March 18, 2007

kathy sierra’s seven blogging virtues…

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.

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