Comments on: more gatekeeper-y goodness

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:29:52 +0000

Oops, just for the record, about this: "I don't recall the exact particulars, but Seth cranked out original research on the topic of (I believe) "censorware" that he published on his site. An "A List" site lifted the material (again, this may be inaccurate) without attribution. Seth never did get his "due", and millions of readers were left with the impression that this "A-List" site did all of the heavy lifting. At root, and correct me if I'm wrong Seth, this is quite a bitter pill indeed, and once that goes quite beyond "information wants to be free"." The specifics of that incident are more complex, and in a deep way, even more discouraging. IN NO WAY do I accuse the A-list site of plagiarism. What happened is that I had done original censorware research earlier, and published it, and even sent out press releases - and essentially been completely ignored. THEN I got personally attacked by discussions similar to this one, because since I was ignored, my work must have been trivial. When the A-list blog became interested in the topic, I sent them e-mail about the material I'd published, PLUS there was some backchannel, PLUS I'm on the first page of Google results. Then they did their post on the topic, attributing it to a tip from a different named reader. They didn't plagiarize me. I simply was not heard, as I am a Z-lister. It's still quite a bitter pill indeed. There's too many who simply will not admit "Yes, there's a gatekeeper system, where you can do original work, but the person who just happens to be noticed by the gatekeeper will get credited to millions of readers". This ended up strengthening my decision not to do such original research, since I considered it a personal dispositive refutation of the exhortations about quality. Now, some people will always go for the cheap mean-spirited sneer, but I suppose I should just try to be better at accepting that no amount of evidence will be ever be sufficient to dissuade them.

By: Matt Propst

Matt Propst — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:26:44 +0000

@Mack (or anyone with an answer)
At what point does a Z-Lister get any recognition? When does their content catch on? If they don’t “need” A-Listers, we’ll admit they need someone.
Wouldn’t it be easier for someone to be a gatekeeper for an A-Lister then a Z-Lister?

By: Frank Ruscica

Frank Ruscica — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:03:36 +0000

A transparent — and liquid — market for the ad spaces on single-creator media solves the problem, as adbitrageurs will profit from identifying and helping to popularize undervalued blogs…

By: Mack Collier

Mack Collier — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:36:04 +0000

Ugh. Here we go again.
Yes content matters. So does getting OFF your blog and making connections and friends in the community. Sad thing is, to many bloggers, that’s simply too much work. And it is work, but it’s some of the most rewarding time you’ll ever spend. For the most part, A-Listers don’t have to do that anymore, and have the community coming to them. Of course, not everyone lets Technorati decide who they should or should not read.
But I do find the ‘write better stuff or shut-up’ rebuttle from A-Listers to be a bit misleading. Absolutely content matters, but so does longevity. Since we are on Gaping Void, go to Alexaholic and put in Gaping Void and you’ll see that according to Alexa, GP was a pretty dead blog for about 4 years, before it finally took off around the start of last year. Was that the point at which Hugh finally started writing good content, or was it at that point that the A-Listers and everyone else started NOTICING his content?
Bottom line is that many Z-Listers think they need A-Lister links to grow, and many A-Listers think that linking to Z-Listers is a total waste of their time.
Of course, both sides are wrong.

By: Kathy Sierra

Kathy Sierra — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:39:57 +0000

I SO agree with Hugh -- people read what they feel is worth their time and effort. Who here does *not*? As to whether we believe that what others choose is "good" or "quality" or "worthy", who are we to judge their choices? The notion that to offer something people *want* to read somehow makes one a sell-out/popularity whore is a huge problem. If we have something WE want people to read, we must give THEM a compelling reason to do so. Until we stop seeing "making the effort to offer something THEY value" as "marketing/selling-out", we'll be stuck with the same, tired argument. Wrapping the content WE want them to read within something THEY want to read seems like a benefit for everyone. Is it being "dishonest" or "inauthentic" to value someone's time? I suppose, it could be... if we don't really care about them. And that would be a huge problem-- if we write only for what our readers will do for US, rather than the other way 'round, we're screwed (and so are our readers). If we write only because we think we *deserve* to be read, rather than the other way 'round (that our readers *deserve* something they--and only they--consider worth it), nobody wins. Each of us has the choice to create what readers (not just US) will value, and we don't need to beg an A-lister for distribution. If we want to attract readers with a brain, we should start by trusting that those readers can make their own decision about what is worth their time. Viewing them as A-lister sheep cannot possibly be a productive strategy. I no longer believe that "quality rises to the top", but I think there's plenty of evidence that putting the reader first can make a huge difference. But only--and it's a BIG ONLY--if we let the *readers* decide what's best for them. No amount of A-list linking will help if readers don't find something worth their time, and virtually no A-list linking is necessary if they do.

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:23:14 +0000

Hugh, the phrase was “EFFECTIVELY reply”. The word “EFFECTIVELY” is intended to convey the distinction between some *non-trivial*, objective, standard of success, and some trivial tautology.
And it’s a near-tautology to talk about how popular people are widely-read, so if you want to be widely-read, be popular. The assertion under discussion is that the system is much more complex, so repeating the near-tautology is meaningless except again as posturing.
Jerry, I don’t expect to have the preeminence of scatology and fart jokes. All activist, literary, professional, intellectual pursuits are in some sense niche interests, compared to the overall population. But even so, the exponential distribution problem applies within a niche, of a few people getting heard, and everyone else having to beg them to get meaningful distribution.
Hugh — “self-reinforcing” is a better term. You’re also doing what I call the “Fame Is Fickle” argument. Sure, some stars fade, other rise — but that’s irrelevant if almost everyone will remain in obscurity.

By: Ethan

Ethan — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:22:08 +0000

"Hell, stop writing good content and see how you last in the 'sphere, at any level." Theoretically, forever. It's a big 'sphere, I'm told. However, and thanks for providing a good segue point: What shall we say about content theft? I am probably crossing a line by bringing this up, and I defer to Seth to fill in the necessary blanks as he sees fit. I don't recall the exact particulars, but Seth cranked out original research on the topic of (I believe) "censorware" that he published on his site. An "A List" site lifted the material (again, this may be inaccurate) without attribution. Seth never did get his "due", and millions of readers were left with the impression that this "A-List" site did all of the heavy lifting. At root, and correct me if I'm wrong Seth, this is quite a bitter pill indeed, and once that goes quite beyond "information wants to be free". Food for thought, and apologies to Seth for fronting him out.

By: Hugh MacLeod

Hugh MacLeod — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:14:04 +0000

Hey Ethan, thanks for the thoughtful comment.
“But let’s at least be honest that the mechanics of what is called “A List” popularity is not always pure as the driven snow, and yes, is self-perpetuating.”
Self-perpetuating? Disagree. Stop writing interesting content and see how long you stay at the top. Remember Liz Spiers? Choire Sicha? Who? Exactly.
Hell, stop writing good content and see how you last in the ‘sphere, at any level.

By: Ethan

Ethan — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 07:25:44 +0000

"You know the kind of country we live in..." Because after all, the internet begins and ends within the borders of the continental US. (sorry) ---- Look, I agree that navel-gazing about the mechanics of blogging and the machinery of popularity are at best, an excuse for free reading but otherwise accomplishing and/or solving exactly nothing. But to Seth's point, can we not honestly evaluate that machinery and observe its nature? I have said this perhaps obliquely in the past, and now I will be more explicit: Hugh, you have a stated interest in people "believing in [whatever]". Belief is often best gained by discouraging any sort of critical analysis. Car salespeople (here in the US, where the internet lives) often have an interest in convincing customers to buy TODAY. No asking about the specs, no comparing the car to something else, no price shopping. YOU buy the car, NOW. Save all of that fussy "thinking" for the "buyer's remorse" phase of the sales cycle. Conversely, yes, there is a such thing as "analysis paralysis". I agree that the definition of insanity is "performing the same act repeatedly and expecting different results." If blogging isn't working for whatever the intended purpose was on the part of the author, change strategies. Otherwise it's all whining. But let's at least be honest that the mechanics of what is called "A List" popularity is not always pure as the driven snow, and yes, is self-perpetuating. (Or how about "incestuous" in the Shakespearian sense?) If nothing else, on this point Seth and I seem to agree. As to whether or not this explicitly is preventing Seth or anyone else from accomplishing their objectives, I leave that to the philosophers.

By: Rob Hyndman

Rob Hyndman — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 07:14:57 +0000

“What I always find most interesting every time this issue pops up is, there’s rarely any mention by the gatekeeper-conspiracy-theorists that maybe, just maybe the quality of the content is a factor in all this. Both Nick and Seth, for example, fail to mention this. Am I surprised? Not really. I’ve seen it all before, many times.”
Well, this is exactly the point I make, actually.
And I agree — *enough* is enough.

By: Hugh MacLeod

Hugh MacLeod — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 05:39:11 +0000

Jerry, I’m not that interested in mainstream acceptance– which is just as well, for I doubt I’d ever get it, even if I wanted it.
Careerwise, what I’m interested in mostly these days is drawing cartoons, enjoying my blog, enjoying other people’s blogs, and selling Stormhoek. It’s not a huge empire, but it’s enough.

By: Jerry Pounds

Jerry Pounds — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 05:17:44 +0000

Seth,
I looked at your website and it seems to be a niche market. Serious stuff. You know the kind of country we live in; when asked on the street 52% of the people did not know who Thomas Jefferson was–the rest didn’t give a shit.
How can you guys compete for preeminance in a market that is skewed toward scatology and fart jokes? I can’t wait to see your high brow response to this if you deign to respond at all. Your overpowering the market with intellect. Not that that’s a bad thing.

By: Hugh MacLeod

Hugh MacLeod — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 05:08:14 +0000

Seth, you won’t be able to effectively reply? What’s stopping you?
Instead of obsessing about other people’s audiences, I would try writing stuff that other people, real people, will want to read.
And then watch your voice magically being heard, all of a sudden.
Funny how that works…

By: alan herrell - the head lemur

alan herrell - the head lemur — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 05:04:16 +0000

Post Mention Syndrome [the new PMS] http://theheadlemur.typepad.com/ravinglunacy/2006/08/post_mention_sy.html

By: Neal Romanek

Neal Romanek — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 04:45:12 +0000

Any paragraph that uses the words “sphere of flawless crystal” gives me the willies. Even in jest. Even if it’s a catalog selling imported spheres of flawless crystals.
But on the other hand…
That fucking Ahmadinejad!! I totally do a better blog than him!!