill membership requirements DO get purged. Charming Alliance HQ Hostess Susie of Practical Penumbra is merciless on that issue, and rightly so. We don't ask much, and if you aren't willing to do those few simple things, get lost.
There's another point that he did NOT criticize us for (so don't go flaming him on this), but which needs addressing.
The Alliance DOES do good works in the blogging community.
First the assignments and round-ups. Comedy writing is hard, and even if you think you're funny, it can be intimidating to just up and start cracking wise. The two assignments posted at Alliance HQ each week give folks with a sense of humor an excuse to come out of their shell and try something new. Our "will be linked regardless of quality" policy takes some of the pressure off, and bloggers can feel free to experiment with different techniques, not worrying whether any given piece of material is "good enough". It's like a twice-weekly open-mike night, except without the booing.
Second, the Linky Stuff posts - Blog Carnivals are good ways for bloggers to get attention, but sometimes it's hard to find out beforehand where to submit your entries. That's why we actively track some of the larger ones, and place great emphasis on Ferdy's All-Purpose Carnival Submission Form, which makes it insanely easy to submit entries to them, as well as dozens more that Alliance HQ doesn't track.
The last thing I'd like to say about the Alliance is that, although it's currently the wantonest link-whore in the blogosphere, it didn't start out that way, and it took a HELL of a lot of work to get it there.
Alliance HQ has at least 7 new posts every week, and has for nearly 2 years. This sort of consistency is hard to find on blogs whose authors write nowhere else. At HQ, it borders on the miraculous, since GEBIV, Susie & I each have at least one "day job" blog, too.
However, the regularly-updated content is only half the story. The REAL power behind the throne is Charming Alliance HQ Hostess Susie. She's the one who maintains the template, updates the blogroll, processes the new applications, and purges non-compliant members. All the while maintaining her own blog, getting her Masters degree and - something she never mentions, so *I* will - paying for hosting the Alliance HQ site OUT OF HER OWN POCKET.
Which reminds me... I need to go buy her an Amazon virtual beer to thank her... 'scuse me a second...
... there... that's better.
Anyway, the Alliance of Free Blogs is here to serve you, the blogging community, and we're proud to help in any way we can. If nothing else, we hope that'll you'll at least be entertained by the silliness of it all.
So, as I say in the Alliance Backstory post:
"Enjoy the spectacle"
INSTAPUNDO DELENDA EST!
Posted by: Harvey at
12:23 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 795 words, total size 5 kb.
1
You forgot supporting the blog-warriors against random limey-crumpet munchers.
Oh wait, he's an Alliance member too . . .
Posted by: Oddybobo at June 21, 2005 01:16 PM (6Gm0j)
2
Ah, Hell. Harv, you go 'round and round but isn't the whole ppint of the Alliance is that it's just plain fun?
Posted by: Peter at June 21, 2005 07:17 PM (On/Ai)
3
Peter - well... yeah ;-)
Posted by: Harvey at June 21, 2005 11:17 PM (ubhj8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE THEY DON'T GET IT
The latest Filthy Lie Assignment at
Alliance HQ led to this observation at
The Blog Herald:
Bizarrely though, the best the Alliance of Free Blogs could respond with is that their method of cross linking is somehow better then that of Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit fame, who apparently commits the crime of linking at random.
It just boggles my mind when people don't pick up on humor when they read something "bizarre".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't I make it fairly clear with this line?:
I mean LOOK at his blogroll! Ann Althouse, La Shawn Barber, N.Z. Bear, Dean Esmay, James Lileks... it's like a "Who's Who" of "Who The Hell Is THAT?" Have YOU ever heard of any of these nobodies?
If pretending not to know the biggest names in the blogosphere isn't a giveaway, I'm not really sure what is.
The other amusing part is the way they choose to frame the whole link-whoring discussion:
Link Doping debate places Blogcritics against Republican bloggers
An interesting debate on the value of building links between like minded blogs has emerged with a scathing piece appearing on Blogcritics.org attacking the Alliance of Free Blogs, a right wing link network which targets the Truth Laid Bears blogging ecosystem.
[snip]
Whilst the battle perhaps appears to be nothing more than a minor partisan stoush[...]
Idiots.
The guy who wrote the piece for Blogcritics didn't "attack", he criticized. And given his level of knowledge at the time he wrote the piece (since upgraded), it was a relatively reasonable piece of criticism.
He also took the time to figure out that the Alliance is an exercise in satire and not meant to be taken seriously, as he clearly mentioned in his article.
Finally, the editor of Sobriquet Magazine did NOT pick on the Alliance of Free Blogs for political reasons. He did it because it's the largest, most high-profile, blog-community in the Ecosystem and we best exemplified the points he was trying to make.
Anyway, he does a commendable job of bringing these partisan hacks up to speed in their comments. Go ahead & take a look.
Posted by: Harvey at
09:59 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 367 words, total size 3 kb.
1
You are really taking this issue to heart aren't you? Not that I blame you, and I do understand where you are coming from, especially the fact that this post is technically a different issue on the same topic... or vice versa.
Posted by: Contagion at June 21, 2005 10:49 AM (Q5WxB)
2
I think it's funny that they think the whole "Alliance of Free Blogs" idea is about a right wing network that is targeting the TLB ecosystem.
They make it sound like some sort of mafia putting a hit out on people.
But they again, the left is often refered to as humorless.
Posted by: Machelle at June 21, 2005 10:56 AM (ZAyoW)
3
I like the link-whoring it let's me as a reader see things i wouldnt normally see and let's me find new stuff like how i found out about your dumb site which i read at least twice everyday. so keep up the whoring, and if you can find a way to get paid by whoring links then you could be the link-pimp harvey and that would be pretty sweet.
Posted by: AJ at June 21, 2005 11:28 AM (PpF5h)
4
Contagion - Well, blogging IS one of my few areas of expertise. Over the last couple years, I've put a LOT of thought into the why's & wherefore's of the activity, and when people who *haven't* thought it through start writing error-riddled articles, I feel obligated to make corrections.
Sorta like being an off-duty cop witnessing a mugging.
AJ - And you'd be the first bitch I'd sell, what with you lookin' all pretty in that little pink hat of yours :-)
Posted by: Harvey at June 21, 2005 02:05 PM (ubhj8)
5
Haha Harvey you got the wrong AJ I don't even have a blog but i have thought about it... lol.
Posted by: AJ at June 21, 2005 08:16 PM (PpF5h)
6
CRAP! Now *I'm* an idiot!
I thought Humble DevilDog got himself a new e-mail addy to go with his new digs in Texas.
Sorry :-/
Posted by: Harvey at June 21, 2005 11:36 PM (ubhj8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
WHY LINK-WHORING MAY NOT BE HARMFUL AT ALL
Susie of Practical Penumbra has
a VERY passionate essay on the value of link-whoring and the value of the Alliance of Free Blogs.
Fiery women are SUCH a turn on :-)
Anyway, in the comments, the editor of Sobriquet (who's been quite reasonable throughout this debate - I'm starting to like this guy) mentions two things in Susie's comments (which he also discusses at his own site, Sobriquet Magazine) that I'd like to address.
First:
"gratuitous linking can bring attention to a lousy website that might otherwise find a really good site"
This point I have to disagree on.
When I'm Googling for something - especially something obscure - I usually check out several lousy sites before I find what I'm looking for.
However, I keep going until I *do* find it.
I've never gone to a lousy web site, found nothing, then quit looking.
The quest for good reading may often be delayed, but I don't think it's ever denied.
Second:
Plus, several search engines do rely rather heavily on pure linkage to rank websites in response to a search string. This is really where I feel over-linking can harm the chance of a good, but relatively unlinked resource catching someone's eye.
Turns out that isn't true, at least for Google.
From Gerard of American Digest, I found this article on how Google treats links (it's fairly obscure, so I'm not surprised he didn't know about it. I just found it myself):
As well as the number, quality and anchor text factors of a link. Google seems to also consider historical factors. Apparently the Google 'sandbox' or aging delay begins count down the minute links to a new site are discovered.
Google records the discovery of a link, link changes over time, the speed at which a site gains links and the link life span.
With this in mind, fast link acquisition may be a strong indicator of potential search engine Spam.
Gone are the days of pages and pages full of links. You must grow your links slowly to stay below the radar and be careful who you exchange links with. That means no more buying hundreds of links at once or other underhand tactics.
So, your sudden addition of a couple hundred links from joining the Alliance won't actually boost your Google ranking.
Which means that Google thinks he was right. Trying to inflate your link count by link-whoring is a BAD thing, and must be dealt with.
Which they do.
Which means that he can now relax because the problem's being addressed, and he can concentrate on writing quality blog-posts instead.
It also means that he doesn't have to feel guilty if he decides to join the Alliance now ;-)
Posted by: Harvey at
09:19 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Happy Blogiversary, Harv! I'm eschewing my panties today, just for you!
Posted by: Susie at June 21, 2005 09:53 AM (PWYyH)
2
You know, we DO expect public pictures of this, right Susie?
Posted by: littlejoe at June 21, 2005 10:09 AM (QJRRo)
3
Wait. It's you're real birthday today, isn't it?! And we're all supposed to be going commando... *taking off jeans to slip out of her underwear*
Posted by: Bou at June 21, 2005 01:02 PM (z7nbM)
4
ACk. I did get it wrong. Happy blogoversary, Blogpop. Wow and to think I thought you were such an old hand when I started... and you were only at a year... where I am... and I sure as hell don't feel like an old hand. Sheesh!
Posted by: Bou at June 21, 2005 01:35 PM (z7nbM)
5
Bou - you're not an old hand, you're a handful :-)
Posted by: Harvey at June 21, 2005 01:54 PM (ubhj8)
6
I forgot to mention that I was braless as well--that sundress being
almost backless, and all....
Posted by: Susie at June 21, 2005 07:23 PM (PWYyH)
7
Odd... my shorts seem to have shrunk in the wash...
Odd... I don't remember washing them in the last 30 seconds...
Posted by: Harvey at June 21, 2005 11:20 PM (ubhj8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 20, 2005
LINK-WHORING: CAN SITE TRAFFIC BE STOLEN?
The guy who posted
the piece on link-whoring at Blogcritics that
I looked at last night is doing
a follow-up at his own blog, Sobriquet Magazine.
It contains three phrases I want to examine more closely. I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just not clear on a few things:
1) "link doping really does propigate negative stereotypes of bloggers and blogging."
Could you please specify what these stereotypes are?
2) "a particularly virilant strain of link whoring/link doping that threatens to add more roadblocks for bloggers who don't think that "[b]logging is a hobby of pure ego.""
What are these roadblocks?
3) "I [wouldn't] want to inflate my site's popularity at the expense of someone else's"
So what you're saying is that a bad blog being on a lot of blogrolls reduces links to good blogs? Or reduces traffic to good blogs? Both?
I guess I'm having trouble with the whole "that crappy blog is stealing my link/traffic" argument. I don't look at links/traffic as something that can be stolen. If I'm not getting links/traffic, it's because I haven't earned them, and it's up to me to put forth the effort to do that. It's nobody's fault but mine.
Currently I think this is the premise over which we're butting heads.
Now, I'll freely admit that I occasionally feel a stab of jealously when I see lavish attention being paid to another blog, especially if I don't like their writing, or them personally. The Huffington "buying my way to #70 in the Ecosystem" Post springs to mind. However, when I choke back the bile and think about it, I have to grudgingly admit that such blogs DO do better (or at least more) than me in the quality/frequency/consistency of their posts. Or I at least have to admit that - for whatever reason - more people find that other blog more informative/entertaining than mine.
It's not Arianna's fault that nobody's heard of Bad Example. It's mine. If I don't like it, I need to stop criticizing her blog and work harder on my own.
Unless, of course, I think I can get some mileage out of kicking her around a little.
Heh. Two birds. One stone. ;-)
So, whaddya guys think? Can a crappy blogger steal your links & traffic by link-whoring?
Posted by: Harvey at
07:31 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.
1
No. They can't.
People don't visit crappy blogs. People only visit blogs they enjoy reading or from which they get something, whether it be news, political analysis, or fodder for their own blog.
The ecocsystem ranking by number or by breathing organism, is taken very lightly by me and taken for fun. As you said in your earlier post, joining the Alliance will put you way up at Large Mammal status. That may make people feel better, but if people aren't reading them, I don't see why it's significant data. I'm not knocking joining the Alliance or any other group... it's exposure and anything helps!
But for me, it is who reads me. I have A LOT OF non-blogging readers. I would say most of my readers are non-blogging readers. I love those readers as much as the bloggers.
Nobody can steal my readers from me... I can only drive them away.
Posted by: Bou at June 20, 2005 08:21 AM (z7nbM)
2
I agree with Bou, you may get a link by link-whoring, but you-the writer- are what keeps those new readers or drives them away.
Posted by: Oddybobo at June 20, 2005 09:31 AM (6Gm0j)
3
I have a crappy blog, I have not stolen anyones traffic.
Posted by: ArmyWifeToddlerMom at June 20, 2005 10:27 AM (2kBck)
4
As the owner/operator of a crappy blog I can honestly say that you can not steal traffic. I am a large mammel in the Ecosystem for Three reasons. 1) I am on the Bad Example blog roll 2)I'm on the Gathering of the Blogs blogroll 3) I joined The Alliance. However, being on those blog rolls may have generated, at the most, 30 orriginal hits from them.
When I say orriginal hits, these are people that have never been to my site before. I get more of my orriginal hits from another blogger that writes a post either liking something I did or flaming me for it. I received my hits off of my BlogCrawl post then I did any other in the past... go figure. How do I know this? I'm kind of obsessive compulsive on my various sites statistics and I tend to track these things.
I know I have never randomly just started going through the links of the blog rolls I have on my side bar. I will go to the Ecosystem to swim down with the flippery fish and flappy birds, because prior to the alliance, that is where I was.
Posted by: Contagion at June 20, 2005 11:57 AM (Q5WxB)
5
Gotta love that term..."link whore". Sorta gives the impression that there's a "link pimp" somewhere out there.
In all seriousness though, it sounds like this whole blog ranking thing is gonna rank itself right out of a job. After all, who's really gonna care if you are ranked such-and-such with so-and-so if there are thousands of ranks just like it out there.
To me, these things are like clubs. A larger group, like the "eco-system" for example, is sorta like the YMCA of the blog-sphere. Fun to be a part of, but essentially meaningless.
Being a crappy blogger myself, I can honestly say I've stolen your traffic. Yep, that's right, I've stolen it and I'm not giving it back. If you want to see your traffic again, you'll have for me: $500 in small unmarked bills, an inflatable love doll, and 30 mustard packets; to be delivered by a man wearing a bunny suit at the local WalMart this Saturday. I will be in the underwear aisle. The question will be: Who sells the tickets? The answer will be: I eat the tacos. If I see any sign of the authorities, your traffic will never return!
MWA HA HA HA HA!!
But that's just my two cents worth.
Posted by: silentwarrior at June 20, 2005 03:05 PM (f8kXi)
6
As my blog is crappy to most, and I have low traffic volume, the people I want to reach are more important than those that drift in. Sure, I'd love to have a huge amount of comments on a post and at first got upset when I didn't get them or the traffic. Now I simply blog what I feel about, what is on my mind and if someone stops by .. fine. If they don't oh well.
I can't steal traffic or commenters .. if my blog interests someone or doesn't others, I can't help that. We all know what we want to see in a blog and what we don't. We can't make everyone happy. And if I stay a small rodent in the ecosystem, oh well! I'll be a happy one
Posted by: Jo at June 20, 2005 03:13 PM (xfzDK)
7
I don't understand how links are a finite resource. I link to other blogs because I like what I read there. I link to specific posts because they're good posts. I don't expect paybacks or recompense for it. It's an expression of admiration, pure and simple. Why try to turn it into something sinister and dirty just because of an obscurely-rendered ideal way to blog that's all in your own mind anyway?
Never have understood people trying to regulate or set guidelines for something so personal that has zero to do with them in the first place.
Pfffft.
Posted by: LeeAnn at June 20, 2005 05:22 PM (v9jcm)
8
For the record, there is not one person here who has commented that has a crappy blog.
Traffic does not equate to quality of the blog.
When I first started blogging, I was definitely heard to say to Harvey more times than he could count, "Who wants to hear what I have to say?" But even then, I may have joked, but I didn't consider myself a crap blog.
It all comes down to why you do it. I do it as a release. Even when I had all of 10 readers, 4 of those being my folks and 2 siblings, I didn't view myself as a crappy blog. I was doing what I wanted to do and the few people who were reading me, seemed to be enjoying themselves.
Even now, I joke that I'm a bullshit blog, I don't benefit society like Blackfive, but I like my blog. It's me. I'll never be a big blogger, but that's not my goal.
And also for the record, I think that this Eric guy needs to get a frickin' life and quit worrying about crap like whose above him in the ecosystem and why.
Life does not happen behind a computer screen. It happens out THERE in the real world. Live it and move on.
BTW, Susie's piece from your trackback was excellent.
Posted by: Bou at June 20, 2005 05:41 PM (z7nbM)
9
Well, I hate to take the wishy washy road, but sometimes yes, sometimes no. There are numerous games that one can play to build traffic and links. At what point does it go overboard? At what point does blogging stop being about, well, blogging, and become whoring for links and traffic?
Posted by: William Teach at June 20, 2005 06:49 PM (HxpPK)
10
No, but he can steal your whore link by trafficking. Makes perfect sense.
Posted by: That 1 Guy at June 20, 2005 08:15 PM (rJKBi)
11
Links are like those discount coupons for a fancy eatery. The discount might get me in once. If the food is bad, the service worse and the whole place smells like rancid ass I ain't goun' back.
I'm a niche blogger. Nineteen out of twenty people neither care about nor understand what I'm writing about half the time. Fine with me and it's not their fault.
Posted by: Peter at June 20, 2005 08:15 PM (H9Uqf)
12
Amen, Bou!
Butt loads of Traffic = good blog? No.
however...
Butt loads of Traffic = more people to read the blog and let them decide.
I don't
steal links. I just sign up for just about anything that promises any kind of traffic in the hopes that more people will read my blog and laugh at it besides the three people that read it already (me, myself, and I).
Soooooo...I'm a link whore. And proud of it.
And as for Arianna over at Huffington's Post? Who cares about her! What kind of a credible source for ANYTHING uses a slogan that pretty much sums up that they've only been around for A MONTH? Nothing more can be said about that blog that
hasn't been said already.
That's just my $.02.
Posted by: beej at June 21, 2005 12:23 AM (SGUNc)
13
Bou exemplified on June 20, 2005 05:41 PM
For the record, there is not one person here who has commented that has a crappy blog.
************
There I posted! Now we can't say that anymore Bwahahahahah!
Posted by: BloodSpite at June 21, 2005 08:41 AM (RjRrb)
14
Well,
Instapundit has been stealing my traffic from day one. Oh sure, he gives some back every now and then but it really doesn't make up for my kid's having to eat discarded cereal box-flakes with chunky milk.
Link theft: Not a victimless crime
Posted by: spacemonkey at June 21, 2005 12:10 PM (DN55C)
15
BloodSpite - the only thing crappy about you is that you're a crappy liar. Bou's statement still stands.
Oh, wait... Spacemonkey commented.
Nevermind :-P
Anyway, Monkey, just be glad that Glenn actually gives you a little traffic back now & then. Hobo-whackin' bastard hasn't ever given me jack!
Posted by: Harvey at June 21, 2005 02:16 PM (ubhj8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 19, 2005
LINK WHORING ISN'T NECESSARILY A BAD THING
One of the contributors at Blogcritics.org posted a thoughtful
an intriguing piece on link-whoring (he used the term "link-doping" because he wasn't familiar with
the more common terminology) in which he concludes that the practice causes "many weblogs deserving [a high] level of attention [to] languish unread because no one can find them."
I must respectfully disagree.
I believe his central argument rests on over-emphasizing the importance of Ecosystem ranking to a blog's success. I just don't think it's as vital as he makes it out to be.
The truth is that out of some 10 million blogs in existence, fewer than 30,000 of those blogs (as of this writing) are actively tracked by the Ecosystem. The vast majority of blogs get along just fine without it.
However, I will grant that 30,000 is still a big number, and one's Ecosystem ranking may be a statistically significant sampling upon which to judge a blog's popularity. Heck, most Media polls only survey 1000 people or so.
And I will also grant him his point that - by being listed on a non-community-oriented blogroll - it IS possible to gain a higher Ecosystem ranking faster than by getting blogrolled one site at a time. He's also correct to note that such "status inflation" has the effect of making other blogroll links less valuable over time because the presence of crappy blogs on these blogrolls reduces their perceived quality in general terms.
However I don't think this will cause "some really good blogs to fade away", because - in the long term - Ecosystem status is irrelevant to the success of a blog.
What makes a blog "good" is a combination of posting quality and posting frequency. The top blogs (by ANY method of ranking, not just the Ecosystem) all contain good stuff. Either brilliant orginal content (like *ahem* IMAO) or a large collection of links to brilliant orginal content (like the Puppy Blender). It's possible to mix & match a bit, but the majority of the super-heavyweights specialize.
Top blogs also update at least daily, although a scarcity of posts can be overcome to some degree by quality (like USS Clueless). But for the most part, if you don't post well and often, you may whore your way to the top, but you won't stay there.
It's also questionable just how "top" you can get via blogroll-link-whoring. Take, for example, The Alliance of Free Blogs. There are no quality restrictions, and - for the price of a little sidebar space and personal embarrassment - you can get a serious pile of links. Assuming one from every member (which fails on the high side, since "blogrolling the membership" isn't a requirement, and not all members do it), you could get 378 links. However, by itself, this would only get you "Large Mammal" status and a rank of about #500. Although that sounds impressive, keep in mind that you have to reach Playful Primate or better (top 100) in order to be on the Ecosystem's front page.
Let's be honest. Unless you're on that front page, your Ecosystem status isn't going to help you much. Nobody surfs off the Large Mammal list. In fact, if you're not a Primate or higher, you've got a better chance of getting traffic from the Ecosystem if you're an Insignificant Microbe, because sometimes bigger bloggers go slumming (just ask Flaming Duck about how that can happen).
Not that it matters, because - as I said - Ecosystem status is irrelevant.
Why?
Because the thing that REALLY drives traffic isn't cold sidebar-blogroll-links, it's the warm, enthusiastic links that occur within blog posts, and Ecosystem status is irrelevant to how those sorts of links are obtained.
Warm links are entirely an effect of how a given blogger markets himself. I have a detailed discussion of those techniques in my "Fighting Invisibility" post for those who are curious.
My point being that long-term success in the blogsphere is the result of each individual's own hard work, consistency, and effort. Eventually you get what you deserve.
I'd like to close by saying that I believe that link-whoring is, after a fashion, a good thing for those who indulge in it and who have the quality content to back it up. Even though bloggers are rarely in it for the money, success is still heavily dependent on advertising, just as it is in the business world. There are two basic strategies:
1) Warm word of mouth - getting enthusiastic links inside other bloggers' posts
2) Cold mass-marketing - making your name visible in as many places as possible in order to build name recognition
The first way gives you fewer links, but more chance of the link getting clicked. The second plays the numbers game. Both strategies are viable, and both strategies work if pursued consistently. Do keep in mind though, that cold mass-marketing is the strategy of spammers & porn sites, so there's a certain amount of "guilt by association" to consider.
In the end, though, your quest for links & site traffic is a one-man show, and you're in complete control of it. If you take the energy you currently devote to envying the success of others (*shakes fist at filthy link-whore Arianna Huffington*) and pour it into improving the quality of your site, you will succeed as a blogger no matter WHERE you are in the Ecosystem.
Posted by: Harvey at
07:13 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 908 words, total size 6 kb.
1
I guess this means that I am not SO bad for being the utter link whore that I am. Thanks for the "pseudo-compliment", Harvey.
Posted by: Two Dogs at June 19, 2005 07:22 PM (ydeDD)
2
Ummmm... Okay. Lemme see if I get this. BE Groupie? Check. BE Peeper? Check. Link Whore? Not so much. I don't get the appeal..... :-) Thanks for the insight, though!
Posted by: Richmond at June 19, 2005 07:34 PM (WkF4B)
3
I think we'd miss out on some great people that might not have been found if it wasn't for link whoring. Maybe not the "top-blogs"...but the ones you learn to care about and want to be sure to read daily like talking on the phone with a friend.
Posted by: Sissy at June 19, 2005 07:53 PM (uXS+O)
Posted by: Susie at June 19, 2005 10:23 PM (PWYyH)
5
Susie - thanks :-)
The rest of you... I can't believe y'all say "whoring" like it's a BAD thing! Why, some of the nicest people I ever met in my life worked in the Sailor On Liberty Hospitality Industry.
Leastwise they usually spoke better English than MOST of the locals and were VERY friendly.
Posted by: Harvey at June 19, 2005 10:28 PM (ubhj8)
6
Gee... and just when I reached Large Mammal status because Matty O'Blackfive linked to the Afghanistan pics young son sent me... *sigh*
I'd be dejected, except the only reason I know I hit Large Mammal is because I was scrolling down my page looking for something else altogether. *grin* Next week I'll be back to my old Marauding Status.
Posted by: Teresa at June 20, 2005 12:04 AM (nAfYo)
7
The odd thing is, even being the blogdaughter of "Mr. Alliance Link-Whore" you never joined a group & yet you still made Mammal completely through your own charms.
As did Bou.
Cream always rises.
Posted by: Harvey at June 20, 2005 12:22 AM (ubhj8)
8
Harvey, I have to disagree with you only on one point. When I go sirfing through the ecosystem, which I do about once a week, I never click a link on anything larger then a marauding Marsupials. I'm not a huge fan of the giant blogs, or top 100 per the ecosystem. When it takes me 20 minutes to sift through comments, I figure it's not wortht he time.
Posted by: Contagion at June 20, 2005 07:18 AM (Q5WxB)
9
Contagion - I stand corrected.
Posted by: Harvey at June 20, 2005 07:50 AM (ubhj8)
10
I seem to be firmly in Large Mammal status now, but it does teeter back and forth sometimes between Marauding Marsupial and Large Mammal.
I'm very cool with it, when I drop back down. My readership is growing and most of my readers are non-bloggers. People send them my link via e-mail, tell their friends, etc. But those folks are not reflected in The Bear's status for us, which you and I have discussed.
So I think its kind of fun to see where I've landed, but it's not ALL about the linkage.
The linkage provides visibility as I know non-bloggers that go off blogger's blog rolls. So it will bring in readers... I know for a fact I have at least 4 non-bloggers that read off my blogroll. So I'm not dissing the linkages... it is important.
But I view it as just a piece of the puzzle. It's not the whole picture. It's just a wonderful tool.
Posted by: Bou at June 20, 2005 08:28 AM (z7nbM)
11
Oh and I feel compelled to say... I never read through the ecosystem. I'll read through my munu roll, but I can barely keep up with my blogroll as it is... I just don't have the time to do any real casual blog reading like surfing through the ecosystem.
Posted by: Bou at June 20, 2005 09:05 AM (z7nbM)
12
Mass media is the best way. My biggest hit jumps have been when Russ Martin reads my posts on the air on his radio show. He kicks the crap out of even Instalanches. I suspect that Slashdot might beat him, but it would be close.
And apparently I've been banned from the Ecosystem, and NZ won't even respond to tell me that it is the case, much less why.
Posted by: Phelps at June 20, 2005 10:44 AM (EkH2g)
13
I've already said my $.02 on the earlier post about link whores (which I consider mysef to be, but I guess by your definition I'm not one, though)
But I just wanted to assert that although Arianna's blog gets lots of attention she's ONLY a Playful Primate. Hope that makes you feel a bit better! Chin up, Harv
Posted by: at June 21, 2005 12:28 AM (SGUNc)
14
Oops...last post was me...sorry for being an Anony Mouse
Posted by: beej at June 21, 2005 12:29 AM (SGUNc)
15
Beej - and if you check her history, she's lost over half her links in the last month:
http://www.truthlaidbear.com/showdetails.php?host=http://huffingtonpost.com
Ah, sweet schadenfreude :-)
Posted by: Harvey at June 21, 2005 01:42 PM (ubhj8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
74kb generated in CPU 0.0247, elapsed 0.1081 seconds.
74 queries taking 0.0922 seconds, 242 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.