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:

harv - pimp hat.JPG

Posted by: Harvey at 01:01 PM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

April 02, 2005

DID *I* DO THAT?

Blogdaughter Michele of Letters From New York City has two very intense, very personal posts that everyone with a blog needs to read. I'll give a strong hanky alert to both. If you read either without misting up, seek professional help.

They're stories of personal pain, and tragedy, but they're also about the love and hope that pulled her through to the other side. They're stirring, and moving, and in the end, it's the joy that wins out. They give me the image of a woman on a mountain top, staring at the promise of a green valley below as she turns her back on the desert she's spent years crossing.

They're also about the power of blogging to transmit the human touch.

There's been much noise about bloggers - at least in some circles - and their role in fact-checking the mainstream media, and their abilty to change the course of the political storms that sweep through America from time to time. However, there is a lesser aspect, and one that - for now - remains under the radar of the ponitificating powers that be. It is, I believe, actually the greater aspect. It's the power to make a difference, one person at a time.

What's NOT being talked about is that blogging gives you the chance to touch another person's life in tiny increments on a regular basis. No single instance is particularly huge, but the accumulation is. It's the slow, steady, emotional contacts that work a blogger's magic - like raindrops wearing down a mountain - except the effect is a creation and a building-up, rather than a deterioration.

I swear I never meant for this to happen. I started blogging for purely selfish reasons. I just wanted to see my words in print and have people say "you don't suck". It was "all about me".

Still is, actually.

I honestly don't do this - the posting, the comments, the special projects - for the sake of other people. If I had to name a motivation for the whole Bad Example Family phenomenon, I'd have to say it arose out of my sense of justice. I believe that the most important thing is not punishing the wicked, but rewarding the good - something that all too often gets left undone.

I'm a particular fan of good writing. Not just good grammar & spelling, but also the ability to write with clarity, and make a point with conviction. I'm especially giddy with joy when I can read something that is both well-done AND original. I spend my workaday existence amongst drones & parrots who mumble mere echoes of the things their betters have said. It's frankly quite wearying. So when I am blessed with even a short paragraph or two of words that I couldn't have created myself - things that catch me by surprise, or make me laugh, or make me think - I want to reward the mind that gave me such pleasure.

So I'll leave a comment. Maybe just a little "well said" or a "LOL!", but still, it lets the person know they've touched me on some level - that a connection was made, and their efforts aren't in vain.

Such a small thing, really. But - like pennies in a coffee can - it's adds up to something substantial after a while.

HOW substantial?

Ask Michele.

Just something to think about while you're waiting for those Blogger comments to load and wondering if it's worth it.

Yes... it is.

Posted by: Harvey at 11:34 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 594 words, total size 3 kb.

December 19, 2004

DOES IT MATTER?

Graumagus of Frizzen Sparks is mulling over his hits/links discrepancy:

Take me for example, I have "Large Mammal" status. That's pretty far up the food chain. Makes it appear that if I'm not a big dog, at least I'm not a toy poodle either.

I get a whopping 75-100 hits a day. Less lately now that I've been in Depress-O-Angst mode about my job and other shit.

Blog Daughter Boudicca gets that or more, and in spurts gets 200+ hits a day, and she's stuck at Marauding Marsupial level. I see her surpassing my hits count before summer (I'm a proud papa! heheh).I think she deserves a higher ranking than me.

If I wasn't crosslinked to so many people because of belonging to The Alliance of Free Blogs, and Blogs for Bush, we'd be swapping pouch grooming tips. If they had three or four more large blogging groups for me to join, I could probably end up somewhere near Higher Being status without getting more than half my hits from personal friends. (NOT why I joined either the Alliance or Blogs for Bush, by the way)

There's a temptation to say that "those links don't count" somehow. But in a way, they do. They show that you're at least participating out in the larger blogosphere, and not just typing at yourself. It means that, at some point, you made yourself worthy of that link, even if it's not currently driving traffic.

If nothing else, consider it as sort of a reward for seniority. You've been blogging for a long time, so the links accumulate.

Or you can think of it THIS way - yeah, you suck, but not so bad that you're being DE-linked.

Those old links are like battle-scars or tattoos. No, they're not fresh & bleeding anymore, but at one time they WERE.

You've EARNED them. Wear them proudly.

Posted by: Harvey at 09:12 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

December 14, 2004

HUH. IMAGINE THAT. SOMETHING I *WON'T* BE GOING TO HELL FOR

When I started blogging I just wanted to get the ego-boost of seeing my words in print and perhaps have someone leave a comment like "you don't suck TOO bad."

Along the line, I would occasionally get commenters with obvious writing skills. I felt guilty hogging all that good reading to myself, so I'd say "DUDE! Get a blog!"

And some people listened. Mostly because it was what they wanted to do anyway, and all they needed was a little nudge.

Thus blogchildren.

Then I discovered that sometimes encouraging people to continue to blog is as important as getting them to begin. Sometimes a blogger's virtual car stalls on the highway & needs a jumpstart. I found out that some people really appreciated those "you don't suck TOO bad" comments that I'd leave.

Thus adoptees.

And thus a childless man of 38 has numerous "children" who are older than he is. Which makes for some cute inside jokes.

But then things got weird. The blogkids started getting in touch with each other. Perfect strangers. No blood relationship. In a normal world, they would never have heard of each other, never met on purpose, and never even blinked if they passed each other on the street. Never would've thought in passing "this is someone I'd like to know".

Which leaves me marvelling at the happy unintended consequences of my choice to blog in the first place. I swear I never meant to do anything good.

But who am I to argue with destiny? ;-)

Posted by: Harvey at 06:07 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

July 17, 2004

THE NEW, NEW BLOG SHOWCASE

Have you started a blog in the last three months? Are you desperately searching for a way to get someone besides your goofy brother to visit your site? Or are you someone who's been blogging forever, who's looking for some fresh talent to fill that hole that Rachel Lucas left on your blogroll?

Whichever category you fall into, the answer to your problem can be found at Showcase.

If you're the new kid on the block, Showcase will post a link to your best post for a week. All you have to do is drop Simon a line at simon-at-showcase.mu.nu and you're guaranteed instant world-wide fame* See this post for details.

And if, like me, you're the grumpy old man sitting on the porch in his rocking chair with a shotgun across his lap, just go to the Showcase page any old time to find lots of gul-durned whippersnappers to shake your fist at.

You've got problems? Showcase has solutions.

*(not a guarantee)

NOTE: I meant to post this about 3 weeks ago. Apparently I never took it out of draft status :-/

Posted by: Harvey at 04:47 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.

July 10, 2004

ADOPTEE VS. NATURAL BORN BLOGCHILD

In the comments to a recent post, the Bartender of Madfish Willie's Cyber Saloon asks a very insightful question:

What is this "adoptee" bullshit?

It's like this. My blogchildren are the formerly blogless people that I talked into blogging when they had no specific plans of doing so before making the mistake of commenting at my place (sound familiar, Bartender? :-)

Adoptees are people who already HAD blogs, but upon whom I've a had a strong, positive influence in their growth as a blogger. Not to say that they wouldn't be blogging if it weren't for me, but just that I gave a lot of encouragement, support, feedback, etc.

As Pam can probably verify, adoptees are not loved any less for not being "natural birth". Whatever it means to be a Bad Example blogchild (and the jury is still out on THAT question), the adoptees are every bit as much if not more so.

The ONLY reason I make the distinction is that I don't want to mistakenly be given credit for getting these folks to start blogging in the first place, which is what "blogchild" normally means. However, if the adoptees are freely willing to claim that I was a benevolent influence in their blogging careers, I will return the honor of such an admission with what small honor of my own that I can bestow.

Which is NOT to say that becoming an adoptee is as simple as saying "Gee, Harv, I read you every day, and now I'm a drooly, lusting, semi-middle-aged perv-o just like you". It has to be the kind of reciprocal relationship where I make a particular effort to stop by & leave comments on a regular basis (even during those dry spells when almost no one else does). Wouldn't you agree, Jeff & Tom, Joey & GEBIV?

The point is, if you're on the list of family, you're family, and you're special. If I make a distinction, it's a distinction without a difference.

Posted by: Harvey at 01:07 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

<< Page 3 of 3 >>
100kb generated in CPU 0.0296, elapsed 0.1011 seconds.
78 queries taking 0.0814 seconds, 281 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy



Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Sample link

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 85868
  • Files: 129
  • Bytes: 364.8M
  • CPU Time: 53:15
  • Queries: 2910881

Content

  • Posts: 6169
  • Comments: 19525

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0