Much to my surprise, the session didn't go how I thought it would. I was expecting that we'd hear more about how Harrison, Chloe, and Andrew got their start as marketers, get a general idea of the amount of work they put into their projects and jobs, and what got them interested in the field in the first place. Rather, instead of enlightening the audience about these young, savvy, and budding web professionals, we listened to them answer general questions about their search habits and opinions about the web in general.
Maybe the session was incredibly fascinating and enlightening if you were in your 40s and wanted to know what those crazy kids were up to these days, but seeing as how I'm all of 24 years old, these kids' responses about the Internet and search really didn't surprise me. I'll drill through some of the questions and provide my personal commentary:
Who taught you how to search?
Evan said that his mom (aka Gillian) taught him how to search. I don't really know why this question was asked, since it's not terribly novel. My oldest brother taught me how to search, and computer classes throughout middle and high school helped as well. I guess the only really interesting way to answer this would be to say something like "Phil Collins, actually. Funny story behind that..."
Do you click on paid search ads?
Harrison said that he always likes to click on his competitors and see what they have to offer, while Andrew thinks “Oh, I'm going to cost this person $.80 if I click on it,” and thus is more conscious about clicking on those results. These answers are on par with what a typical search marketer would say, which is what most of the kids were on the panel--young search/Internet marketers (in some form or another). It's not like you went to the mall and polled some random kid, so I didn't really regard their answers as representative of their demographic. In fact, Harrison did mention that he has heard friends complain about paid search and their “scamming,” but he's not sure they know exactly what paid search is all about. His more "normal" friends would probably have provided more demographically accurate information than the panelists.
Do you ever look past the first page of search results?
Evan said that he goes past the first page of results all the time and is curious to see who's not there and who's working their way up. Again, this isn't what a typical teenager would say--this is an Internet marketer's response.
How often do you use search for your homework?
Evan said he only uses it for English homework, while Harrison said that he always uses search and that it gets most of his homework done. Chloe said that she'll search for information for projects if she needs to research something, but otherwise, she doesn't use it much for homework. Andrew said that he gets a lot of information off of Wikipedia, and while teachers say that students shouldn't use it, for the majority of assignments, it suffices. This question was fairly solid in that it elicited actual "teenage" responses versus "marketers who also happen to be teenagers" responses. However, except for the Wikipedia part, the response of "Yes, we use search often to help us with our homework" isn't really anything new. I used the Internet for various projects in school, starting a bit in junior high and getting more prevalent through high school and heavily in college. I just think that we've started an era where kids will use the Internet to help them with homework, projects, etc, plain and simple.
Next, the kids were asked something along the lines of their teachers' understanding of search engines. Harrison said that he got in trouble at school for arguing with a library teacher who said that people pay to get on the first page of the SERPs. Again, I'd argue that this is what a more savvy search person would do. I doubt that a typical teenager would argue about ranking factors and algorithms to someone who mistakenly thought that all search results were paid results.
Do you use mobile search?
Harrison said yes, Andrew said no, and Chloe only uses it to download ringtones. I'd actually be more interested in finding out how many teenagers have phones with good web functionality (iPhones, Blackberries, etc) vs. those who have more basic phones like Razors and whatnot that also have web access but have worse functionality. I mean, Harrison has four phones, for crying out loud (an iPhone, a Sidekick, a Juke, and a Nextel). He did say, however, that he hasn't really seen many of his friends adopting mobile search or using it much. This didn't really surprise me that much, though, because mobile search is still in a relative infant phase, so I wouldn't expect many adopters (regardless of the demographic) yet at this point.
Do you search before buying something?
Evan said yes, Harrison said he looks at product websites, and Andrew looks at CNET, Amazon, and Ebay. Actually, of the panelists, I thought Chloe gave the most "typical teen" response. She said she doesn't really shop online because she prefers being able to try on clothes at the mall. Shopping with your girlfriends is definitely a popular teenage activity that you can't really do if you're buying stuff online. Also, I'd argue that (and this is just my opinion--no research behind it whatsoever) typical teens aren't likely to do much research before buying a project because most of the money they spend isn't theirs--it's their parents. We research products so we can determine whether we're getting good value for our money. I know that the older I get, the more I research products before making a purchase decision, and I am way more likely to do some extensive research the more expensive the product is. It makes sense for Harrison and Andrew to research before buying because they're making lots of money and are also pretty tech-savvy, so they'll want to see if a product's specs and features justify the cost. Whatever the argument, most of the panelists said that their friends don't shop online.
What do you search for the most?
Both Harrison and Evan search for homework-related stuff, while Andrew, being a programmer, searches for PHP functions and development-related information. Chloe searches for MySpace layouts. I felt that this question elicited more "typical teen" responses (aside from Andrew, though I went to high school with a number of young programmers, so there's always some at every school), but I could have guessed that teenagers search for homework-related stuff and MySpace stuff without having heard their responses.
Would you use a search engine specifically designed for/marketed to teenagers?
Andrew said that it was a stupid idea because no one wants their demographic to be targeted unless it's done silently. He said, "You don't go to a site because it's for 16 year olds, you go for the functionality." I'd rate his response as a hybrid. His mention of demographics and functionality is evocative of an Internet marketer's, but I think he's right because I don't really see many teens using one particular search engine for X years and then graduating to the "adult" search engine once they hit 18. It's a stupid idea.
Evan said he'd like to see a search engine dedicated to homework-related stuff. I'm willing to award this a "typical teen" checkmark, but at the same time isn't that kind of what Wikipedia is? Encyclopedias are good homework aides, and Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia (I know, I know, you don't have to start harping about its accuracy). Also, there are lots of homework forums and tutor sites on the web, so I'm not sure how a "homework" search engine would operate, considering the wide rang of homework subjects.
Evan also wants safer search features. He said that he's talked to people who are worried about the types of results they get, and he'd like to see a search engine for younger kids. Okay, what the hell. This is NOT a typical teen response. I doubt that teenagers give a crap about "safe search." All they want to do is grow up--I think that most of them can handle the occasional swear word or boob image search result. I just don't really see an average 15 or 16 year old clamoring for safe search and exclaiming "Won't someone think of the children?!"
What social media sites do you use?
The kids use Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter. Pretty standard stuff, though I was vaguely interested in hearing that MySpace and Facebook are pretty much equal now, and that most of the panelists' friends are on both sites. Way to catch up, Facebook!
Do you plan on sticking with Internet marketing?
I liked this question because I asked it. :D Harrison said that he will definitely stay in the Internet field, though maybe not necessarily as an affiliate marketer. Chloe said that she is actually more interested in film, and that this wasn't the field she was planning on being in, but she might stick with it because she's getting more into it and making more websites. Andrew said that he'll enjoy what he does as long as it keeps challenging him and there are new frontiers to develop on. He's not sure what will ultimately be his career, but he will stay on the Internet. Evan didn't answer, probably because he's not doing any Internet marketing.
I'm not trying to sip on haterade here, but I was confused with the juxtaposition of wanting to know what the typical teen is doing nowadays in regards to search and the Internet, yet asking said questions to a group of extremely web-savvy Internet marketers. It's like asking a doctor to sing the "Knee bone's connected to the...leg bone!" song and then wondering where the hell all of these extra body parts and jargon came from. I think that the panel would have been much better if it were structured in either of the following ways:
- The same basic questions that were asked to our savvy panel were asked to a panel of NORMAL teens. Not kids who make 5 figures a month in affiliate marketing, make AdSense earnings from their blog, or develop Wordpress plugins. Normal kids who casually use the Internet. You wouldn't study my search habits to get an idea of how the typical American searches, right? You'd rather study my sister or other folks who aren't aware of the sort of things that I (and the panelists) are privy to.
- Keep the existing panelists but reshape the questions to focus on how they got started in Internet marketing, how they've educated themselves, how much time they devote to their jobs, etc. Evan probably would have been nixed from this format because he's not a marketer, and the session would have focused on what the kids have been doing with their businesses/blogs/developments, etc.
There you have it, a recap of the Generation Google panel from this "old" fogey. ;) I hope you gleaned some insight from it. Again, I'm just reminding you that this post is very opinionated and I'm sure that many people in the audience enjoyed the panel--I just thought it could have been better (I'm not blaming the panelists at all--more so the focus of the session). I'm looking forward to hearing the opinions of others who saw the panel.
The topic title is not misleading, guys, so calm down asking her to change it. This is a blog post, written by an author, also known as one person. Adding the "to me" part is just stupid. This is her opinion, she doesn't need to ad "me" to the post title. Just like I don't need to say "I" in a paper I write in school. I'm the one writing it, the reader knows I wrote it, it's just redundant.
Rand, Danny, myself, Jane & every single Op-Ed columnist for the NYT don't need to add "to me." It's just stupid.
"Rand, Danny, myself, Jane & every single Op-Ed columnist for the NYT don't need to add "to me." It's just stupid."
And that's what my point (and several others, so it seems) was all about (and making it clear that Rand forcing her to do so--which he never did--would be a form of censorship).
Mr Molehill, have you met Mrs Mountain?
Wow - isn't this fun? Actually, no - it's pretty depressing. As someone who is, the highest placed non-Mozzer on the list (utterly meaningless I know, but it helps me sleep more soundly, so WTF) and someone who just spent 3 days posting from conferences struggling to juggle balance and opinion, I figure I'm due a rant.
Danny - it is entirely possible to go to a session that is clearly marked out and still feel that it was disappointing. I've re-read Rebecca's post, as well as Tamar's which you highlighted, and have to say that it does feel like a trick may have been missed. No, I wasn't there and no, Rebecca doesn't sign-post all of your 'what about your friends' comments, but it just does. Sorry.
Whilst you're right that people should always feel able to comment on anything on t'web, that doesn't mean they always should. After one of my posts was mentioned at SES last week, as well as in another coverage post, (in a manner suggesting I was out to 'get' SES) I saw Kevin having a fag outside and went over to explain that this wasn't the case; his response? I didn't read it, but thanks for letting me know. End of story - we got drunk later.
Now I know that this post won't in anyway change your relationship with Rebecca (or at least I really hope not, otherwise the spelling on Sphinn is going to go to hsit [sic]), but the experience last week just reminded me that mine was but one, very lowly opinion, and not really anything to get het up about.
I realise that SMX is your baby and so that's probably easier said than done (and that Rebecca holds a whole lot more influence than I ever will), but can I, very respectfully, suggest that there are quite a few people here who aren't doing themselves any favours by continuing what stopped feeling like a conversation quite a while ago.
Anyway, seconds out, round 456...
For those that aren't Brits, Kevin was having a cigarette outside. Fag is a commonly used and completely non-derogatory term that is used over here.
I won't drag this on and on. Actually, I did my initial response and figured that was it -- here's what I thought, no need to go on. Then I come back today and there's this stream of stuff about censorship, standing up to big people, blah blah blah.
I'll say it again -- yes, people should disagree with anyone. Me, Rand, Rebecca, whomever. That's just basic critical thinking. And as long as you're being fair or well-reasoned with what you're writing, you shouldn't have any concerns at all. Hey folks, I write bad thing about Google and Microsoft all the time. Think I'm sitting back and worrying that oh no, am I brave enough to take them on? No. I'm worrying about whether what I wrote is fair, and whether I could back it up if I had to deal with people from those companies face to face.
Rebecca, yes, in my view, you misrepresented the panel in not mentioning that I said from the beginning during the panel itself that it wasn't meant to be a representative group of teens. I was clear about that and the weaknesses of it and that I'd try to get around it by asking about friends as well. You didn't mention this at all, but you repeatedly criticized the panel as not being represenative. That paints a picture here for others reading about it as if I was somehow ignorant of those issues or ignoring them.
I'll add that I'm not taking these criticisms personally, nor do I have any problem with criticism. Bring it on. If you're smart, you use criticism to make things better. Rebecca had two main points in what she wrote.
One: she'd have liked to have heard what a panel of young search marketers had to say about search marketing. Agreed, and that might make a future panel for me to assemble. Bear it mind even then it won't be representative. There aren't four "normal" people of anything.
Two: that this panel wasn't using "normal" teens. Here, I toss my hands up. I'm simply dumbfounded. I started the panel and said something like this:
"I've got a group of four teens here, all of whom are associated with search marketing. Ideally, I'd have four 'normal' teens, but it's hard to get four normal people of anything. Instead, I'm going to ask them for their personal views on these questions, plus how they feel their friends do things, and maybe that will give us some glimpse into how teens deal with search."
Later WebmasterRadio will post the entire audio of the session, and you can hear exactly what I said. But I thought that was a pretty fair and straightforward preface to set expectations.
To underscore the difficulty of a "normal" panel, what did I need? Four teens from Silicon Valley who aren't search marketers? And if they were all from upper class neighborhoods, did I need to get some city kids in there? And did I need to include perhaps non-English speakers, since you've got tons of teens in the country who don't speak English or English as a native language? And would kids on the East Coast need to be on it?
See, I thought of all these things before I assembled the panel. You can't do it. You can't make a panel of "normal" people in the way Rebecca wants. And when you explain all this before a panel -- and then you get taken to task over it as a failure as if you never mentioned it -- it's throw your hands up time about what else you can do. I can't do anything with that criticism, only to try and explain to Rebecca and those of you who are piling on about this fault about the impossibility there.
And with that, I'm done. If Rebecca or others want to have the last word or words, have at it. I do mean nothing personal to Rebecca or others posting about her. I'm just trying to help you better understand how the panel was assembled, the limitations involved and most of all shake you out of this rut that maybe only the bravest people can do criticism. That's insane. You're neither lemmings or sheep.
Actually, I am both a lemming and a sheep.
I don't think what was said in this thread constituted just a "stream of stuff about censorship, standing up to big people, blah blah blah." I actually care about the issues brought up here, which is why I spent so much of my last few days participating in this thread. So I disagree with you quite directly there.
That said, I think your specific points in response to Rebecca's criticisms are valid, and I'm glad you've aired them.
I honestly must have missed that, so I'm sorry for not having included it in my post. Let's move away from the "normal" teens debate. What about the other session I proposed, where you ask the kids that you had on the panel about how they got their start in SEM/Internet marketing and focus your questions on their specific projects and expertise? What do you think about that?
I thought the idea of a panel focusing on search marketers as teens is an excellent idea. Maybe I can bring them back for SMX East and do it.
And sorry for letting this entire thing get too heated!
Now we know that you're moving house (country!) it all makes sense!
;)
Same here. Truce? ;) Let's break bread over pasties.
Actually Ciaran - I'm sure a lot of us are quite envious of your position as the "highest placed non-Mozzer" on the list. At least I know I am.
But even more impressive - you have more YOUmoz posts than anyone - by far. You're almost double the next highest person on the list (Bookworm).
A few months back I had resigned myself to the fact that I just didn't have what it takes to be in the top 10 of SEOMoz members - so I convinced myself that maybe some day I could be the person who has the most YOUmoz posts.
But you've now convinced me that will never ever happen for me.
You just keep on posting and posting. You're like the damn energizer bunny when it comes to YOUmoz posts. And you don't post crap either - your posts always pass muster when it comes to quality.
And I hate you for it.
Well done.
*blushes*
Seriously - it's amazing what you can do when you have a 3-month notice period between jobs....
It would be impossible for Phil Collins to "teach" search...
...jackets are required
Good one!
Catching up on some of the recent comments. Rand, see, this is why I hate threaded comments. It's hard to see what's new.
First of all, I'm fully confident that Rebecca can take care of herself and express her opinions regardless of any pressure imaginary or otherwise -- as she did, and as she will continue to do.
Indeed, the entire "your so brave for posting" theme some are taking leaves me cold. Why wouldn't Rebecca post what she think? What, you think Rand's going to fire her? Or Rebecca, who's been at my house, had lunch with my kids, is suddenly going persona non grata to me? Hell, if anything, you can argue that being contrarian against perceived "big guns" is a safe course to follow.
Me, I don't need the deep analysis. I don't consider Rebecca somehow inferior to me, and my respect for her goes to the degree that just as she can hand it out, I assume she can take it. She's just Rebecca, not Rebecca goddess of SEOmoz who must be worshipped. I'm just Danny, not Danny who must somehow be feared. And those of you who either assume such pedestal placing is going on or should be going on -- stop it. Seriously, stop it. Yes, people have reputations; but reputations don't automatically make any piece of work great or excused from criticism.
As for her review, I understand it was her opinion. I even took away some good suggestions that she would have liked to have seen it focused on either "real" teens or "search marketing" teens.
I wasn't offended by it. I don't even care if she hated the session. I'm simply frustrated that nowhere did it cover how I explained that the session couldn't involve real teens, couldn't be really representative but how I would use these teens to get some insight beyond them. And I felt as a panel, we did a very good job. Every question, folks -- "what do your friends do." Every question.
As a result, I'm watching a lot of people here agree about how "stupid" the session was or how stupid the questions were without actually having been there. And since I WAS there (unlike most of the people commenting in this thread), and I watched both the teens and the audience, I came away thinking both parties on the whole thought it was a useful session.Audience members didn't start getting up and leaving. The teens didn't storm off the stage (Sean Maguire -- I walked Harrison over to meet up with Matt Cutts after the session, and he was pretty animated about it. He certainly wasn't pissed or wishing he'd spent the hour working the floor). It was a good session. My opinion. For what it's worth.
Let me go back to some specifics. Of course it seems lame to ask "who taught you to search." But all of you saying "they're born to it." C'mon. They're not. Someone, at some point, shows you how to search. We know pretty little about this. My assumption, which the panel largely confirmed on their own experiences and what they said about friends, is that someone (usually family) points them at Google, shows them the search box, and that's it.
That's pretty lame. There's a lot you can do with search, and a lot that can be taught about it. Assuming people know everything means they (teens or otherwise) don't get instruction they need. One panelist had no idea about Google's shopping search, yet she wanted a shopping search engine. That's the type of thing that can be taught. All of the panelists agreed (and suggested themselves) that schools should do a better job of teaching how personal information can be exposed to search engines via social sites. That was interesting to hear. But you'd never have learned it if you didn't start with some basic questions and followed-up on the responses.
And Sean -- you bet I'd ask adults this question or a lot of the similar ones, if I wanted to understand how they search. Actually, I do all the time, when I meet people in the "real world" and want to understand how they encounter search. But as I keep saying, since you didn't actually see the panel, see the follow-up questions or see the reactions, it's hard to convince you that the panel wasn't rolling their eyes and wondering when I'd hand out lollypops.
On safe search, Evan -- as I recall -- wasn't the first person to suggest it. It was Andrew. I'd asked about if there should be a search engine for teens and wasn't surprised to hear they thought that was a stupid idea. I couldn't see much use of it, but it's good to ask and know so that when someone inevitably rolls out their VC-backed "teen" search engine, it can get the criticism it deserves.
Andrew then mentioned that for kids, little kids, it might be better if there was something that filtered out adult content. Sorry, Rebecca -- I didn't feel he said that because he thought it was politically correct. I think he said it because he was thinking about the question and felt this was an area where search engines could do better. And the panelists all agreed.
On the change the title thing, wow -- how things spin out of control. I wasn't seriously suggesting that the title should be changed. I mean, I have problems with the entire piece, as I've explained. Changing the title wouldn't fix that. Nor would I expect her to edit the piece. I was just expressing my opinion about the piece itself. That's what the comments here are for, right? Adding to existing commentary, not trying to take away from it.
And I should be able to comment here without being accused of "pissing all over the place" as Sean says, shouldn't I. Or does it work that criticism can only go one way? Sean, I didn't say Rebecca couldn't have her say. I just was honestly surprised that the setup and the tone from what I read was so much different that the session I attended.
My opinion was that Rebecca could have done a better job representing the panel. Not recapping it -- but representing that it was not positioned as having "typical" teens, nor was it a parade of questions that made the panel bored out of their minds. She can (and does) have the opinion that the panel could have been better. But sorry, she did a bad job (in my opinion; I'm allowed one too) of explaining how much was done to go beyond these teens and get insight into others. She wrote a post that makes it seems like I was oblivous to the problem of being representative. I was not. I was keenly sensitive to the problem and addressed it from the outset. And if she'd said that in this post, some of those reading might have viewed the session in a different ligth.
Instead, as a result, I get someone like Sean saying that while he wasn't there, I clearly missed a big opportunity, and that it could have been a more compelling session. Maybe. Or maybe entirely not. But if you weren't at the session, you don't know. And if you slavishly love Rebecca so much, then hey, hang with her opinion and trash the session all you like.
Me, Rebecca's got an opinion of this session, and I'll take those criticisms away and to heart, and I wouldn't want her to feel restricted in her opinions. But I've also go them, too, and I'll express them when I feel they should be expressed.
"So wow, bummer, Rebecca. But perhaps the headline could be amended to add the words "to me" to it, since a number of people who I talked to thought it was the best session they'd seen for ages."
versus
"On the change the title thing, wow -- how things spin out of control. I wasn't seriously suggesting that the title should be changed. I mean, I have problems with the entire piece, as I've explained. Changing the title wouldn't fix that. Nor would I expect her to edit the piece. I was just expressing my opinion about the piece itself."
When someone like Matt Cutts, Rand Fishkin, or Danny Sullivan say something it carries a lot of weight. I am sure you've noticed that by now. By you suggesting she change the title . . . other people jumped on board (most powerfully, Rand). My only point throughout this entire thread was that a) She shouldn't be forced to change the title. b) Good for her for standing her ground as a blogger even against heavy weights like you and Rand.
Brent D. Payne
Totally, and the most heated discussion was just about that - not about the quality of the panel itself. Sean tried to second Rebecca's points and explaine them but he kept repeating that he wasn't there...
Danny, saying that you are 'just Danny', you are missing the point that none of us here (neither 'just Ann', nor 'just Sean', etc) would have never suggested that anyone in the blogosphere should change the title of a post. And that was the reason of the community reaction (at least of the voiced reaction).
Great comment, Danny--had to thumb you and give you credit where it's due. I appreciate your point of view and your opinion--thanks for being respectful of mine. :D
I appreciate you taking the time to respond Danny.
I could go through the thread and pick out all of the specific comments made by Evan, Rand and yourself that I felt were belittling, disrespectful and dismissive and try to explain once again why I responded the way I did, but I suspect that would serve no purpose, especially in light of your comments above - not the least of which is your suggestion that my comments can be attributed to my slavish love for Rebecca, as opposed to being those of a mature gentleman that fails to see the humor in a 16 year old kid disrespecting and littering a business his brother and his employees have worked so hard to build, by belittling one of his dedicated and prized employees with his "cock-sucking-bastard" commentary. You know things are tough when you have to do some reputation management for some crap your own family is pulling.
Is one to find that humorous? Maybe I'm just an old man out of touch with today's kids. In fact, I still even believe in chivalry to show you how outdated I am.
That said, understand that my comments had and continue to have no basis in my devotion to Rebecca or any other person on this board, but rather have everything to do with wanting to see people treated with a sense of fairness, dignity and respect. Rebecca, for her efforts, was treated with neither.
To be perfectly candid, if I were Rand, I would have kicked my little brother right out of here for his abusive and profane language and for disrespecting those that work so hard to make this an A class place, as opposed to congratulating him with a "You rock Evan!"
The commentary that followed Evan's comments, those of both yourself and Rand only added to my disgust.
In the entire time I have contributed here, I've not had a single negative word to say. Yesterday I did. But, at least I did so while repeatedly conveying my respect for those I was taking to task. Yourself included.
I have nothing more to say on the matter.
Extremely well-put, and seconded.
In this discussion I kind of feel I just need to comment (though I'd agree with Ciaran that this stopped feeling like a conversation)...
So.. thirded:
Who submitted/approved these questions? They're damn near offensive to these young marketers. They may as well have asked them to "please submit 2,000 words on how we can better market to your generation and make a killing." Isn't it far more interesting to ask these four about how they came to affiliate marketing and what they've learned so far?
Asking four people who obviously have a good handle on Internet marketing "who taught you to search?" is like asking them "who taught you to tie your shoelaces, little one?" I don't see what relevance that question has at all or what value there would be in the response.
As sorry as I am to not be at SMX right now (and I am very sorry) I'm thinking this session would have been a real let down.
Overall - they had four young, smart and successful Internet marketers on a panel and the chance to pick their brains...and the best they could do was look at it like ,"hey, four teenagers - let's find out what the hell all of these kids are up to!" How out of touch can you get?
I tend to agree with you, what a wasted opportunity to pick the brains of some bright minds. :-/
Sounds a bit disappointing! Being a “mere” 24 years myself, the answers provided didn't surprise me either. To be honest, understanding the mechanics of the web/search is pretty intrinsic to the “generation Google”, so I don't find it amazingly impressive that 16yr olds are getting into SEM/affiliate stuff. There's a split for me though, I like reading some of the, um “older” SEMers blogs because just their extra years give them a better context to place current techniques/trends in a bigger picture – so you get a better view of the current market. However, I hate it when people say “oh I've been doing SEO for 10 years”, like it's some kind of demonstration of skill. I'd always ask if they're so good at SEO, why have they been doing it so long and not made some big bucks and retired? There's obviously exceptions to this and people that stay in the industry, but they are the rarity. Some of the best SEO people I've found have been in the quietest corners of the net and they don't blog/go to conferences. They just learn their game and within a couple of years their a 10k a week person. Job-wise, I think SEM may be approaching a saturation spike over the next 5 years :o)
Truth of the matter is ten years ago, SEO was so simple that people were doing SEO without knowing what the word meant. In 1998, I was spelling out G-O-O-G-L-E on napkins, InfoSeek was selling the word “home” for $100, and people still thought that AOL was the internet. Let’s face it, the only way to know an SEOers experience level is to ask questions.
markdigerati, don't hate, relate :)
Not that I am one of the 10-year-SEO-experts you are talking about, but my guess is that they do not do SEO to get rich and retire.
To the kids:
Their response:
I wasn't in this session - and it has become pretty clear (contrary to my comment above) that I may have liked it a lot - and many people did. I respect Rebecca's opinion, but also that of lots of other people who did like it (not least Rand).
I just wanted to say, reading the comments above (some of which made me sad) that I think Rand is right to reach out behind the scenes. People communicate better out of the limelight sometimes.
I also think Evan's research after the fact above deserves praise as well (profanity notwithstanding). I don't care about the language, but I think it has unfortunately coloured some further discussion.
The main things I wanted to say were:
1. I would find it hard if a panel I was on received bad write-ups regardless of whether it was my fault (or if all the audience felt that) and let's remember these kids are young - I want to congratulate them for having the kahunas to put themselves out there and be on the panel. I hope they won't be put off doing it in future and I hope Danny isn't dissuaded from running similar sessions in the future - even if there is some learning to be done (perhaps, in some people's eyes).
2. Danny: I'm sure you have seen it many times, but this opens my eyes to how sessions can simultaneously be some people's favourites and a disappointment to others. Good work on a great conference overall.
Having said all of that - Rebecca - way to say what you think and stick to your guns.
Will,
Are you the guy writing Barack Obama's speeches by any chance? ;) You're a master of diplomacy. On a separate note, it was great meeting you and Duncan last week.
Cheers, Sean
Good to meet you too, Sean.
I'm not a speechwriter, but I wish I could write my thoughts down before saying them sometimes - I am much more articulate when writing than talking (wait till you see me on video).
So wow, bummer, Rebecca. But perhaps the headline could be amended to add the words "to me" to it, since a number of people who I talked to thought it was the best session they'd seen for ages. And those who weren't add it, reading your expectations, might come away thinking it didn't deliver what it was supposed to. I think it did.
The description:
"They've grown up with search engines as an everyday fact-of-life, rather than some magical new technology that's revolutionized finding information. This panel of "Generation Google" teens, as some have dubbed them, answers questions about how they search, view search engines and yes -- even do search marketing of their own."
OK, in the end we didn't really get into the how they do search marketing of their own in depth. But we touched on some of it, and perhaps a future panel might go deeper into it. Harrison as a heavy-duty 15 year-old affiliate was awesome.
And yeah, I'm in my 40s, and I am curious what those crazy kids are up to, and you being back in 24 might not have found it all that surprising. Still -- did you really know none of them appear to do mobile search? That certainly caught me off guard.
As for the questions, as I explained when the session started -- and as you appear either to not have heard or neglected to mention -- they came off me asking for thoughts from people at LinkedIn answers:
https://www.linkedin.com/answers?viewQuestion=&questionID=171058
Who taught you to search is an interesting question, because it underscores that no one really gets formal instruction. As your brother pushed you at a browser, so the teens (and their friends, as they said) get pointed at Google at a early age and are left to it. And as we got into during the panel, things they might actually want instruction on (searching safely, assessing material, making sure you don't reveal too much about yourself online), they're not getting that because their teachers seem to be too far behind to know what they are really needing to know. Now if you totally thought things hadn't changed since the 6 years you left high school, sorry that was obvious to you. But sometimes the things you assume are obvious turn out not to be.
As for paid clicks answers not being representative, um, well, duh. I mean, sorry to sound hostile, but since you're kind of ripping the session apart, did you only listen to like half of what was being said? I started out at the beginning and made clear this wasn't a representative panel of teens. Not only did they all have connections with people in search, but four people period are hard to be representative. But I consistently asked them for each question what they did versus what their friends did -- something I also explained that I would do -- so that we would get a broader feel. And as you completely left out -- they said most of their friends had no idea what were paid ads. Similarly, damn right Evan is unusual going past the first page of results. I think he wasn't the only one the panel that said that, and when I asked (as you failed to blog) if their friends were going past, they said no.
Back to mobile search, how many kids have mobile web functionality. Well, since we asked if most of their friends were searching via mobile -- and we got a consistent no as thankfully yo did report this time -- I'd say there's a good chance they don't.
On safe search, as I said earlier, none of the teens were expected to give a "typical" response, but yes, Evan saying more safe search features might be nice actually would have been more typical, I'd say. That's because all the other panelists also agreed with it. Did you not remember that entire conversation? They all felt little kids needed better safe search tools, since they're searching more, don't have a lot of skills and the existing tools aren't good enough. They were unanimous here.
Anyway, I guess I feel like if you'd paid attention to the setup for the panel, where I was pretty specific this wasn't a set panel of teens but we'd try to go beyond them, maybe you wouldn't have been so disappointed. And if I failed to make that clear in my opening, hey, I'm sorry. But I consistently on each question went back and asked what their friends did. After nearly 30 questions like that, to have you do a post that basically says, "worthless, not representative," that's a general disappointment -- as well as you not covering a lot of the answers that were posted. And those reader your review probably should take a look at Tamar's write-up:
https://www.seroundtable.com/archives/016410.html
She's not expressing opinions about the session, as you did -- but she is covering more of what was asked and answered. Notice all those "how about your friends" that keep coming up.
Oh, and since the panelists all told me they enjoyed the session and none stormed off all offended and upset, I'd like to believe the questions were neither stupid nor insulting. For those that are curious, I have a follow-up article that's coming out that will list all the questions I compiled in the end along with an actual poll that we're conducting. I'd hoped we'd have had that done in time for the session, but it couldn't be done. But that's why I consistently tried to get responses about how this group of savvy teens act as well as how their "regular" friend do.
And Jonah, right on -- how could you leave that off, Rebecca. I mean, you've got no atmosphere of this session at all. The audience was laughing, the teens were having fun, we were getting through a lot of information -- and I felt they were all treated with a lot of respect, not as curiousities. You've painted some alternative reality session, and as I like said earlier, that's a pretty personal general disappointment to read.
And Evan, your response on safe search wasn't stupid. As we've both now explained, it was taken out of context.
Thanks Danny. And for the record, I totally want to end world hunger :)
I did mention a few times throughout the post that it was all my opinion. The reason that I didn't cover every single question and response was because this post wasn't meant to be a recap. Rand wanted our coverage of the conference to include interjections of our opinions, and I did exactly that. I was in no way offended by the session, just disappointed. And, as I stated, I have no doubt that others found the session to be incredibly interesting and valuable, but to me, the session could have been much more valuable if it either focused on "regular" teens who weren't into marketing at all or delved further into the "super" teens' SEM background.
I'm sorry to have offended you, Danny. This is nothing personal against you, just one conference goer's lowly opinion.
Like I said at the end of my first comment, Subjects 1 and 2 are up and ready to go if anyone has any questions. Who knows, maybe Danny can put another one together and have them come down to another SMX. I will vouch for both of them being more than ignorant in SEO/SEM.
Rebecca - I'm not sure if you read Danny's comment. He wasn't offended about your opinion, I think he was more frustrated that your criticisms often skipped over a lot of the meat of the session (and the fact that it was exactly what it was marketed to be - which you seemed to suggest otherwise).
I did read his comment, which is why I responded to it. I'll say it again: this post was simply my opinion, and I'm sorry that so many of you are surprised to hear that I found the session to be disappointing. I am sure that plenty of people enjoyed it; I (and a number of others I've talked to), however, feel otherwise, which I think is totally fine.
Amen!
And can we give Rebecca a thumbs up for not folding on her opinion, like others may have done, when up against the Fishkin family and Danny Sullivan himself?
I wasn't even at SMX West, but the fact that Rebecca isn't recanting her opinion just because its unfavorable to the goliaths in SEO . . . she's gained my respect as a blogger. And having great bloggers on SEOmoz is a major reason why I visit SEOmoz daily.
Brent D. Payne
I've got to second this.
My own comment(s) above probably didn't help much - and I should have prefaced them by saying I wasn't at the session myself and am going on the opinions/accounts of those who were.
I didn't think Rebecca's comments were aimed at anyone personally, but it seems as if they were taken that way. That said, if she was disappointed with the session I want to know it, and I want to know why. That's what keeps me reading SEOmoz - I know (or like to think) that I'm getting honest commentary.
I am glad as well that Danny and Evan dropped by to give their own sides of the story.
So, I think then maybe you're missing the point, which was to say "Hey, it's totally fair that you personally didn't liek the session," but I've got to agree with Danny that categorizing it as a "general disappointment" makes it sound like the community voted and agreed (or came to some kind of consensus) that the panel sucked.
I'm not going to change the title - I'll leave that up to you if you want, but I think it was really fair criticism (along with many other valid points) and even though you said you read it, you're simply sticking with the "it's my opinion" line, which I know it is, and neither Danny or myself have a problem with. The things I think he wanted addressed were the fact that the session was advertised as what you portrayed it to be, not what you hoped it would be and then were upset with.
In either case, I have to agree with Brent and others in this thread. It is very brave of you to stand up for your opinion, publish it regardless of how industry leaders or your boss might feel. In all honesty, despite the fact that I disagree with you, I have a lot of respect for you - and even pride in you, because I think there are so few people in any public-facing role at any company in the world who would be able to do that. So kudos where they're due :)
;-)
Freedom of the Press . . . or, in this case, the blogger!
You have one hell of an employee Rand.
Kudos to you for encouraging her freedom even when her opinion is opposite yours.
Damn, I love SEOmoz!!
Brent D. Payne
"So, I think then maybe you're missing the point, which was to say "Hey, it's totally fair that you personally didn't like the session," but I've got to agree with Danny that categorizing it as a "general disappointment" makes it sound like the community voted and agreed (or came to some kind of consensus) that the panel sucked.
I'm not going to change the title - I'll leave that up to you if you want..."
Rand, I'm not surprised to see you categorically agree with Danny Sullivan, but how you can sit there and say after reading her entire post, that Rebecca's statement sounds like the community voted and agreed that the panel sucked is absolutely beyond my comprehension.
Honestly - I think you're the one that's missing the point here and if you continue trying to quell free speech in defense of business partners and relatives, you remove a very important element of this community and that is - respectful dissension.
This community has come to know Rebecca's writing style. She's a little colorful, but where you, Danny, Evan and Gillian seem to believe she was dissing the panel, it was quite the contrary. She was dissing the moderator, for dulling the panel. The panel that she was open to hearing and anxious to learn from. Anyone else in the audience get that message?
I've read enough about what was asked and the responses to the questions to agree. Danny Sullivan missed a great opportunity. It wasn't a bad session, but it wasn't nearly as compelling as it could have been.
And the fact that Rebecca didn't change the title, even when Rand softly suggested that she should . . . makes me respect her.
If Rand would have changed the title of the post himself . . . OMG, I can't imagine the backlash that would have occurred.
I like SEOmoz because of situations like this. I am assured that I am getting the opinions of several individuals versus Rand Fishkin's opinion with Rebecca's, Copeland's, Scott's, Bird's, or someone else's name in the byline.
You can expect that Rand would do damage control in this type of situation. In fact, I'm not saying it is a bad thing that he is doing some damage control (he needs his business partners). I, however, am very glad that he is allowing the conversation to occur. Even if he does disagree with Rebecca and even if he 'owns the place'.
Afterall . . . this is a moz . . . ;-)
Brent D. Payne
"And the fact that Rebecca didn't change the title, even when Rand softly suggested that she should . . . makes me respect her."
"Softly suggested". That's a nice way of putting it Brent. I prefer to call it "guilting and shaming her into it". Of course, we all know that Rebecca has too much journalistic integrity to bow down to such shallow overtures.
And the bigger question is whether or not the other writers at SEOmoz feel stiffled and would avoid writing such a post because of the agony they may inflict upon themselves for doing so. Also, do reactions like the one from Danny Sullivan and the Fishkins make even Rebecca more gun shy to voice her opinion in the future?
Rand didn't tell her to change it. He didn't change it himself. So . . . I consider it soft. But, as you know, most of my career I've had to stand my ground when I was literally being screamed at to do something else. Thus what is soft for me may not be what is soft for someone else.
I don't think Rand 'crossed the line'.
Brent D. Payne
No. :)
I wasn't there - and even if I was I probably wouldn't have gone to a session with this title.
I have 2 teens at home and dozens more that come in every day to play games. My "work desk" shares the common area with the Xbox, PS2, GameCube, etc. as well as my son's computer. I see other teens use his computer for homework and browsing while the rest of the gang is going at it on Halo 3. None of the answers above or in the comments (including mobile search) surprise me.
However - if there was a session on teens who make money doing internet marketing - and "how Harrison, Chloe, and Andrew got their start as marketers, get a general idea of the amount of work they put into their projects and jobs, and what got them interested in the field in the first place." - that would have been more valuable.
A future SMX session perhaps.
Rebecca - many many kudos for sticking to your guns.
My opinion of SMX hasn't been affected by this at all, but my opinion of you - and the blog on SEOMoz has gone up greatly because of your honest and frank opinion as well as your tenacity in maintaining your position.
Thank you.
"Rebecca - I'm not sure if you read Danny's comment. He wasn't offended about your opinion..."
Rand, why is it that when people don't agree with you or Danny, it must mean that they either didn't read or don't understand, etc...?
The only problem I have with Rebecca is for apologizing for doing her job, which was to give an opinion piece. Her apology was entirely uncalled for.
Sean,
It's not really an apology . . .
and I'm sorry that so many of you are surprised to hear that I found the session to be disappointing.
She is apologizing for their actions not her actions. Which doesn't make it an apology at all but more of an empathy for them.
If she would have said she was sorry that she found the session to be disappointing, that would have been an entirely different story.
Brent D. Payne
Brent,
I was referring to this apology:
"I'm sorry to have offended you, Danny. This is nothing personal against you, just one conference goer's lowly opinion."As I said - totally uncalled for.
I'm just curious Danny - How often does Rebecca visit your posts to tell you you should amend your headlines because she didn't feel they accurately reflected the opinions of the masses?
This was clearly an opinion piece and I for one, felt that Rebecca did a good job of outlining HER opinion. In her first two paragraphs alone, she used the words "I and "my" six times combined, including the sentence "Much to MY surprise, the session didn't go how I thought it would. I was expecting..."
Nowhere in this post did I see Rebecca make any mention to having polled the audience for their opinion of the program.
I'm also in my 40's and I already know what those "typical" crazy kids are up to. I suspect you know the same. What I don't know is - "How did a fifteen year old Harrison Gevirtz come to be pulling down six figures at the age of 15, for example. So, I understand Rebecca's disappointment. This session could have had a bunch more meat. That was my takeaway.
Also, I disagree that "Who taught you to search?" is an interesting question. Snore... I'd rather hear a question like "Harrison - you have an audience of people here that want to know what drove a 15 year old into affiliate marketing and how did you figure out how to make so much money when there are tens of thousands of very experienced people out there that aren't even coming close to that?
"Now if you totally thought things hadn't changed since the 6 years you left high school, sorry that was obvious to you."
Nice way to come into this thread and belittle the author with a snide remark.
As for paid clicks answers not being representative, um, well, duh. I mean, sorry to sound hostile, but since you're kind of ripping the session apart, did you only listen to like half of what was being said?
First off - no - you're not sorry to sound hostile, so don't apologize. Second - what you, Evan and Rand seem to be missing is that she actually had a great deal of respect for the talents and accomplishments of the panel and unfortunately, you dumbed them down with dumbed down questions. Please don't tell me you would have asked the same types of questions to intelligent and accomplished adults that you did to these accomplished and intelligent kids?
Oh, and since the panelists all told me they enjoyed the session and none stormed off all offended and upset, I'd like to believe the questions were neither stupid nor insulting.
You're right Danny, since the kids didn't storm off all upset and offended, it makes perfect sense for you to come to the conclusion that they thought the questions were neither stupid nor insulting. Otherwise, they surely would have acted so immaturely - afterall - they're just kids, right?
I'm not here to suggest that Rebecca's post reflected the attitude of every one that attended the panel, but for God's sake Danny - let the lady have her say without coming into her house and pissing all over the place. It was her opinion. That's it. I would hardly call her views an alternative reality session, simply because they don't jive with the guy who ran the conference.
I am for Rebecca, Brent, Vin and Sean here (just felt thumbs up were not enough, so I decided to comment also).
I am a loyal SEOMoz reader (partly) due to Rebecca's and Jane's impartial opinions - and I think this is awesome that such a powerful SEO influencer as SEOMoz didn't lose the ability to make such critical and independent overviews.
This was clearly an opinion piece and I, for one,felt that Rebecca did a good job of outlining HER opinion. In her first two paragraphs alone, she used the words "I and "my" six times combined, including the sentence "Much to MY surprise, the session didn't go how I thought it would. I was expecting..."
I completely agree Sean. It was her opinion and seeing she is a respected blogger and a savvy online marketer, I'd like to know her opinion.
The fact she gave her opinion, most likely knowing full-well it was not going to be a politically correct one with her boss and with the SMX group . . . make me respect her as a blogger, and as a person.
Although I realize that Rand is doing some 'damage control' (like he normally does), I am very glad to see that he is supporting Rebecca and not censoring her opinion.
What an interesting thread . . .
Brent D. Payne
Right on, Sean. Well said. I'm frankly surprised, and a little disappointed, that more mozzers haven't spoken up in this thread.
Danny is certainly a kingpin when it comes to SEO - there's no doubt about that. I don't think there's any question that his work and achievement over the last 10+ years speak for itself and command the respect of anyone who knows anything about the history of search and Internet marketing as a whole. However, that positiion of authority doesn't justify such a vehement response to a post that was clearly stated as one blogger's opinion - a blogger that we mozzers have come to know/respect. I think the biggest mistake any leader can make is to lash out at criticism rather than give it reasonable thought.
I also can see why Rand's position in this situation is a particularly difficult one - and I'm glad to see that he is, more or less, standing up for Rebecca's right to air her opinion. However, I hate to see a backlash of this sort coming from all angles at Rebecca for doing what she does best. So I join Brent, Sean, Vin, Ann and the others in backing up Rebecca wholeheartedly - not in the sense that we think she is "right," but in the sense that we respect and value her opinion and her right to air it here.
I have to admit this is probably among the most heated "discussions" I've borne witness to in my ~2 years as an avid reader of SEOmoz - and I think with good reason. This gets right at the heart of what has made SEOmoz one of the few websites I visit multiple times a day. I've found it to be an invaluable forum for discussion where we all operate on the same plane, where even the "power players" in search are subject to the criticism of the community and the smallest voices are heard. I would hate to see that change.
Big Tequila,
Network . . . and we can get more people to voice their opinion. Though I doubt we will hear anyone state that Rebecca writing her opinion about the session was 'wrong of her'. Nor do I think anyone will say she should apologize for the post or even edit the post.
But . . . network out to others. Let them know this is here and let's find out.
I've been wrong before . . . ;-)
Brent D. Payne
"Nor do I think anyone will say she should apologize for the post or even edit the post."
I disagree - If I had written this post, I would apologize and change the title (but not the content). The simple fact is - Generation Google was not a "General Disappointment" and even if it was, Rebecca presented no material to suggest that. She wrote a blog post about how and why she personally disliked it, what she was hoping for and how those expectations weren't met. The title should reflect the content of the post, and it doesn't do that - it miscategorizes by suggesting something that isn't true (or, at least, isn't verified or really addressed in the post).
When Vanessa Fox wrote a post criticizing our SEO Quiz, she said in her title that it was "completely wrong" but later amended to say "sort of, in an almost philosophical way" because in the comments, I pointed out that her post's content didn't actually suggest that it was "completely wrong" it suggested that 5-6 questions out of 60 or so were wrong and that the philosophy of strict answers on quizzes about SEO had some flaws.
I did the same thing a year ago, changing the post title about a C|Net reporter to better describe the real content, rather than be editorially unfair. This has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with accuracy. I strongly suspect the Ombudsman at the London Times or the Washington Post or the Grey Lady would concur.
BTW - Examples of what I might change the title to:
- Generation Google a General Disappointment to Me
- Generation Google Generally Dissapointed Me
- Generation Google Generally Not My Cup of Tea
- Generation Google Not Up My Alley
All of these more accurately convey the content you get when you read the post.
I think perhaps it's all in the reading of the term "general" in the title. I didn't take it to suggest a public consensus. I took it to mean that Rebecca herself was "generally disappointed" with the session. I think the term is a bit ambiguous in this case, and I can see how it can be read either way.
Here are two definitions from Dictionary.com for the word:
Definition #1: of or pertaining to all persons or things belonging to a group or category
Definition #5: not specific or definite
So it seems to me you could take the title either way.
That said, I agree with you Rand that changing the title would perhaps have been a diplomatic solution to this situation. I'm just not sure at this point what it would accomplish since the discussion in the comments has really taken on a life of its own and raised issues/implications beyond whether this was properly labeled as an "opinion."
Rand,
When someone writes a review of something they don't have to put 'to me' all over the place. It is understood. As Sean accurately pointed out, she made it very clear it was her opinion. Using the word 'general' means 'overall' disappointment. She pointed out that she had no issues with one of the answers . . . otherwise she may have said it was a 'complete' disappointment.
As for Vanessa Fox and your quiz. I made it very clear to Vanessa that I felt she should not have changed the title of her post. In fact, it sparked a situation where I am lucky enough to have IMs with her rather regularly now. What's funny is that she didn't get angry at me for my opinion but she rather embraced me.
Overall, though, it is a poor example because she said it was completely wrong (or something to that affect, I don't have the old title in front of me) when in fact she didn't feel it was. However, the readers of Vanessa's blog, know that Vanessa is a bit more . . . I don't know the right word, but you know what I mean. Her URL, her writing style, etc. Having a bold title like that, even if it was a bit over the top . . . not a big deal. I mean her URL is VanessaFoxNude . . . she relates SEO to Buffy. She writes about her hatred of certain technology products. Her reader's understand her. I, as a reader, was disappointed when she changed her title after SEOmoz came down on her. But . . . that was her choice as a blogger.
However, I don't think the Vanessa situation relates well to the situation at hand. Rebecca isn't stating anything that concrete. She simply said it was a general disappointment.
I do feel this is bordering (but not yet crossed the line) of censorship. You are handling it remarkably well, frankly. If you change her title or force her to change her title . . . I'd feel differently though and I am sure it would be easy to find a number of people that would agree; especially considering the tone this thread has already taken.
The utmost respect to you Rand as well as Danny Sullivan. You guys are both goliaths in online marketing. I didn't attack Danny because he has the right to voice his opinion just as much as Rebecca has the right to voice her opinion. Stifle either of them . . . and that's when I get concerned.
I see no wrong doing on Rebecca's part and I believe she should continue to stand her ground as a blogger, even if the guy that signs her check is against what she has done. I come to SEOmoz for the community Rand. If you make everything coming from your bloggers your own opinion . . . it takes a lot away from SEOmoz.
Brent D. Payne
Did anyone feel Rebecca was talking for anyone except for herself? I didn't!
Seriously, Rand, there is no need to change the title...
Nope just like I don't think the following article is the opinion of the the president of the New York Times.
Horrifying and Unnecessary
Nor do I feel anyone thinks my opinions in this thread (or anywhere else) is the opinion of my employer, Tribune Interactive.
Brent D. Payne
I'm here and I'm reading but I was working our booth during the session and thus can't really justify an opinion on its contents. All I have to go on is the contents of this post, its comments, and other recaps. I'm glad we as writers get a lot of freedom to express our opinions here but I'm not sure I have much more to add about a session I didn't attend.
I respect and appreciate that position, Jane. But I do think that this discussion has taken on something of a life all its own and raised issues beyond the particulars of the session itself. So while I myself also can't justify an opinion on the session's contents beyond hearsay, I think the contents of this thread prove fodder enough to participate in the discussion. I would hate to think that my own comments in this thread, or those of other mozzers who weren't at the session, constitute nothing more than "unjustified opinions."
Mike (Big Tequila),
As anyone who has read any of my posts or comments can attest - I am an avid supporter of all things SEOmoz and I have the utmost respect for this place and it's founders.
With regard to Danny Sullivan, I can't say enough for how impressed I am with this guy in light of everything he has accomplished and especially for his generosity of spirit for the community at large.
While I largely disagree with his comments herein, it doesn't detract from my view of him as an absolute class act overall. Personally, I consider this an anomaly.
Cheers, Sean
Absolutely!
This is a topic discussion not a personal attack. Nor do I feel Rebecca was personally attacking anyone with her post.
Well put Sean . . . well put!
Brent D. Payne
Sean - I'm really surprised by the venom of some of your responses. I emailed you privately so hopefully we can chat.
That's too bad. It's a public forum. I was hoping we could keep it that way. This has been very educational.
Brent D. Payne
Seconded.
... and third
(as the one who agrees with Sean, I think the conversation should be public so that we all could express our opinions)
Rand,
I have to run right now, but I will certainly respond later today. I didn't feel I was responding with venom, so much as clearly articulating my disagreement with what I felt was not only a significant injustice of commentary on Rebecca's post, but also what I would consider "piling on", to borrow from a sports analogy - due to the responses of Evan, Danny and yourself.
For those mozzers suggesting this discussion continue publicly, I can assure you that there's not really much more I have to say.
I continue to have the utmost respect for Rand, Danny and Gillian and with regard to Evan's initial response to Rebecca's post (aside from my disagreement with his approach and his use of profanity in that context), I feel this young man is clearly very smart.
I've never been one to air dirty laundry in public or opt on the side of sensationalism. So, I guess what I want to convery most of all is that my responses were not dirty laundry but rather what I would consider "tone and temperament appropriate", in conveying my disagreement with specific points the commenters I took to task had to say. Nothing more - nothing less.
I am hopeful that the reason I may have sounded venomous has more to do with the fact that I'm a largely positive person who happens to agree with about 99% of what is presented here and because of that, my response may have seemd out of character.
In fact, all the while this thread was developing, I had actually exchanged a few positive PM's with Rand on an unrelated topic. The point being, I have no ill feelings here.
With all due respect,
Sean
Ladies and gentleman . . . a shining example of a class-act individual.
Brent - you and I communicate quite a bit out of the public eye, so this is a bit surprising to see from you. However, I think it's a generally good rule of thumb - whenever something turns a bit negative on a public forum, talking face to face (or at least, on the phone) reminds us that we're real people with real opinions and the empathy flows far more easily. It's like when you see road rage - the medium of the Internet creates a far more dramatic and antagonistic environment than what actually exists, and putting that in perspective by talking privately can have great benefits.
In fact, I think that if we all talked in person or on the phone with the people we fight with in forums on the web, the world would be a better place in general.
Kind of sad to see that there's disagreement about that :(
Yes, but we don't start a thread and then take it offline right in the middle of it.
I think that is the difference here . . . if Sean would have communicated with you privately on his thoughts then it should and would remain private. He didn't, he voice them publicly.
You know that I would never post something you said privately and post it publicly. A private message is private and a phone call is private. However, cutting off the community from your feedback on this very public discussion . . . that's what I think is a bit of a disservice to the other readers.
You don't have to flame each other . . . but hearing your side is important to the readers and may sway their opinion on this topic.
As for escalation of thoughts and feelings because it is a blog . . . I think Rebecca, Sean, Danny, yourself, and I have enough experience online (Sean, Danny, yourself, and I over 10 years) that we can avoid the common pitfalls and provide the public our opinions professionally.
I respect ya man, you know that. This isn't personal. This is topic oriented and I think we should finish the discussion publicly . . . just as it was started.
Brent D. Payne
"we don't start a thread and then take it offline right in the middle of it."
But that's exactly what I'm suggesting, and I think it can be a positive and worthwhile experience. I can't count the number of times I've seen disagreements in public forums on the web that I know would be solved if the parties involved just sat down together and talked it out.
I think we're fairly off-topic at this point, but I would say that you can expect me to continue to try to get in touch privately with folks whenever conversation in public turns negative and I hope that more people do it, too. It makes the Internet a better place, IMO :)
I don't see how this thread ever went 'negative'.
And I think I'll just agree to disagree that this topic should be taken off-line. ;-)
I need a Dutch Baby, but I'll have to wait until next weekend now. ;-)
Payne
Just to demonstrate how absolutely pathetic these questions were, watch this video of Harrison Gevirtz.
Fortunately, he was kind enough to answer them.
Afterward, he was probably pissed because he could have been out "working the floor" and lining up an extra $10K in affiliate revenue as opposed to humoring some goofball moderator.
Ann, with respect, you missed my main point in saying "just Rebecca" or "just Danny." Yes, you, Brent, anyone should always feel you are able to suggest that a title should be changed, or that an article is inaccurate or just to disagree in general with anything.
No one should have to give you permission to do this, and you should feel it in your very bones.
The fact that so many people commenting here act as if Rebecca is being brave I find disturbing because no one should be cowering.
To be blunt: disagree with something I do or say? Tell me where to get off. And if you don't do that, bad on you for putting me (or anyone) on some type of pedestal.
Danny - you can use threaded comments here - we do this nice thing where we highlight in blue all the comments that are new since you last viewed the thread, helping to solve the "but I can't read the new threaded comments" issue.
I strongly agree with your previous post - Rebecca didn't do a good job representing the panel that I saw. She went in with expectations that weren't in line with what the session advertised itself to be and claimed disappointment when it met those points.
I also agree that no one should be immune to criticism - Rebecca is perfectly free to critique, but I think she does a disservice by misrepresenting what happened and how it was perceived. Her personal opinion is great to have - it's entertaining, it's smart and it's certainly pointed, I just wish it accurately represented the session I sat in - that's my complaint.
One last thing - I know you think it's not a big deal, Danny, but disagreeing with you IS a hard thing to do and it does take some bravery. That's not entirely fair, but it's how it is.
Let's be clear here, Rand. I in NO WAY "misrepresented" the panel. I reported what I saw. I didn't lie about the panelists' answers, nor did I lie about the questions. Calling my opinion a misrepresentation is, to me, pretty irritating and devalues my perspective. That's not fair.
You're right - I overstated the case. What I should have said was that it presented a singular viewpoint that wasn't in line with what I (and apparently lots of others) thought about the panel, and to some degree, that does do a disservice. Saying "this panel was bad for these reasons" is not as valuable as saying "I thought this panel was bad for these reasons, but others enjoyed the panel for these reasons." Certainly on SEOmoz, we have no obligation to be fair and balanced - we're not a news outlet - but I would have appreciated multiple points of view (or at least a recognition that they exist).
Rand - this is getting silly now. Rebecca said several times that others may have enjoyed it. You're not a news service and at this rate I'm almost glad.
Please don't extinguish the spark that makes the Moz different, and better, than a whole host of other sites.
You know, you could always author a counter post. ;)
I'm not sure if this was added by Rebecca after the fact, but I'd say this from the last paragraph is worth noting:
"Again, I'm just reminding you that this post is very opinionated and I'm sure that many people in the audience enjoyed the panel--I just thought it could have been better (I'm not blaming the panelists at all--more so the focus of the session). I'm looking forward to hearing the opinions of others who saw the panel."
Pretty sure it was...
Edit - that was meant to imply that I was pretty sure it was part of the original post...
Actually, I didn't add that after the fact. That was in my original post, and I've not added or edited it since it was first published.
I thought as much - but just wanted to add that disclaimer so as not to make any false assumptions.
I don't see how she misrepresented anything but your opinionof the panel. As Rebecca is the one who wrote this post, it is her opinion that's being presented.
Yes, you disagree with her views on this session, you've made that abundantly clear to both her, the readership and anyone who agrees that Rebecca's opinion is valid. But to claim that her opinion is misrepresentative of anything (her story was not factualy inaccurate) is flat out dismissive and disrespectful.
The tone of some comments in this thread is absolutely embarrassing, and the passive-aggressive nature of them in now way masks the contempt and disrespect intended behind them.
I spend quite a bit of time here (anyone noticed?) and this is the first time I have noticed the "blue for unread comments" thing.... Duurrrr.
Me too - at least I got one positive thing out of this.
I have to say that it's another thing the Mozzers may want to look at it any redesign as it's impossible to judge colour when accesing the site on a Crackberry...
I was aware of 'blue' for new comments; and also xxx comments (xx new) - you do know about that, do you? ;)
Edit: I now have 666 Moz Points, cool, huh?
But have any of you noticed that the emails aren't working today? We'll have that fixed by morning (our time).
:)
EDIT: not that anyone will ever see this comment, due to the aforementioned non-working emails :(
Danny, it's not that I am too humble to actually disagree; I would say, to me "disagreeing" and "asking to change smth in a post" are two different things; hence my points...
Anyway, I would feel bad if at the end of this discussion I didn't say that I enjoyed it and this community (despite my multiple thumbs down after this). In spite of the fact I still think that you should also try to understand our (I mean those who voiced our disagreement) points instead of taking them personal (while commenting we have all pointed out that we respect you, Danny).
Besides, I guess I am the last to continue the discussion and I am afraid to look too stubborn :) No, I am not. It's just that I do love this community and when I saw someone was treated unfairly I couldn't help disagreeing...
Edit: nope, I am not the last :)
Excellent - get some real, live 'youths' in a room and then everyones gets to point & stare...
New media's only new if you're old (i.e. me..)
"I just don't really see an average 15 or 16 year old clamoring for safe search and exclaiming "Won't someone think of the children?!""
I laughed very hard at that ^^
You are right, the majority of those answers really are not suprising, learning how someone gets into this industry is always interesting especially at the age their at.
And the number of hours they work on there stuff would of been an interesting insight because from the sounds of things, the Chloe girl went to school, did all her homework, socialised a fair bit and earns silly money, that's a lot especially from someone so young.
Ditto...I lost it at the "Won't someone think of the children?!" line.
Leave it to Rebecca to bring in a Simpson's reference.
I can see that those who are younger might be less interested in the historic and current behavior patterns of teens than those who are older.
I'd like to point out that Evan is, as advertised, a pretty 'quintessential teen', rather than a professional SEO, developer, or affiliate marketer. Although he is related to Rand and me, he isn't part of the business. His interests range from snowboarding to political science. And, as far as being concerned about little kids, I'll vouch for the fact that his response wasn't pablum; it may not be commonplace, but it's Evan's way.
Like Danny, some of the answers blew me away. If we have this panel again - and I hope we do - I'll be specifically interested in whether mobile search is catching on more with teens. Isecond Ran'ds suggestion for adding a behaviorist to the panel and I'd take up Evan's offer of bringing some more 'regular teens' to the conversation.
After reading all these comments, I feel like I have gotten almost as much out of a one day pass to the conference, not even being there!
Rebecca and all who wrote any opinion helped me realize that now that I am 21 , I have been using Search Engines for years without even realizing it. I have been surfing the Internet since I was about 12, and must say have gotten very proficient at it.
All this time I'm thinking I need to be taught in college how to SEM, what I realize is I need to be guided in how to utilize these skills that as a teenager become so exceptional at, so I can excel at SEO, which is what I want a future in. It's the business building aspects, the Ranking, the Content Keywords,the areas of SEO where I need to now become proficient.
Thanks for opening my young eyes to what search really is, and what taking SEO, SEM, and SM to the next level really takes.
@Big Tequila:
@Rebecca and all who commented; You are all exactly correct! having three sons, who have been "surfing the internet since they were in their teens(they are still young, 18,20, and 21) searching for anything, related to "SEO", or relevant to this conference would be......let's just say you'd be more entertained by what they were searching for! :O They spent many nights grounded from the computer for some of the sites they went on!!!!
Reading your re-cap, the" mom radar" went off' and I would have to say these "New Google Generation" kids would rather be at school texting their friends than sitting on this panel! The questions should have been more relevant, you're so right!
What the typical teenagers seraching for?:
These kids were born into it, someday they will either choose to take it seriously, ...or not. Hopefully they will have a choice.
One more thing, you can't lump all 16yr olds into the same categoryll Sampling of this group coming from the families of experts!! Sometimes it's ones who have to work harder, no matter the age they learn and/or study, they may make the most impact on an industry!
1. Very professional of them to answer the questions even though it was very age discriminate of the conference to treat these very savvy marketers like kids and ignore their business success.
2. If this doesn't underscore how we as 'old folks' need to sharpen our skills, learn new technologies, and educate ourselves as much as possible in various areas of internet marketing . . . I don't know what will. The next generation lives on the internet. Their understanding of it is impressive. Just imagine what their minds, their ideas, will create in another 10 years?
Personal note, my son is 4 years old and has been successfully surfing the internet since he was 2 years old. He can type his full name faster than he can write it. He knows where the letters are on the keyboard just as quickly as he can point them out in alphabetical order. I have taught him: tilde, pipe, forward slash vs. backslash, and he loves to do 'homework' on his laptop (which usually consists of typing his name or other simple words).
The proudest child education moment for me is when his mom called to tell me that when he was having his haircut, Luke randomly stated, "Ma ma. Marvel is spelled . . . M-A-R-V-E-L." She examined the room to see if she could find it anywhere and she couldn't. So, my son's first word he spelled was Marvel. That is damn cool! I guess the XBOX 360 game, Marvel: Ultimiate Alliance, does have educational value. ;-)
The upcoming generations are wicked smart . . . we need to stay sharp too or we will get quickly tossed aside with the typewriter. ;-)
Brent D. Payne
i too am a “mere” 24 years and think the questions asked (with the exception of your question) was really stupid. Even if people(the kind who think kids as a market) were interested in what the kids were upto ... then these kids should be only asked about what their regular friends were doind and what were their habbit.
I for one dont really care what are the web surfing habbits of 16 year old internet marketers. may care about 16 year old regular kids if thats my market.
Having said that sometimes i too am guilty of this. Many times on my sites (whose targets is not geeks) i tend to put stuff how i like without asking regular folks what do they think about it.
Asking a bunch of 16 year olds questions like that is stupid. To really observe (and learn from) youth group search behavioral characteristics, someone should have stuck 'em in a usability lab!
@evanfish: Nice response! Being the parent of three sons, they and their friends did watch out for their younger brother...not always to shelter him or guard his "innocence" but so he wouldn't get them in trouble. :) Either way they protected him!
They also had Comedy Central, YouTube, etc, saved to Google Search so they did search, but it was the 16-18yr old crowd SEM they where searching for! I think this generation of kids coming out of school now, grew up using the internet and whether or not they knew it, were becoming SEM, SEO's, and especially VM's of the future!
Just a side note: My middle son's room-mate at UT designs and sells web-sites and has made over 20K selling these!, His latest has to do with eating anything but dorm food and he's only 18!
Having the guidance of parents in the buisness,or not in the SEO business,forums like Seomoz, and other resources are only going to enhance the knowledge these kids have. It's just knowlege that's untapped and if they want to use it for their future....the balls in their court!
Looking up to 16 year olds is the best part about tech work!
But that thing about teachers telling kids they can't use Wiki really pisses me off. They'd rather their students use a severely biased source (e.g. the New York Times) that is also not always factual.
Back when I was a private tutor I made my student use Wiki despite his teacher's instructions and he got in trouble and I was sad.
Rebecca
How can you leave out Danny almost falling off the podium when Andrew described Andrew was asked what his friends think of Google policies and he said "I think Google is like using a public bathroom.... Maybe that's a bad example. Let's say that it's a public water fountain. Nobody cares what's happening there, I guess. Nobody thinks that there's a corporate thing behind it."
That is the stuff of legend!
On another note, at lunch Matt Cutts told Andrew he really wished Democracy randomized the order of the answers to prevent any measurement bias towards the first answer, so Andrew coded a new release during the next session.
Shhhh, I was saving that for my conference quotes post!
That was the single time of the whole conference where I found it hardest to choose where to go - I wanted to see generation google, industrial strength and growing your sem business. In the end I did growing the business, Duncan did industrial strength and we missed this one. I was disappointed at the time, but it looks like we might have made the right choice...
I agree with the comments that this seems to have been a missed opportunity. I chatted outside the session to a few of the panelists and was hugely impressed - it is a shame if they didn't get to shine as much as they could have.
PS another comment below - I may have been too hasty to say I made the right choice in sessions.....
And the winner is.... SEOmoz!
Ok guys... Lots of unnecessary retaliatory thumbs down here. PEACE
The way this discussion developed over the last two days has been quite the educational experience for me. After a several hours away I came back to review the thing in its entirety, and here's what I'm taking away from it now:
Language, especially the written word, can be tricky - especially when we use it to express disappointment/disagreement. At its best, it is ambiguous and seems to fall short of conveying exactly what we're feeling and thinking. At its worst, it can be inflammatory. This may be nothing new, but I've been reminded of it acutely today.
The bottom line is that there is always room for others to read between the lines so we need to be careful with what we say and how we say it. And if we step on some toes, no matter what our position or whether we intended it or not, we'd better be prepared to hear about it.
@JonnyRash: He was talking about his teacher! Please don't clump ALL teachers into one category!
It would be like putting all SEO's into one category and they don't all fit into just one! ;)
Interesting post, Rebecca.....have to add my ten cents worth and state that the Generation Google panel was hardly representative of their peers, so whilst their take on things is interesting, it doesn't add much overall value.
C'mon guys - you're not really trying - we're only one N*zi away from Godwin's Law....
(Sorry about the Wiki link Rand...)
LOL . . . Alright . . . I am letting it die before we get there. Official end of commenting on this thread for Payne (no matter what, I promise).
Payne
Yeah, glad we skipped this one and opted for industrial strength SEO instead. Although we already utilize many of the tactics covered (what a surprise) it is nice to get a refresher. I did learn of some new tools that we may look into to help audit the SEO for large dynamic sites.
Totally agree Rebecca - it sounds like it was a bit of a missed opportunity. If they wanted to ask those sorts of questions they would have been better recruiting more 'typical teens' to the panel.
However, even if they had done this, the sample would hardly have been robust - even as a qualititative focus group type study as it seems like there was little opportunity for the panellists to discuss / debate between themselves. Also, ordinarily you wouldn't run a focus group in front of an audience, as the focus group responses are compromised.
That said, there was some interesting stuff there - perhaps next time they'll refocus the questions slightly.
On a slightly off-topic note, just wanted to say thanks for reporting back on the conference - I would have loved to attend, but being based in London I can't imagine my boss springing for the flight etc :)
This reminds me of how my boss treated PPC. He used to copy a link location to fetch the direct link and go directly to the advertiser - just in order not to let the publisher earn a penny. And how old do you think he was at the time??? 30 (!)
;)
So no, the kids are definitely not 'typical' representative of their demographic.
So as to better the review of my first panel attendance ever I decided to re-respond to any and all questions that were left in a state unsatisfactory to Rebecca. To do this I've decided to throw away all my knowledge of competent existence brought on by my years under the shadow of Rand and Gillian and move on to the embrace of my teenism. I'll start from the top.
Do you click on paid search ads? I decided to shadow a couple of friends today to get answers I thought might be better and here's the result:
Subject 1: Never clicked on any paid search ads because she feels "They can only end in tears". Her experience with them is that they lead her further and further into sites she had absolutely no interest in until they appeared on the side advertising something about a cheaper this or that. She feels the advertisements are purely monetary and no one bothers to check the validity or integrity. Her searches were mostly product based.
Subject 2:Interacted with one or two but never stayed on the sites for longer than 20-30 seconds. When asked why he said, "There wasn't anything of interest once you actually get into it or its just a major company that I've already checked anyway". His searches were mostly product or service based.
Do you ever look past the first page of search results?
Subject 1:Always went to about page 4 or 5 opening new tabs as they went. Went to the tabs one at a time until she found what she was really looking for then closed the remaining tabs. Said she wanted to make sure she found what she wanted and sometimes the "lower" sites had what she was looking for but there was no reason to keep going once she found it. These searches were mostly product. A quick note which I think is what most people want to hear is that the resulting tab she stayed on was usually from one of the first two pages of the search result.
Subject 2:Never went beyond page two. If he didn't find what he wanted he rephrased the search. Never opened a site to see if it had what he wanted, only read the site notes provided by google.
Do you use mobile search?
Subject 1: Subject 1 has an iPhone and said that when she first got it she would look up anything just because she could. Now she only looks up basic things like directions and saves the surfing for when she gets home.
Subject 2: Subject 2 has a non-web functional phone out of choice. He feels that the current Internet phones are really usable, but says he would be all over the web all the time if he had something that didn't require him to have exceptionally tiny fingers.
In my view of the mall today I saw that most kids here have more basic phones and not web-ready phones or something with a keyboard. A few kids, mainly the ones hanging out in Gamestop or near the Apple Store were on their phones looking at stuff and typing.
Do you search before buying something?
Subject 1 and 2: Both subjects said that the money they spend is often their own that they work for but that their parents insist they do Internet research to make sure their getting a reliable product before they buy and to make sure that their won't be a sale soon that would allow them to save money. Subject 1 admitted she rarely did the research and would make decisions at the store. Subject 2 said he always looked online to make sure he got the best price and would often order from the Internet from a non-name-brand site.Both said if the money they spent was their parents then their parents would want a report on what they found out about the product and the prices from some of the name-brand sites.
What do you search for the most?
Subject 1: "Whatever I want to". She gets on the Internet to have fun. Look at friends pages and blogs, read comics, watch funny video clips on youtube and some other random sites. Often visits Facebook to see what friends are up to and how their days going, checks on news. Only does homework research when she can't find the answer in the book or the book is vague.
Subject 2: Uses the Internet basically the same as Subject 1 without the Facebook checking though and does a lot of business and economics related searching because, "Their the things that interest me and I want to know about it. Their important things in life and its good to have a basic knowledge about them."
Would you use a search engine specifically designed for/marketed to teenagers?
Subject 1: "It depends on what the difference is. I don't think it'd be any different than google right? What could you put in it that would make it teen oriented?" I know that doesn't really answer the question but that's all I got out of her so I'm passing it on.
Subject 2: Nope. Simply wouldn't do it.
The concept of a teen designated search engine seems intriguing but you're gonna have a hard time making it worth my while to switch away from google when I can setup an account that has cool plug-ins that can be customized and has basically everything I want from news to daily jokes from comedy central on my personal account page that is also my home page. You'd have to make it part of a social media site where the search results are tailored to your preferences and past search results and hits and your friends can get in on the action and help you search or suggest alternative phrasing. I'm interested to see what a teen search engine is because honestly, I can't think of one thing I need added or removed from google that isn't already under speculation.
WARNING: DIGRESSION AHEAD. IF YOU WISH TO CONTINUE WITH YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED BROADCAST PLEASE PASS THIS PIECE.
OK my turn to explain the stupidity of my response at SMX. I said the safe search thing because I'd been told this time and time again by parents and teachers and I thought it was important information to pass on. If Rebecca feels that I'm not allowed to say "Hey! Wait a minute! I know and care about my best friends 12 year-old brother, hes awesome! But he searches the net alot for almost anything and gets some pretty nasty results when he types in the things other kids say at school and I know that it really bothers me to see him getting results for 'Cock-Sucking bastard'" Well Rebecca I'm honestly sorry that I took a second to pass on my interest in seeing to it that my best friend's little brother doesn't have to deal with porno till hes looking for it.Oh, and just so we're clear, I know for a fact that any older sibling who cares would totally not want their younger sibling getting results for "cock-sucking bastard". I hate to break it to you but while you're right about "All they want to do is grow up", some of us hit the unfortunate moment where we tend to care about others. I know that plenty of teens spend alot of time looking out for our little brothers and sisters. Subject 2 read this and wanted to add a "lols Evan is teh nub" so I thought I would since it's his little brother I look out for. He also adds that I'm right, hes worried about his little bro finding the wrong stuff on the Internet but that he feels its up to his parents to deal with it, but they just don't know enough to be able to censor or control it effectively so it falls to him and his older brother.I know it was out of context for the question at the panel but here in the posts it seems like you took a fair game slap at it so this is the retort.
ATTENTION: WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED BROADCAST
That's basically it for the questions Rebecca posted, I decided not to do the social media sites question because Rebecca seemed satisfied with it. I hope this is more useful to those of you interested in this. I would like to add that Rebecca is totally and completely correct in that this panel was flawed. In our defense were only teenagers :)
I am available for contact @ [email protected] if any of you have any more questions that I should probe Subjects 1 and 2 with.
Have fun everybody,Evan Fishkin
You weren't asked about what your parents' and teachers' opinions were, you were asked about what was interesting to you. For this panel I got the impression that a lot of the panelists gave answers they thought we wanted to hear because we marketers are already familiar with issues like safe search and other things. To me, the "I want safer search" response was a very pageant/political one. It's like a pageant contestant saying "I'd love to end world hunger" or a politician saying "I want to lower taxes."
For this panel I got the impression that a lot of the panelists gave answers they thought we wanted to hear because we marketers are already familiar with issues like safe search and other things.
@rebecca When I turned about 15 I got really good at doing that with my step-mom and man did that make my life easier...that was like when I started to have some actual control over my life. When I could tell my crazy step mom what she wanted to hear so I could get what I wanted...and so she would get off my back.
And if youre like16 Evan...well there is alot of that parent-vs-teenage-spy-vs-spy-arms-race bs going on...fucking tell em what they wanna hear...and do what you want. Giving answers like that is instinctual and something that you may do often. Like arguing with libraians about paid vs organic serps...come on.
Way to smack down Rebecca, Evan! I especially liked your use of profanity to stress your point.
Of course, conversely, in doing so, you basically revealed the way teenagers typically talk, which essentially proves Rebecca's point that the panel responses were not typical of what a teen would have to say.
I was actually surprised at how much I liked this panel (and conversely, surprised that Rebecca didn't like it). I had to get up to leave and grab a friend (and bring her back to the session), and was feeling frustrated that I had to get up - usually I'm not nearly that engaged.
The only thing I would have loved to have seen would be a panelist (maybe a marketer) who had studied a lot of teen web use behavior and had some reports/studies to share. Honestly, it was a very good session from my perspective - I really appreciated how different it was than the usual stuff about keyword research and enterprise SEO - probably because I've seen all of those 100 times.
You know what's really weird - re-reading your post, I found the responses interesting again! Even though Rebecca dissed them as being useless or non-representative, I was fascinated at the time and glad to re-read them again.
Also - Evan - you rock for coming on here and providing so much extra detail (even though Rebecca won't give you any credit for it) :) - don't worry about the thumbs down - happens all the time.
Also - Evan - you rock for coming on here and providing so much extra detail (even though Rebecca won't give you any credit for it) :) - don't worry about the thumbs down - happens all the time.
Evan - on the contrary, maybe you should take a moment to think about the thumbs down - because they don't "happen all the time", in the way they have to you in this thread.
What you may learn is that you don't come into a forum that you've almost never contributed to before and throw out profanity and snarky, sarcastic comments without being take to task - even if your last name is Fishkin.
If you had approached this in a more respectful manner, and perhaps articulated your point without the sensationalized use of the term "C-S-B" twice to prove your point, you would have been rewarded with far greater respect in return.
If you think you were simply responding to Rebecca in kind - understand first that she didn't resort to profanity in that way and more importantly - that this is her forum - not yours. So, the way you approached it was as if you were coming into someone else's house for the first time and crapping all over it. Not so good.
FYI- Rebecca has proven herself over and again and has earned the respect of this community. You have not. You're clearly an intelligent and articulate guy. I hope you'll take away an important lesson here.
Whoa. Sean, there are far too many thumbs down in this thread already so I don't want to get involved with flaring this up again, but this comment of yours was needlessly harsh. Seriously. I respect Evan all the more for chiming in here, I really do. Thumbs down do happen a lot around here, particularly when people are voicing disagreements to the prevailing tone of a thread. They do, and I know that you've been around long enough to notice that.
"Don't throw out snarky, sarcastic comments"? Come on, this is the Moz. Snarky, sarcastic comments rule the day. And the profanity? Using "cock-sucking-bastard", while shocking, was being used when talking about safe search. What should he have used, the euphemism "milk lapping furry kittens"? Ok, I know that's taking things a bit far, and perhaps the words were a bit strong... but I honestly feel you're making far too much about the profanity here.
I'm surprised, because you seem to have taken these comments personally. This is a good sign; I mean, we all know how much you care about the community here. But I think you need to take a step back, and re-examine the comment you made there.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment Burgo. Generally speaking, I have nothing against the use of profanity and I have already pointed out at least twice that although I don't know Evan personally I can see he is clearly a sharp young man. I also applaud his contribution.
The point I was making concerning the large number of thumbs down on his first comment is that there is definitely something to learn when you see something like that happening.
What I was referring to was Evan's approach. He's a smart young man and what I meant was that had he taken a slightly modified approach (i.e. skip the profanity and sarcasm in this case, considering that it was only his second time contributing on this blog), it would have made all the difference in the world. When smart people have something they want others to hear, it's important to present in a manner that opens others to hearing them. That was the lesson.
Wow! 15 thumbs down and counting on a single thread. Note to self: don't disagree on this board.
See - I can learn lessons too. :)
Yeah same here . . . tripled my thumbs down in a single day. That's alright . . . just moz points. At the very most they are worth $50 per month. I'd rather voice my opinion and catch some thumbs down for it than sit on the sidelines.
Another YOUmoz post and you'll get 'em all back Sean.
Payne
Mozpoints are worth $50/month? Man, I need to work on mine a bit more, I was unaware of this black market :P
Burgo,
They're worth $50/month if you can earn 150 in a single month. That is of course subject to review by the team on an individual basis - but review this page and you can see for yourself. Just another great way SEOmoz encourages us to participate.
-Mike
Don't worry Sean; I just received my first ever thumbs down for my reply to you. Truly, I have arrived :)
Somehow, that's not making me feel better Burgo! ;) For what it's worth - not that it matters - your thumbs down didn't come from me. Overall, I think the discussion was worth it, so I can't complain.
@Sean Hehe - same here :)
And can you imagine? With my hate towards thumbs down - I managed to triple then in a day! :) And you know what? After this I am pretty sure I will stop worrying about them, I guess :) Like Brent said, these are just Mozz points and I'd rather voice my opinion than care about thumbs down.
What am I curious about? I didn't notice anyone expressing his/her utmost disagreement on our points but I see the flood of thumbs down...
I can't believe you're coming out onto the battlefield again like that Ann. Are you crazy? You're exposing yourself to another sniper attack! ;)
That would be my pleasure ;)
Wow! 21 thumbs down on a single thread now. Even for those comments that were very positve. While this will certainly be my last comment on this thread, I would sure love to know who the coward is. If you have something to say, why don't you stop sniping and start contributing?
I stopped counting mine :) From now on I feel whatever I add to the discussion, I'll get a thumb down :)
Dear thumb downer, if you are afraid of getting thumbed down yourself, at least PM me and I promise not to take revenge - I am just curious who you are and what your points are!
Big Tequila: I totally agree I haven't commented before but I read a lot of Blogs and different posts and find contributers often don't realize that their "written" word can have multipe meanings depending on how the person reading it, "reads" it and interprets it!
Written words cannot be undone, and take alot of effort to "re-explain" what was really "meant, because who really knows the writers real intentions!
A good rule of thumb is , read what you wrote, and if you like the message it is sending and can live with it, from all possible angles, then at least you'll be able to live with the consequences.
Just my opinion :)