Viral Community News

Plenty o stuff I want to cover, so a down the rabbit-hole we go...

1. - First, I have a new premium article up at Marketing Profs, '10 Steps to Creating a Podcast'. Also, my latest post at DF is up 'Does Blog Traffic Even Matter?'. Similar to the one I left here a few days ago, but there's an interesting discussion in the comments section about tracking traffic and feed readers.

And some of you may have noticed, but I've added one of those MyBlogLog widget-thingies to the sidebar. I've been seeing this on more and more blogs lately, but I think I first spotted it on Mike Sansone's Converstations. I've just started playing with it, but I love anything that lets me know about the 'Recent Gardeners' here. Bob has a great post on how this lil widget is already creating communities.

2. - Jaynie is exactly right on why the newest Pedigree 'shelter dogs' commercial works so well. It puts the customers' wants and needs on an even or higher level than the company. It's not about Pedigree, it's about helping dogs. And I defy you to watch it and not at least sniffle the first time you hear 'But I know I'm a good dog, and I just want to go home.'

3. - As many of you have no doubt noticed, the Z-List has come back to life. Apparently, one of the 'how to make money from your blog' bloggers picked up on it, and it's going through that group. Amy Gahran says that 'link-farms' such as the Z-List and 2000 Bloggers are wrong, because they game the system, and skew Technorati's 'Authority-Ranking' results. Yeah they do, but that was kinda the whole point, the system was wrong to begin with and needed to be skewed. Some A-Listers might not agree with me, but any site/blog etc that applies 'authority-ranking' to determine that the content I produce here is better than your content, simply because I have more links than you do, is not only wrong, but evil, and goes against everything that's right with blogging.(UPDATE: In the comments, Amy says she was referring to search engine results when she mentioned 'rankings', and not Technorati's authority rankings.)

4. - Ann has a hilarious dissection of the Wall-Street Journal's attempt to assign a 'pay-grade' to bloggers. I'm with Ann, where are these $2-10,000 a month blogging jobs at?!?

5. - Chris explains exactly why every year at the Oscars, a buncha films that no one has ever seen or heard of win, and how no one watches anymore. I have no idea why a studio hasn't snapped Chris up by now. Seriously.

6. - Jordan has a great case-study of how he built web-exposure for one of his clients.

7. - Troy tagged me as part of a new meme where you list the Top 10 songs on your iPod/Zune/other. Here's my Top 10 right now:

1 - DOA - Foo Fighters
2 - Race Car Driver - Jewel
3 - Black and White - Sarah McLachlan
4 - Who Invited You? - The Donnas
5 - Crazy - Gnarls Barkley
6 - Fall to Pieces - Velvet Revolver
7 - Easy - Barenaked Ladies
8 - Serve the Ego - Jewel
9 - Blurry - Puddle of Mudd
10 - Wait - Sarah McLachlan

And I know how many bloggers hate memes, so I won't tag anyone with this one. But I do think it's cool, so if anyone wants to leave a comment giving their top few songs on their iPods, I'd love to hear it!

UPDATE: JD has a bit of an announcement to make.


posted by Mack Collier @ 10:35 AM,

11 Comments:

At 1:50 PM, Blogger Amy said...

Hi.

You wrote: "Amy Gahran says that 'link-farms' such as the Z-List and 2000 Bloggers are wrong, because they game the system, and skew Technorati's 'Authority-Ranking' results. Yeah they do, but that was kinda the whole point, the system was wrong to begin with and needed to be skewed."

Actually, in my post which you linked to, I said nothing about Technorati's authority ranking. In fact, I don't like their ranking system, and I've written about its problems in the past.

What I did say is that we all benefit from search engines delivering relevant results. Link farms are attempts to basically fake relevance -- that's why it's a popular tactic with spammers, and that's why search engines rightfully act to nullify or penalize link farms.

I agree that it's good for more blogs to get more visibility, but resorting to spammer tactics is only going to backfire. There are better ways to achieve those goals.

- Amy Gahran

 
At 2:19 PM, Anonymous Chris said...

Awwwwwwwwww

Seriously, though, sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who sees this system as just about completely broken. I mean, the conventional wisdom holds that Oscar nominations/wins translate to better box office, but that doesn't hold true if the movies still aren't available to a wide audience until they hit DVD. If studios are resigned to DVDs being where the money is made then they need to change the system to reflect that. Otherwise......

I'm starting to feel the blood pressure rise. Time for a beer.

Thanks for the nice note, though, MC.

 
At 7:27 PM, Blogger Mack Collier said...

I apologize Amy, I suppose I misunderstood this quote you made in that post: "Link farms are a real problem because they skew search results and rankings. We rely on relevance to make the web work." I assumed when you said 'rankings', that you meant rankings such as Technorati's authority rankings, since the main thrust of your post seemed to be that Technorati did the right thing in addressing the '2000 Bloggers' meme.

Now if you want to talk search engines such as Google, then yes I'll agree that it's not right to attempt to manipulate the results. But as for the 'rankings' that Technorati produces, I see very little relevance in them to begin with. And I think it's especially dangerous in that new bloggers will look upon the rankings that Technorati publishes as BEING relevant.

IMO, a certain number of links doesn't give a blogger 'relevance', just like a lack of links doesn't mean that a blogger isn't worth our attention. I think many of us that have been blogging for a while know this, but the distinctions might not be as clear for those that are new to blogging and reading blogs.

 
At 7:19 AM, Blogger Chris Brown said...

Mack:
I checked out your article, "Does Blog Traffic Even Matter?"

First surprise: your "real" photo. Here, I thought you really looked like that GIJoe guy.

Second surprise, your bio. You casually mention your blog is ranked as "one of the Top 100 Most Popular on the internet, according to blog-tracking company Technorati." So, evil or not, maybe Technorati rankings do matter to you... just a little? (BTY, maybe I'm not doing the math right... but is Viral Garden really one of the top 100?)

Sorry, gotta tease you about this one.

Let's face it. Part of marketing is about popularity. Part of marketing is being there first. And it's definitely a competitive game. That's why we love to keep score. Even if it's not really fair. Even if it doesn't really point to the "best" content.

Chris

PS. Glad you're in MyBlogLog - I added you as a contact & joined your community.

 
At 9:35 AM, Blogger Amy said...

Hi, Chris

No, when I said "rankings" in my article, I was referring to positioning in search results, which attempts to reflect relevance.

Here are the criticisms I have about Technorati's "authority ranking" system:
http://www.rightconversation.com/2006/11/blogs_popularit_1.html

Since you misrepresented what I said in your article, I'd appreciate it if you'd correct the article, since not everyone will read the comment thread :-)

Thanks!

- Amy Gahran

 
At 10:27 AM, Blogger Mack Collier said...

Ah Chris you're tryin' to keep me honest, eh? ;) The Daily Fix audience is a bit different in that there's a good mix of seasoned bloggers, as well as marketers that are unfamiliar with blogs, and are trying to get up to speed. If I put in my bio that I blog for The Viral Garden, those marketers that aren't bloggers will likely have never heard of it, and have no idea why they should care. But when I explain that TVG is one of the Top 100 Most Popular blogs, that is something they can instantly understand. And that was according to Technorati's popularity rankings according to blogs that have been 'Favorited' the most. So I guess that was a matter of realizing that the rankings matter to those that aren't familiar with blog.

 
At 10:36 AM, Blogger Mack Collier said...

"Since you misrepresented what I said in your article, I'd appreciate it if you'd correct the article, since not everyone will read the comment thread :-)"

Amy I added your clarification here to my post. And I might have misunderstood what your point was, but I wasn't intentionally misrepresenting your point, since I apparently didn't understand it.

BTW I know you asked Chris to edit the post, but I thought I'd handle it ;)

 
At 1:01 PM, Blogger Chris Brown said...

Mack:
Makes sense to me.

Besides I think if you added together all the traffic you have in the Daily Fix, Viral Garden and Beyond Madison Avenue, Mind the Gap podcast as well as all the traffic you generate, you're probably on of the top 10 "real" bloggers (ie not supported by a big company like the blog from USAToday or BusinessWeek, etc.)

Plus, thank you for that outstanding case study link about Jordan at Tell Ten Friends. That was excellent!

Chris

 
At 9:45 PM, Anonymous Sharon Sarmiento said...

Mack,

There is one thing that I just don't understand. Why don't people call you "Mack" on a consistent basis? How does it get changed to Chris, Mark, Matt, etc? It's a mystery.

Also, that Pedigree commercial isn't very effective for me. I watched it one time and I did sniffle. It got me bad. Now, whenever the commercial comes on I immediately switch channels. I just can't take the sad puppies! So, the focusing on the pitiful puppies instead of the dog food actually works against them in my case. (My dog is a shelter dog, and I hate to imagine what would have happened to her if I hadn't of gotten her.)The commercial is just too sad.

Cheers,
Sharon

 
At 4:14 PM, Blogger Mack Collier said...

Sharon that proves I am a 'Z-Lister', since no one knows my name ;)

As for the Pedigree ad, I get what you are saying, I can see where some people may not want to watch. But for me, if I had a dog, he'd be eating Pedigree ;)

 
At 2:54 PM, Blogger john dodds said...

Innumerable years ago, I did a published study of the impact of Oscar nominations and awards on US box office which showed that the big three awards had a significant positive impact on box-office. This of course excludes the itnernational markets which are bigger than the US market and the ancillary rights (which today represent over 55% of total revenues). The TV ratings don't really matter - it's the attendant media coverage and the ultimate revenue spikes that are.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home