March 18, 2007

kathy sierra’s seven blogging virtues…

Send to Kindle

mruhsi215.jpg
[Click on image to enlarge/download/print etc. Licen­sing terms here etc.]
I left the follo­wing com­ment over on this post:

“Gee, I work insane hours doing a job I hate, and yet am only just scra­ping by. How come nobody wants to read my blog?”
If what you want are lots of rea­ders, I’d recom­mend ins­tead making insane amount of money, wor­king only two hours a day doing something you love, and sha­me­lessly name-dropping your famous friends on a regu­lar basis.

The fact that there are actual grow­nups bla­ming their lack of worldly suc­cess on other blog­gers I find inc­rea­singly biza­rre [Not with Tony’s post per se, just in gene­ral etc]. It’s like someone bla­ming their lack of suc­cess on other people’s abi­lity to send and receive e-mails. It implies to me a fun­da­men­tal lack of unders­tan­ding how the medium ACTUALLY works.
Seriously, ins­tead of was­ting time par­ti­ci­pa­ting in a non-event that’s going nowhere fast, maybe try this ins­tead: The best advice for buil­ding a suc­cess­ful blog and/or glo­bal mic­ro­brand that I’ve heard recently was Kathy Sierra’s “Seven Blog­ging Vir­tues” that she gave at our panel last week at SXSW. You can check out the PDF here.
Hope it helps.

Be Socia­ble, Share!

"Hugh's Daily Cartoon" Newsletter. A new cartoon sent out every weekday morning to your inbox [RSS version here.]. A wee chuckle to start your day off right etc.

Tags: ,

15 Responses to “kathy sierra’s seven blogging virtues…”

  1. So sorry I mis­sed you in NYC — came down with the flu and still wrest­ling out of it. This car­toon and post are the very rea­son I read you in the first place.
    Loved the posts on mic­ro­bran­ding. Thank you.

  2. Tony says:

    Who is bla­ming their lack of suc­cess on anything or anyone? I’m happy with my blog and I’m happy with my rea­dership.
    In fact, my posts were not about “suc­cess­ful blogging” — turn to Darren Rowse for that — rather, they were about the stra­ti­fi­ca­tion of atten­tion amongst blog­gers that cer­tain blog­gers (at the top, ‘natch) don’t ack­now­ledge.
    That’s all.
    I agree that its a tire­some con­ver­sa­tion and that if you want to improve your blog, *of course* you would be bet­ter of doing something than com­plai­ning about it.
    In fact, I wrote a few sug­ges­tions about “blog mar­ke­ting” myself a few months ago that see­med to be well recei­ved
    http://www.problogger.net/archives/2007/01/11/how-to-market-your-blog-in-2007/
    Thanks for the help, Hugh … but I actually think we’re on the same wave­length, here.
    Cheers
    tony.

  3. hugh macleod says:

    I wasn’t wri­ting about *your* lack of suc­cess pe se, Tony, for like you say, you’re doing quite hap­pily with it.
    But the con­ver­sa­tion that grows around the con­ver­sa­tion, every time it re-appears, every five months or so… now there’s another ques­tion.
    Agreed. Same wavelength…

  4. Karl says:

    That con­ver­sa­tion appears every five months or so because someone who has atten­tion dri­ving influence dec­la­res what Tony — and you — say exists — atten­tion dri­ving influence — doesn’t.
    I don’t see many folks in that thread saying their suc­cess — or lack the­reof — is because of — or des­pite of — it.
    The thread pops up because of the denial dude.

  5. Ah, I knew I had gone around this before here 1/2 :-)
    “In the modern eco­nomy, we can’t all be self-employed small-business owners.
    This is a mathe­ma­ti­cal fact. That you reach imme­dia­tely for the per­so­nal attack to shut down such sim­ple cri­ti­cism — well, I think it says far more about your abi­li­ties than mine.“
    “Kathy Sie­rra: As I point out, if there’s a myth of meri­toc­racy, one way of re-inforcing this myth in the face of anything con­trary, is to claim all Z-listers are whi­ners. I think the power-level struc­ture refu­tes this defi­ni­ti­vely and objec­ti­vely. Though I recog­nize to those making such a claim that it’s not a mat­ter of mathe­ma­tics, it’s a mat­ter of social ideo­logy.“
    Might as well toss these here, not that it’ll do any good:
    Jon Gar­fun­kel: “The New Gate­kee­pers“
    http://civilities.net/TheNewGatekeepers
    Nick Carr: “The Great Unread“
    http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/08/the_great_unrea.php
    She­lley Powers: “Guys Don’t Link“
    http://burningbird.net/connecting/guys-dont-link/

  6. hugh macleod says:

    Hi Seth, always nice to see you appea­ring again, right on sche­dule– I can set my clock to it [I pre­dic­ted it last time, remem­ber?]
    Karl: “The thread pops up because of the denial dude.“
    I agree. Though what exactly is being denied is deba­ta­ble ;-)

  7. Mack Collier says:

    “Kathy Sie­rra: As I point out, if there’s a myth of meri­toc­racy, one way of re-inforcing this myth in the face of anything con­trary, is to claim all Z-listers are whi­ners. I think the power-level struc­ture refu­tes this defi­ni­ti­vely and objec­ti­vely. Though I recog­nize to those making such a claim that it’s not a mat­ter of mathe­ma­tics, it’s a mat­ter of social ideo­logy.“
    IMO, many of the Z-Listers could care less about the whole Letter-List debate. It’s the A and B lis­ters that fight like cats and dogs over it.
    When I star­ted the Z-List, it was for a few blogs that I thought were great blogs, that for wha­te­ver rea­son, didn’t have many links. I wan­ted them to get more expo­sure because I thought they deser­ved it, and because I knew that other blog­gers would enjoy their work, if they knew about them.
    I have lost count on how many blogs I saw go from 30 links to 500, in a cou­ple of weeks. Blog­gers went from being nobo­dies (link-wise), to A-Listers, accor­ding to Tech­no­rati, in a few days. But none of them cared where their link count rated com­pa­red to other blog­gers.
    Hugh said something one time about ‘Think the A-Listers are pissy, check out the B-Listers’. And I think that’s about it. This is a total non-issue except to the A-Listers, and the blog­gers that are almost con­si­de­red A-Listers. I do think there’s some of the ‘why should I link to you since it won’t help my traf­fic cause you are a B-Lister?’ men­ta­lity at work, but I also think the B-Listers are seeing their being ‘held back’ in pla­ces where they aren’t.
    At the end of the day, it’s a total waste of time. It’s a waste of time for the A-Listers to say they don’t exist, just like it’s a waste of time for the B-Listers to say they are being held back. The bot­tom line is that we blog­gers as a group can be pretty dam­ned inse­cure, which is where much of this fric­tion comes from, no mat­ter what let­ter you are on the blog­ging scale.

  8. mkh says:

    Good lord, is this topic still en vogue? Eight years ago — when there were only a cou­ple of hun­dred of us around, it see­med — peo­ple were whi­ning about the A-list con­sis­ting of a sec­ret cabal of ten blog­gers who deci­ded who was popu­lar and who was not. (Hmm, can I still name them? There was Jason and Meg and Evan and Matt and Cam and… maybe Ernie? Jack Saturn? Heather? No, I guess I can’t remem­ber them all.)
    I“m sure there’s still an old boys’ net­work of some kind, as we humans seem to invent them every chance we get. But frankly I would argue that the trend-setters in the form now are big cor­po­ra­tions with big money, just as in any other medium.
    But that’s just me, and I’m so far south of Z I think I’m on some high-ASCII list.

  9. OMG, I am so ama­teur! I totally broke this rule in a royal red car­pet way!
    Be Hum­ble
    A little name-dropping is OK, but is kno­wing that you just had din­ner with [insert web celeb] worth your rea­ders’ time?
    Hell yeah it’s worth it! OK, yeah, but just this once ok? Come on … :-)

  10. Hmmm. I think this topic has been done to death now.

  11. Kimber says:

    For­get the d*** A List.
    They’re a bunch of uptight sta­tus mon­keys.
    Need proof?
    Notice the low mem­bership of hot female blog­gers.
    (And if you are asking “are there hot female blog­gers?” then you really should get out more)
    The X List is the only place to be.

  12. Kathy Sierra says:

    Thanks Hugh — and oh man was it an honor to be on that panel with you.
    [Ladies: he’s even better-looking in per­son. ]
    As for this latest bla­me­fest… I can’t believe it keeps coming up. I’m not sure there’s an A-list (or at least, there is no *sin­gle* A-List), but I’m cer­tain of one thing — nobody else can somehow *pre­vent* another blog­ger from having rea­ders. Even if a blog­ger isn’t “let in” to the sec­ret cons­pi­racy A-list, so what? Cute Over­load made it to the Tech­no­rati Top 100 without a sin­gle post on Tech­meme or a sin­gle link to Sco­ble, TechC­runch, etc. Just dis­tur­bingly ado­ra­ble baby ani­mal pho­tos (and char­ming, quirky prose).

  13. tish grier says:

    Hugh,
    I am *so* laughing over this one.…
    It’s the same argu­ment heard time and time again, with Seth F. giving out links to the same artic­les he cons­tantly links to time and time again…(I some­ti­mes think the guy has less of a job than I have, and that’s saying something. And get some new links, Seth!)
    The last fra­cas on this one I got invol­ved in was when Tris­tain Louis wrote a post tit­led “The New Gatekeepers” – which ended with Tris­tan and I having a very nice email back and forth about how blog­ging is what you make it, and some­ti­mes whether or not your an A-B-C-D lis­ter is con­tin­gent on your real-life work, cou­pled with how you pre­sent your per­so­na­lity online…
    Oh, and that “Z-list” meme? only hel­ped the already popu­lar. Wasn’t much of a Z-list at all…
    As for something that can *really* affect your sta­tus online: recently Goo­gle de-indexed me. My gro­wing popu­la­rity drop­ped off pre­ci­pi­tously, thus so did my inte­rest in blog­ging (and re-ignited my inte­rest in selling off my comic book and Bar­bie doll collec­tions.) Who wants to blog into thin air? Google’s straighet­ned out their faux pas (due to a glitch in the tem­pla­tes of some blogs switching from Blog­ger to Goo­gle­Blog­ger). Now, I’m left to pick up the pie­ces and try to get back that small but somewhat influen­tial rea­dership. Still, Google’s de-indexing was far more hurt­ful than any A-list snub.
    Sorry I mis­sed SXSW this year – would’ve liked to have met you.…

  14. mack collier says:

    “Oh, and that “Z-list” meme? only hel­ped the already popu­lar. Wasn’t much of a Z-list at all…“
    Since I star­ted the Z-List, I can verify that this wasn’t the case. The 5 blogs that appea­red on the ori­gi­nal Z-List all had 31 links or less at the time(http://moblogsmoproblems.blogspot.com/2006/12/revenge-of-z-lister.html). I believe all are in the 400 – 500 range now. Almost all of the blogs that have ever appea­red on the Z-List had well under 100 links when they were added. And a few days ago I noti­ced that it star­ted cir­cu­la­ting through the tech blogs, so it’s still out there.
    None of the true ‘A-Listers’ made the list in any form until Seth added the list to Squi­doo, then it quickly became a free-for-all. But that list and the ori­gi­nal Z-List hap­pily remain sepa­rate entities.

  15. tish grier says:

    thanks, Mack…I didn’t see the Z-list until it was Squidoo’d…
    I ended up on the 2000 Blog­gers meme, which has been inte­res­ting and spaw­ned its own con­tro­versy for “gaming” Tech­no­rati. Although lots of peo­ple who’ve found them­sel­ves on that list actually have gone and read the blogs of folks lis­ted, thus using it to dis­co­ver new blog­gers (which has been fun. never knew there were so many fun Malay­sian blogs!)
    Still, it’s all what you make of it.…and “it” isn’t really the A-list