Well, I'm no Digg expert, but I've got at least one decent hunch. Take a look at the comments:
Of 17 comments, 7 directly reference either Jane, SEOmoz, or both. They typically consist of remarks like "Way to go, Jane & Mozzers!," "Jane Rox!," "great linkbait for SEOmoz," "Well done, Jane!," and other similar comments. I hope you see where I'm going with this...
For all of you who read the SEOmoz blog (or other SEO blogs) and have Digg accounts, it should be known that as Digg users, we SEOs are a vast, vast, vast minority. The general Digg population doesn't know who Jane Copland is or what SEOmoz is; thus, comments like "Great job, Jane!" and "Way to go, SEOmoz!" do nothing more than confuse the majority of Digg users who don't know who we are and who have little to no understanding of what SEO is.
Here's another comment from the fake Google onebox search results post Jane authored not too long ago (as you may recall, this post did hit the Digg homepage):
The original comment was clearly left by someone who is familiar with SEOmoz--he calls us "moz'ers." The response is from your average Joe Digger, who doesn't understand the reference and is confused by it. I've seen the same thing happen with submissions, too:
Here the submitter mentions "SEOmoz" in the title and "Rand Fishkin" in the description, and 95% of Digg users don't know who he is or likely care (sorry, Rand). The same goes for me:
Diggers don't know or care who I am. This isn't Sphinn, people. Digg has a much broader category and user base. You can't just treat it like a bigger Sphinn and expect millions of users to know what a "mozzer" is. Likewise, submissions like this are pretty much useless:
It may be hard to read, but someone submitted a post I wrote about the Werewolf/Search Spam party we hosted at Pubcon. Why on earth would this be news to anyone other than our niche industry of SEOs? This is not an appropriate story to try and promote on Digg. That's not to say that no SEO-related articles or stories ever make the home page--some do, but you have to think about the overall value of the piece. If it's general enough that a large amount of people outside of your industry would find it interesting, try submitting it to Digg. If not, stick with Sphinn (or other industry-appropriate forums/social media sites if you're promoting a non-SEO/SEM piece).
Let's go back to the Web 2.0 Awards submission comments. The actual awards are great--you know it, I know it, lots of us know it. But what does the average Digger see when he clicks on the submission and sees the comments? He sees a built-in community praising the author, SEOmoz, and talking about how this was great "linkbait." Most of you are fully aware of SEO's negative reputation, especially on Digg. Many stories that are SEO or SEM-centric or that are too marketing aggressive get buried pretty quickly because they're seen as spam. These comments all seem to come from a bunch of people who know each other and praise the successful "linkbait" (admittedly, a pretty spammy and negative-sounding term, even though we know that it's not necessarily the case) of the Web 2.0 Awards, so what's a Digger to think? I'd wager they say, "This is spam," hit the Bury button, and browse the rest of Digg. The bury not only hurts the story's chances of making it on the home page, it also isn't good for the submitter to be associated with what is perceived to be spammy content. The submitter's success ratio and reputation are compromised, driving him into a downward spiral of alcoholism and hard drugs (okay, maybe not, but it's still not good).
The fact of the matter is that Digg is an extremely large social news site, so the chances of the community knowing who you are or what your site is are extremely slim (obviously there are exceptions to the rule if you're, you know, famous, or if you operate an extremely generally well-known site). Digg isn't Sphinn. You can't submit a story about Danny Sullivan planning another SMX conference and expect it to instantly hit the home page like it would on Sphinn.
Maybe the Web 2.0 Awards submission will eventually hit the home page (though at this point it's looking pretty slim). Either way, the submission and its comments are a great example of "know your audience." Jane isn't your audience. Neither is Rand. Or me. Or SEOmoz members. Digg users are your audience, and you have to know what they like and don't like, what sense of humor they have, what pop culture references they'll get, and what industries they're tapped into. That's the tricky thing with social media marketing--you have to adapt your submissions, your tone, your pretty much everything in order to appeal with whichever demographic frequents that particular site. A good starting point is a post that Chris Winfield wrote at Search Engine Land about the art of commenting on social news sites, and it's definitely worth a look if you're aiming to participate more on social news sites and increase your profile visibility.
Note that this isn't a gripe against Jane or Rand--they both did a great job with the Web 2.0 Awards. This post isn't even a personal attack on the SEOs/marketers who made the comments--I know that their intentions were good and that they're just trying to support us. However, when dealing with social media marketing, it's imperative to do a little bit of research to know how to appropriately leverage various sites without seeming like a spammer.
Best post I have read in a very long time. I have no doubt that everyone who commented on the Digg submission had nothing but the best intentions but by not understanding how powerful comments are - they did more harm than good. Not being able to just be overly positive and show support for a site that you love sucks - I know. But that's how that community works and if the point of promoting the awards on Digg was to get the exposure that it can bring - then "thems is the rulez" so to speak...
To write this post off as being condescending or mean-spirited would be short-sighted. This is a real life case study in just how important commenting is on social news sites and something that everyone should read before commenting. That doesn't mean your support isn't appreciated by Rebecca but just that she wants you to understand how a community like Digg works a little bit better....
that's totally what I meant to say, Mr. Winfield. =)
I just read your comment above mine and I thought you said it extremely well....
And please - call me Chris... ;)
Chris, there's a reason youdaman when it comes to mainstream social media (not to shortchange Brent because he's left a lot of valuable comments, too--maybe you can be co-"damanz"). But this was the most well-reasoned comment that I've read in this long scroll so far. I wish there were a way to thumb it to the top so everyone could read it first.
I'm a little late to this thread - but this is what I wanted to write, Chris. I understand Rand's point above about the tone and problems with criticising people who are on your side, but this was a useful post for me...
I agree with Rebecca that comments like the ones on the Web 2.0 submission aren't helpful, but not quite for the reason she mentions.
When I read through those, they were the equivalent of leaving "Great post!" on a post here at SEOmoz - and none of us would ever do that. We thumb-down people who do. If you can't leave a comment with some substance, why leave one, right?
Ehmm... we do that because... it's Digg :) I wouldn't dare do that here :)
That's an excellent point and a really valuable one to keep in mind for all sites and all comments. Thumbs up to that, Lorisa :)
Reminds me of speed bumps and schoolkids crossing signs. Were more likely to follow the guidelines of the community when it's our community versus when we're in someone else's neighborhood.
I don't think the issue is so much that nobody knows who the heck Jane or SEOmoz is, but those comments also usually indicate something else: gaming the system. When there is an overwhelming majority of people giving kudos to the poster, it often appears that the person who composed the Digg submission simply asked for the story to be Dugg and looked for encouraging comments. Obviously, that's not the way to go about it either.
I know people that will bury stories that look like that. These comments add no value to the Digg submission and should be posted on the SEOmoz submission instead.
It also looks like these commenters all know each other, or know the author personally. That has to be a turn-off for a lot of other visitors. Like this is some sort of inside clique they're not a part of.
(I've enjoyed your comments in this thread, tamar!)
Someone mentioned that the SEO community is like high school. There is a clique and they stick together. I think putting those types of comments on dig is like going to a university with your high school friends and wondering why the whole place isn't cheering for your tiny little group.
Not to say the Diggers are more intelligent then mozzers or anything.
My point is that the site has SEO in the URL and then to have a bunch of SEO's mention that it is a tactic like "link bait" will surely kill the story.
Too bad also because Jane did do a great job and I think that the list has a much broader appeal than SEOmoz or even the SEO community at large.
I can completely understand Rebecca's frustration and I don't agree with Rand on this one. This is a valid point and a case study of how the community can hurt your efforts. Just because she criticizes people "you" like doesn't make it a bad post. A real friend is one that tells you when you're screwing up. Not one that sits by smiling at you while you go around hurting yourself or others.
I appreciate Rebecca's post and I welcome any form of constructive criticism like this. It's a valuable lesson for anyone running an SEO company and thinking of using the online clique to promote his/her efforts. It can backfire and this is a valuable lesson to be learned. Thank you Rebecca.
I think Rebecca's point was that asking for a lot of Digg love isn't necessarily the best way to make your Digg submission popular - especially if all of the people you ask are coming from a common fan base/community.
And that leaving comments of a personal nature isn't the best way to get other Digg users to click through and Digg the story themselves (because they'll probably feel they won't understand it since they are on the outside of the community).
I don't think Rebecca is taking a pot-shot at the SEO SMM community, as much as she is advising against having high hopes for Digg submissions that are narrowly focused and even more narrowly dugg.
And Rand, in regards to this comment:
To me, this exposes a weakness in the way Digg's community is wired far more than showing off criticism for the SEO community or SEOmoz fans.
I don't know, it seems like you're taking a pot shot at the Digg community (a community that you voluntarily asked to participate in).
To me it is akin to running for public office, and then when you lose you blame the electorate as a whole rather than the people who campaigned and voted for you but couldn't get enough of their friends to the polling place.
Why does anyone have to be to blame?
You submitted a story, it got a fairly rousing round of applause - but everyone else gave it a big meh.
It doesn't necessarily mean the Digg community has to have a "weakness" - does it?
I'm giving you a thumb down for what I consider an unjust thumb down to Rebecca.
At the risk of earning loads of thumbs downs -
I totally agree with Rebecca. heres why:
1. We are all SEO's, SEM's or online marketers.
2. We all support or follow SEOmoz, Sphinn and other SEO networks when we can.
3. We do point 2. bacause we want to either learn more, see others views or express our own.
4. This post, although feels negative or harsh, is typical of rebeccas style - and if you read moz regularly, you will notice that. There isnt any real offence indicated.
5. This post teaches an EXTREMELY valuable lesson - its not just the quality of end post, or the gaming via collecting votes that helps submissions on sites such as digg - the comment do infact add up, and if you were to scroll down comments on most dugg posts, you will see users comments being dugg or buried as well. Which means that the community is not just interacting with the submission in vacuum, but with the other voters as well.
Showing support is great - but as marketers, if we are going to support someone (call it "help to game" if you will) then its equally important for us to learn how to do that.
Which is why I think that this post focuses on something many ignore - support - but support without seeming to be supportive ;)
I agree with rishil, In my opinion, rebeccas post may have been a bit biting but I don't "take it personally" or anything. It's a flaw in our understanding of social media, and I think coming from rebecca it is a very wise post.
Considering rebecca's stance toward the community and having been willing to share information and be a great writer who cares for the company, I don't consider this post insulting in any way.
Thumbs up.
I completely agree, it's a great analysis of why some things do and do not work in the social sphere. It's always good to look in to things and see what makes them tick regardless if the outcome was perfect, mediocre or horrible.
Thanks for the post Rebecca, i see this as a lesson in "Know your target audience" nothing more, nothing less.
I really appreciate all of the feedback from everyone--both positive and negative. Admittedly, I do think the tone was harsher than it should have been (I've since toned it down a bit, but I know it's still a bit direct), and I am working on improving my delivery so that the message doesn't get lost in a thick cloud of attitude.
However, I do have a certain voice when I blog, and that's just who I am. I don't want to say "If you don't like it, tough" because there are ways I can improve so that I can reach a wider audience, but at the same time I'll never completely change my writing tone or style, so...tough. ;)
In any case, I do hope that, despite a speed bump with the tone and direction of this post, you were all able to extract the point and underlying message. I did have the best intentions in mind when authoring this piece, and that was to provide some social media marking tips based on a recent lesson learned. Thanks again, everyone.
I personally liked the visceral style of writing. It was a refreshing change from the more calculated stuff that sometimes appears on SEOmoz and other SEO sites. Don't be afraid to write what you feel.
Often times, SEOs make me feel like they are trying to manipulate the audience (me) with their writing. (which they are.) It can be a bit insulting to my intelligence as the calculated and careful wording can be seen through and that gets tired quickly. So a post straight from the gut like this is a good change of pace. I'm sorry you had to change the writing because of a few tender toes. I feel like I'm back in high school and all the kids are pressuring someone to do something they don't really want to do. Though this time I guess your paycheque depends on it...
Keep up the good work rebecca :)
I feel bad that you think we write calculated content. I can promise you that we never do that at SEOmoz.
Sorry that came across a bit wrong. I meant to say that things are written in a manner that is meant to not offend anyone. Other sites do write a lot more to manipulate but at SEOmoz I meant to say that it's done so it does not offend. I lumped it all into one big rant earlier.
I like a bit of controversy and straight talk so I like how Rebecca writes. I'm an adult so I can take an opinion that is contrary to mine and discuss it. Some people cannot.
I'm sorry if it came across wrong in my comment. It's kind of hard to convey a message properly with comments and other written communications. I think there was a study once with collage students that showed that they could not infer the person's tone or intent in an e-mail 60% of the time.
Anyway. No offence meant as far as manipulation and so on was concerned.
I totally agree with the point you were making, I just thought it may have been presented a little harshly. Hopefully I didn't offend.
I think there's a variety of reasons why the web 2.0 awards didn't make digg this year (one of them being that diggers don't gush over web 2.0 as much as they used to), but I think it's notable that the awards made the frontpage every year for the past two years:
2007:https://digg.com/tech_news/2007_Web_2_0_Awards_Digg_Wins_in_Social_News_Category
2006: https://digg.com/tech_news/Over_700_Web_2.0_Sites_Reviewed_by_hand
Both of these submissions contained little or no mention of SEOmoz, Rand, Jane, or SEO.
Not that digg really matters for the awards, anyway, the real links come from the winners themselves. It's also worth noting that according to the rank checker the seomoz website jumped 67 positions for the keyword "web 2.0" since yesterday, now being listed on page 2 at google.
I agree with Oatmeal on this.
The Web 2.0 buzz has settled.
Try Web 3.0 Awards next time :)
Digg of 2006 (where it took 30 votes) and of 2007 (where it took 75 or less) are a completely different animal than Digg today (where sometimes over 300 Diggs means nothing).
It is simple. Whenever you see a digg post with like 10 comments in a row that are all .. good post.. yay you.. and personal stuff. It screams i am spamming this somewhere for votes.
Especially if you have over 100 diggs in 3 hours.
@Brent, that is a really insightful stat, I am surprised at the dramatic difference as SM has gotten more popular, although I am sure some of that has to do with the new Digg algo.
@Oatmeal, that's awesome that the moz's position has improved so substantially, thanks for the update!
Nobody likes it when you come to their house for a potluck and all you do is eat all of their food and talk about how great your own beef stroganoff is!
Time and a place, people.
First!
Oh. Bugger.
Your comments have been really insightful recently, Ciarain :)
Thanks for noticing - it takes real effort.
well, I hope my five votes from my profiles i just set up helped. ;)
from what i saw on the digg, what happened was exactly what was recommended NOT to do at SMX Social and what is constantly said all throughout the interweb. i thought some mozzers were there at that thing . . . .
anyways, this post is just good reading for what not to do on the digg or any social media site for that matter. we all want case studies and evidence for clients, well here we all go. it also works as further proof for those who think that all you have to do is submit it to the digg and you win.
well done on the web 2.0 awards, rand and jane. awesome work on this article, rebecca. =)
I say thumbs up to SEOMoz for having the 'good cop/bad cop' routine down to a t :) It's almost like that Techcrunch post on viral youtube videos where Assington comes back with the first comment on it being a terrible piece. No way that wasn't staged.
Joking aside, I totally get the gest behind Rebecca's post and I think it's wise as an overall lesson on social media and how to use it. The comments were the first thing that jumped out at me when hitting the digg submission the first time and they felt very out of place for digg (and I'm hardly ever on there so go figure).
Rand, on a different note. As someone who has to manage a few staff on a daily basis i probably would have handled a response differently (ie. not in public like that), but I think your doing it the way you did it is one of the reasons why people love this site and get the vibe they do. So well done ;)
Hehe, me being #2 in that list I do take some offense :) I think you should be blaming the ridiculous Digg algorithm / moderation and not us good willing people :)
Other than that, you might be right :)
Haha, sorry Joost. The perils of SMM, I guess... ;)
Yup, might be wise not to push it out too much over twitter in the beginning ;)
Rebecca,
So, if I understand correctly, what you're saying is - this wouldn't do well on Digg. Correct?
Haha, exactamundo.
Good points all, I'd disagree with rand's point that this post is unwise - what Rebecca's post does is once again point out relevancy in social media - afterall I dont think the web2.0 awards is relevant to the "general public" (afterall twitter came above facebook - and majority of people would ask wtf is twitter?!)
However I would agree with Rands point that its far better to see some relevant people (i did recognise a fair few of the digg's it got) thumbs upping your content!
Mahalo thought it was a really "awesome" link to add to the web 2.0 catagory, and I'd far rather see the web2.0 awards (and most moz content) spread naturally than by using our collective skills to game the system. Afterall seo is gaining respect in the wider marketing industry, and I'd like to see the social expertise we have gain that as well.
For some reason, although maybe the tone was a little overboard, I feel like I have to defend Rebecca's main point a bit. Within the SEO community (and, to be fair, this could be said of many industry groups/niches), we do tend to get a little sheltered and take our domain of knowledge for granted. We forget that people who we think are big names and topics we think are a big deal aren't known to many active web users, let alone the average person. My Mom has never heard of Jane, Rand, Danny Sullivan, or Matt Cutts, although I'm sure she would think you were all lovely :)
While I think Lorisa and Tamar both make good points, I also suspect there's some truth to Rebecca's observation. All of the back-patting looks a bit cliquey to an outsider and may have turned off the average Digg user. That's not an insult to SEOs, just a reminder that, as marketers, we have to be careful when making assumptions about our audience.
Looks like I've arrived a little late.Yes that's me who posted the first comment at digg.
I think I dugg while the count was still in single digits in response to a tweet (Rand's I think) and being such an seomoz fan wrote that comment without even thinking.
I felt a brief moment of fame when I saw a big red number 1 next to my digg comment - which quickly turned to slight embarassment as I read the subsequent paragraphs.
I think it is definitely true that lame initial comments on a digg submission can sway opinion when the submission gets to the 'most popular' in the upcoming section.
Sorry guys :(
Thumbs up for the post though :)
Didn't mean to call you out or make you feel stupid--sorry about that. I just wanted to illustrate a point--my apologies for getting you caught in the crossfires.
No problem at all. I didn't feel called out .. just a little bit silly for what I did. I know the feeling when someone leave comments like that on my submissions.
I reckon everyone will have learned a lot from all the comments on this post.
Thanks for replying to my comment :)
so rebecca's a bit snarky, but we all knew that already. perhaps she could've blurred out the names of those she called out though. ;)
i really didn't take it as though she was criticizing the community at all. i agree with SEO Hack, rebecca is just offering advice on how to use digg successfully. as expected the post was delivered with rebecca's usual snarky attitude that we all know (& love?).
i also think this provides a great case study to look into, even better considering the past 2 years went hot.
rebecca ROX the mozzers! way to go rebecca & seomoz! :P
When I first saw the Digg comments yesterday, I didn't think the digg users would go for it because of the comments. You guys at SeoMoz must have thought that right away as well - even before the outcome of the submission was known.
I wanted to say a quiet shhhh to the commenters.
You're just being honest, so I don't think this post deserves criticism.
I really did not see it as an attempt to trick Digg or complain about the comments.
Rebecca noted a certain pattern and informed the community.
I'd have to say, the comments are nice in the sense that they are complimenting the author and SEOmoz in general. But when you're trying to game Digg, it's of no worth! I can understand your frustrations Becca. Something had to be said.
I thumbed it for the mere ability to see who is and isn't on Digg from the SEOmoz community. Add me as a friend/fan whatever by taking a peek at my Digg profile.
Beyond that . . . we get the same thing when people Digg the Colonel Tribune stories. Accept we also get people mentioning names that don't even remotely associate to the profile.
SEO is a little different because Digg users typically don't like SEO people so mentioning it as linkbait, SEO, mentioning SEOmoz, etc. can lead Digg'rs to not Digg the article. We as SEOs should typically know this and should avoid it if we want to squeak out the utmost possibilities for it to hit the first page. Not a major sin though.
As for those commenting about Jane and whatever . . . not a big deal in my opinion.
I don't take offense to anything typically but I have learned that many people take offense to almost everything so I can see how Rand's criticism is justified. I just feel people should take Rebecca's long term reputation (and our adoration of her on SEOmoz) into greater consideration and cut her some slack on her criticism. If you take offense, just blow it off. She's still the same ole Rebecca. Full of spunk and not afraid to voice her opinion (even if it's against you).
That's my two cents . . .
Payne
Seriously, Brent, I agree. I think the thumb-downers need to realize that Rebecca's willingness to say things that are a little controversial is one of the things that makes her such a successful blogger and so refreshing to read.
She said some things that a lot of us needed to hear, especially folks like me who THINK they know what Social Media is all about but don't use it day in and day out.
It might have been a more successful post if it were couched more in a tone of "man, we learned a lesson about pushing SM content with this one" rather than "hey SEOs, thanks for crippling a piece of content we put a lot of work into." But the message is still the same.
I happen to think that she was a little out of line in being so critical in tone, but I was over it in about 2 seconds.
FWIW, it is ironic that I almost left one of those "great work Jane" -type comments on Digg & then thought better of it and left it on Twitter, and in the comment thread of the post, instead. Not because I thought ahead and said to myself "Oh, this could hurt the story's chances of going hot" but just cuz I didn't think Digg was the place for that kind of comment...as Lorisa said earlier.
(Rebecca, it felt weird to respond to you in third person but I was really responding to some of the things that Brent wrote & he used third person also :D )
David took the words right out of my mouth. I wasn't sure the tone of this pieces was right, but you know what? Sometimes good lessons don't comewith the tone we'd always like.
Fully agreed with Rebecca
Using the word SEO, SEOMoz, and Linkbait is a no no in Digg comments, CHECK.
SEOs should not have God complexes assuming everything they touch is Gold like Midas (we are all guilty of this), CHECK.
Go after SlashDot, Plugim, Sphinn, etc before biting the bigfish for nurde news/awards, CHECK.
I hope that summarizes it. Great article as always.
On the other hand, I assume you've looked at "regular non-SEO" digg comments that have made the front page. Hundreds of cry babies complaining about anything but the topic of the post, etc etc.
I see the point and agree it could have some influence on what happens, but I think it's being overstated a bit here.
If we were to act like the large percentage of digg users, we'd all be acting like 14 year old dweebs in mom's basement.
Although we strive for it, the goal doesn't always have to be hitting the front page. I submit stuff that I know isn't going to hit the front page but it gets a few more eyeballs than it would if I hadn't submitted it. I think we should be able to show our support/disapproval on any platform we want.
And I for one welcome our new Moz overlords.
Not only Diggs, I am also quite amazed to look at the number of unique comments on jane's Web2.0 award post, only 25. Getting back to why the Web2.0 awards digg didn't oerform so well, I feel one more factor that contributed here was the title of the Digg Story. Just as you said we techies & SEO's are minority on Digg. And not every one understand what's "Web2.0"? Why would they want to see a Web2.0 award post...? I would have uses a more enticing title that's some thing like :
"Web2.0 Awards 2008 are out - And the Oscar goes to..."
May be !!
I believe there's been some misunderstanding about how some of us viewed the failure of the Digg submission and whilst I've held my tongue about it, I think the comment I posted on Melanie Phung's blog today sums up how I feel about this. It's been a while but it irritates me that I've not cleared up what I think about this, since the Web 2.0 Awards were my project.
I think this post is unwise. It criticizes the people we like and need and respect - our community - for expressing their opinions and I think that's terrible. I'd much rather have a Digg submission that didn't go "hot" but let the people who do vote on it express the way they feel honestly rather than try to sneak around the back door since we're "SEOs" and we know Digg doesn't like us.
If we were promoting something for a client, would we have done it differently? Absolutely. But this was an internal project and I personally love it that those positive comments are there, much more than if it had gone popular and gotten all the usual Digg crap.
The awards still got plenty of link juice and attention (mostly from the winners), and it doesn't need to go hot on Digg every year (even though I think it would have been fun to see). To me, this exposes a weakness in the way Digg's community is wired far more than showing off criticism for the SEO community or SEOmoz fans.
Thumbs down :(
Agreed, that's the sentiment I wanted to express too, although in a less harsh tone :)
It's criticism, yes, but it's constructive criticism. I'm not simply stating "These comments suck" and calling it a day. As Tamar said below, the comments are great, but they're more appropriate on our blog or on Sphinn than on a widely general social news site.
So you ARE telling me how and where to comment? :)
Yes! Wait, no! Errr...uh, ignore this!
"I am the Grand Galactic Inquisitor! IGNORE ME!!!!"
I guess while it may come across as telling people where and how to comment, I would suggest that as marketers, we can all appreciate the amount of effort that goes into a piece like this and how delicately "the game", needs to be played.
This applies not only to this story on Digg, but most any marketing effort that requires the assistance of others to achieve the desired result.
Nothing worse than writing a brilliant piece, only to see it flounder due to poor execution on the presentation.
It is akin to a chef preparing a beautiful French dish, only to have the garcon slather it with ketchup, thus ruining the presentation to the customer.
Um... so people Dugg your submission and you're COMPLAINING?? Oh no, they didn't leave comments that everyone on Digg understood! /cry....
Honestly, if you'd promoted the post to me and asked me to Digg it and got this back... I'd ignore the next request.
See this is a good point.
If you were asked.. Asking someone to digg your submission is gaming. If you don't know how to comment in Digg then your not a Digg user.
So by asking you to game Digg then you are already in the wrong. I think maybe people should have thought through how they asked for the help they asked for.
;)
Just like if i said hey dude... can you maybe help me get some new links to my blog and you went to a link broker and paid for 100 links and got my site shit canned.
Should you have known better than to buy links to my site? or should I been more specific in the things i asked for?
Either way, I'd rather learn the lesson by READING about it (on SEOmoz or elsewhere) than by spending hours (days? weeks?) working on a piece of content that I intended to promote on Digg and watching it flop.
So, thanks, Rebecca. (Even if it did seem like you were angry. But I didn't comment on Digg, so don't be angry with me!) ;)
Yes, and I think the "moral of the story" is generally good. The point is that you can't assume that a social media community will know what you know. That's also a general usability principle that you would apply to your own site - know your audience, write in terms they understand etc. The submission has to be presented in a way they can relate to.
It's also interesting to see that how first group of comments can have a strong influence on the success of the story. What if those comments had been discussing the content of the story and not congratulating the authors? But you also can't control that.
Rand, your point is valid, but there's an appropriate place to voice your enthusiasm about these awards: the post itself. Let the community express their opinions on SEOmoz. As I just commented minutes ago, this submission looks more like gaming the system than anything else, and that's the bigger issue here. The bottom line is that it looks like SEOs are gaming Digg.
I understand what you're saying Rand, and to a large extent - I agree.
However, I will say this - most people's goal in submitting to Digg is to see their submission hit the front page and there is a valuable lesson in what Rebecca is pointing out.
That said, I'm not so sure I'd give Rebecca a thumbs down simply because she is whining, bitching and ranting at the members of the SEOmoz community that took precious time out of their busy day (myself included), to Digg this story.
To Joost - don't feel so bad, I think it might have been my comment that killed it:
"Hey Kiwi Swim Champ and Wiz 'O Moz - Much Better'n Your Typical Wasabi Wednesday. Great Job!"
footnote: Lest any one think this comment was anything other than a joke. I happen to agree with Rebecca on this one, and I actually did not leave the above comment. ;)
Nothing's wrong with Digging a story, Sean. The comments on a submission, though, can kill the story's potential to reach the front page.
Tamar,
I agree wholeheartedly. My comments here are tongue in cheek. Personally, I wasn't offended at all by Rebecca's post and in fact, found it of value. The post in question isn't really the issue, but rather the lesson that needs to be learned if one wants to know how to succeed - whether on Digg or any other SM site.
I personally find it a bit hypocritical when people talk about "gaming the system" as if it were one of the seven deadly sins.
The bottom line is - All of marketing is somewhat of a game and often times, there are intricate and unwritten rules that must be adhered to in order to achieve success.
Just my .02
I didn't get the same take-away I guess. While Rand's critique may be applicable for the example used as a jumping-off point (Web 2.0 Awards), I don't think that was the main gist of the post.
I think it was summed up nicely in the sentence, "If it's general enough that a large amount of people outside of your industry would find it interesting, try submitting it to Digg. If not, stick with Sphinn."
I think the Web 2.0 Awards do have a wider appeal and did belong on Digg, but they very well may have gotten buried because of the Scarlet Letters of S-E-O apparent in the comments. Oh well, no big deal. But it's worth noting that when doing linkbait for clients (or digging/commenting on a piece for a friend in the industry), the nature of comments we leave can impact the effectiveness of the campaign. Rebecca pointed it out, and now hopefully people will think about it and we'll all be able to help each other out more effectively.
I cannot see why this post is unwise at all. It is actually defining a significant misunderstanding that people have on how social media works. It explains how your fans and supporters can support you in a way that will be in line with the standards expected in social media communities.
to me this post reads like a direct kick in the teeth to your community (the most important part of the moz?). i love you guys but this article just didn't sit right with me I'm sorry.
@ gronk what parts did you find offensive? This community often discusses negatives as well as positives - open a discussion - adress what you felt offended you - and I am sure that you will receive some answers and justifications.
Then its up to you to accept them or not.
not trying to start a fight or anything and not sure how to open this up to discussion? what i said was pretty black and white. IMHO it was a bit presumtuous. i think any community support you recieve should be treasured not shunned
I actually don't think this is a bad post at all. In fact it is just teaching everyone a simple lesson in marketing.
For example, I had the chance to live in Portugal for two years. When I first got there half of the language I was hearing was not what I learned in America. Everyone was using slang that I had never heard before. As a result the first couple months I was there I lost interest in whatever someone was saying to me. But once I learned their slang and how they spoke it became a lot easier for me to understand and pay attention. After awhile I became fluent in portuguese and portuguese slang.
The point is if someone is interested in SEO and they start reading and have no idea what they are reading, they will lose interest extremely fast. But if they are led into it gradually they will mostly become interested.
Digg is not just a site for SEO's it is a site for anyone who desires to post an article. So if your desired goal is to reach out past SEO's you will have to drop all of the jargon and slang that comes with SEO. It really all depends on what you want to do, but if you want to inform the common person about SEO you need to do a better job at explaining what it is. This is just helping the world understand better what SEO is and gives it a better reputation. You don't know what type of impact that it will have if you reduce the slang and "buzz" words on responses and even posts. Keep in mind it all depends on what you are writing about, but if you want to get your message across, the fewer the buzz words the better.
It honestly didn't sound to me as "criticism" - rather as "analysis"...
Even if it does sound like "criticism" to people who actually commented, why thumb down? wasn't it constructive???
ok Rand, I am a bit confused here. You are thumbing down your own work (in a sense). Perhaps you all should have an approval process for internal posts?
Jusy my 2.0 cents.
I disagree, the moz team has been known for disagreeing with each other publicly, I think it's a good thing too. It's ok to disagree.
Way to go Becca and Mozzers! Web 2.0 Roxorz my moz boxorz.
You know it is a good post when this many people are commenting.
Great post and don't let them bring you down. I got the point and I think it is something that everyone should keep in my mind. Even if you think about it on a broader scale this post provides some great information on how to communicate in general
Awesome, I didn't know I was participating in something with such mystery! Way to go Mozzers, I mean Team Alpha Super Awesome Cool Dynamite Wolf Squadron!
I understand what you are saying, and I'm sure that it will help SEOmoz submissions in the future.
However, lets be honest: asking readers of the SEOmoz blog to go Digg the story is low-level gaming of the system and there will be consequences.
I love this blog, and you guys have helped me a great deal. But its one thing to encourage your readers to digg your story, its quite another to instruct them on how to comment.
I'm not instructing our users how to comment--that's up to them, and I'm not going to force them to digg or comment on our stories. I was just highlighting how it's easy to overlook the fact that Digg and other social news sites are bigger than you may think, and that if your goal is to get a submission to make it onto the home page (which is pretty much the goal of any submission on Digg), the quality of comments have a lot to do with the success of a particular piece.
I think its the tone of this piece that is offensive. If this was rewritten from the point of view of "what we could have done better" it would have been more positively received. The way it is written has more of a tone of "you guys messed up our digg submission, but thanks for trying to help."
It does look like you toned it down a bit before publishing, as evidenced by the current title vs. the page slug. I think that was a smart move.
I did get some good takeaways from this post:
All in all the post was interesting and brought up some excellent points. I think the dialogue surrounding it will be beneficial for both the readers and the author.
Yes, I'll admit that my original title and some of the content was more blunt than the end result. I edited the post because I didn't want a huge backlash...which I got, anyway. Darn.
Yeah, you should have just stuck with your very first title for this post:
Thanks for Nothing You Morons!
(ironically, Digg probably would have loved such a post aimed at the SEO community)
Ugh.. I am so glad I didn't write this... I would have been like.. How can SEOs be stupid enough to not understand spam comments versus real value comments.
Notice how none of the comments on this thread say..
This sucks.. or This Rocks Rebecca..
But again.. luckily it was nice Rebecca who is way too nice when explaining how things work.
Good post Rebecca :) This community can only benefit from the awareness you bring to this issue.
This highlights how the "community" at Digg and the algorithm prevents online friends from doing what they do offline. Not only that, but it encourages the type of behavior it is trying to prevent... sad.
Rebecca!
Great case study! I think some people are just being to sensitive about your post, and not looking at the interesting data you are bringing to light. Getting a top post on Digg or Reddit is an art (most of the time), and your example shows how certain language in the comment section will effect the digg / bury ratio.
Well done!
Great article,
I love it! - Too Funny & All true :^)
But... Two phrases come to mind... "Now you tell me" & "It’s all your fault!"
https://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/02/the-posture-of.html
Some people are too sensitive. I read the article and didn't think it was offensive at all until I read the comments and saw that some people felt somewhat offended. I can see their point now but give me a break. It's good information.
When is the follow-up post to this?
How to piss off your own community with blog titles like:
News Flash! Digg doesn't know who the HELL you are!
(The original title of this blog post)
Sometimes you come off as a total bitch.
Wow, dude...way to offer insightful criticism.
I agree... that was a lame comment from me. For the record, I did apologize to Rebecca via PM.
It was just something about the tone of this post that rubbed me the wrong way.
It was the original title, but note how I didn't use it, nor was it originally published like that (I published it as "No, Unfortunately Digg Doesn't Know Who the Hell You Are" but later deleted the "hell" part out of it because it was too negative). I just forgot to change the URL to reflect the title I ultimately went with.
Oh, and for the record, "News Flash" was originally followed by a colon, not an exclamation point.
I'm looking forward to this follow-up:
Newsflash: Kurt's A Douche!
subhead: - How to Make Friends on the Interweb - One Jackass' Journey.
LOL :)
Much better title than the one they changed it too.. :(
Wow! Somebody forgot to take his lithium this morning!