Recently, I've begun to see massive problems in the search and online community's definitions of linkbait. It boils down to two completely unique meanings for the term:
Linkbait Definition #1 - "Link-Worthy, Linkerati-Targeted Content"
This is the way I typically use the term linkbait. It refers to a piece of content one creates (for one's own site or another's) with the goals of launching it to a broad or niche web community who will find value in the material and write about it/link to it through social media sites, news portals and blogs. It's the online equivalent of creating viral-worthy, marketable content.
Examples:
- Pronet's Beginner's Guide to Digg
- Todd's Search Marketing Manifesto
- This wondrous theoretical computer science cheat sheet (sadly in PDF)
Linkbait Definition #2 - "Attracting Link Attention with Controversy"
A lot of folks seem to suggest that certain things people write on the web or create on their sites are "just for the linkbait" - these can include negative or derogatory pieces, inflammatory material, and anything else that designed to incite or provoke a reaction from one or many online communities or blogs.
Examples:
- This Piece from Dave Pasternack - horribly lacking logic of any kind
- Michael Gray saying Google pushes a Republican agenda (although he's self-deprecating about it, which makes it much easier to stomach)
- DaveN's post on Vanessa...
I never thought I'd say it, but I think there's a need to create two separate terms here so we can, as a group, determine which one is being referenced. The problem gets even more complex when there's an overlap between the two, as is the case with something like the Matt Cutts facts page or Chris Hooley's Drinkbait.
What to do? What to do...
UPDATE: Brian Clark wrote about this same problem last month in his history of linkbait. It would seem the stigma of "baiting" is somewhat pervasive.
I like LinkBait for the real stuff, and just LinkBluff for the other stuff. Because, really, all you're doing is bluffing people to come visit your site.
I don't think we even need to have this discussion. Part of having great content on a website means having a voice, and sometimes that voice can be controversial. Good content is content that attracts lots of eyeballs, and there's a place for content that's helpful and a place for content that pushes buttons. It's like calling Fox something other than a TV channel just because they do controversial content. They're no NBC, but they still put out content. They still create their own linkbait.
In the webcircles I usually travel (more the entertainment fandom and geek crowd), the second definition is usually called flamebait for its ability to attract insults and epithets, which are in turn called flames. I confess, the ignorance of this term here gives me the impression (however undeserved) that the poster(s) are new to the web community.
I first heard "flaming" in 1995, but before that you're right... I was pretty clueless about the "web community." :)
It's not quite the same thing, hence its lack of inclusion here. Flaming is impulsive and rarely has an ulterior motive, while link trolling is strategic.
Dig?
I dug just fine - I simply disagree.
Flaming tends to be a knee-jerk reaction, so yes, it is generally impulsive and without ulterior motive.
Flamebaiting, however, is usually the act of a troll who is looking to incite others to react to him/her. S/he knowingly (and with malice aforethought) posts things that will stir controversy, push people's buttons and yes, *draw attention.*
The entire purpose of flamebait is to attract attention, and I do not see that it matters significantly whether the desire for attention is spawned by adolescent boredom or a desire to have an audience clicking on ad links.
The original post seems to be making a distinction between posting content that will attract attention because it's good content (ideal) and posting content that will attract attention because it is controversial and inflammatory. That's flamebaiting in a nutshell.
If it's not flamebait or senseless mush, it's content. I happen to agree with evolvor on this.
Hey what's wrong with trolling? Real fisherman know it's the only way to catch the big one. 'Spambait' is much more appropriate.
And the entire State of Hawaii and Territory of Guam, plus several Pacific island nations will tell you that Spam is a good thing too.
Spam Musubi anyone? :)
How about "linkbait" for actually writing link worthy content and "viralbait" for the latter!?
Isn't definition #2 just an expansion of Springer Forum Marketing to include more than just forum posts?
Actually, since I'm not the only one who thinks the term "linkbait" connotes deception, why not use it for #2 and come up with something nice and shiny for #1. (I know, I've suggested that a thousand times, but this time you brought it up, Rand.)
FYI, for us less tech-savvy types, one of the best places to see trolls in their natural habitat is on rec.sport.billiard.
Who you calling a Troll?
I've been looking at a few good linkbait pieces recently. When you check the number of backlinks to the page, there are usually very. I'm not totally convinced about the strategy.
It would be great if there was some way of checking which one is more effective, but I there's just way too many variables to try and control for.
Either way, there's a lot to consider in terms of the wider effect of the linkbait - ie effect on reputation and conversions etc.
Well, LinkBaiting seems to work to a certain extent but sometimes the webmasters of other sites take the content, rephrase it and use them. :(
If you want to get technical or philosophical - what is bait?
When you crazy non-vegetarians go fishing, you try to bait fish with something right? Sometimes the bait is fake, sometimes it's real. What type of bait catches the fish better?
Who is the fish in the linkbait scenario? A link? If you catch a link you're a winner. The bigger the link, the better. Sometimes you catch a big fish with small bait. Sometimes real bait won't catch a small fish for hours.
In conclusion, in SEO catch big fish. In life, give the poor fish a break!
I try to avoid using the term "linkbait" in link building conversations with clients - it usually raises an eyebrow or requires more explanation that needed ;-)
Nah I wasn't worried or offended, I was really throwing that out there to get people to open their minds a little bit and try new things. For example I had no idea when I threw up that my chicken noodle soup post that it was going to get me nearly 50,000 page views.
https://www.wolf-howl.com/information/top-100/...
I ask this question would you rather have your consultant "experimenting" on your site or his own ...
Did you think I was calling you out? I love your stuff, dude. I know exactly what you're doing and I think it's brilliant; I'm just using you as an example. I know you intended that piece to be in the second category and we've done it plenty of times too - I think we had the shortest post ever to be on top of Digg :)
Worms (Natural) and Spinners (Artificial)?
Seriously, I would call negative or derogatory pieces, inflammatory material, and anything else that designed to incite or provoke a reaction Link Trolling as it evokes both the fishing connotation and BBS, Listserv, Usenet and Forum Trolls who use similar tactics to goad those communities.
I was thinking the same thing; worms and spoons.
lol... Link Trolling. That's it!
Yep, I think "link trolling" is much more appropriate to describe the more antagonistic approach to link attraction.
OK, everyone start spreading the word. :)
The beauty (or the beast) of linkbait is in the eye of the viewer. Therefore I wouldn't create new definition /term as this is something people experience very uniquely.
So-o happy you asked!! :-D ...He-e-ere is what to do,
allow Oh, SearcH EngineS WeB to show another example of Link Bait #1 (a-hem, just for clarification purposes, mind you).....
https://seowebmaster.com/
The Ultimate Collection of Free SEO friendly Link Directories, Quality Submission FreeWare, with online Link Page Analysis tool
Naturally, this is only being submitted to help dramatize what LinkBait #1 is, in case another example would make it more ....lucid. Certainly ,for no other reason
COUGH-COUGH, wHEEZE-wHEEZE
I'd say any content written only with the intent of getting links falls into the second category.
When focusing on the value for your customers, you can produce better content, which will get links and the people will actually use it.
For the 2nd type of bait, it doesn't matter by which means (controversy, flame attacks, sueing someone, or something) one manipulates others to get links, as long as the intent isn't around the target audience.
Let's call it "whitehat linkbait" and "blackhat linkbait" ... ;)
Back in the days, I'd agree that link bait is something useful to get links.
Now that everyone knows what gets links (or Diggs), content is being created just for links, not necessarily for the visitors.
No need in a beholder to estimate the difference.
You know, my History of Link Bait post was perfect link bait for this link bait discussion. :)
https://www.copyblogger.com/the-history-of-lin...
In short, the "bait and hook" analogy has a long and storied history as a label for compelling content. But as we all know, bloggers tend to think of themselves as the center of the universe, so many of the old guard just can't get over their own tendency to attack one another and think of "baiting" as a negative thing.
Brian, how did I forget about that post - it's a perfect mirror for my thoughts. (runs to edit his post)
Well, that's certainly better than kicking me out for shameless self-promotion. :)
I agree that different terms are needed. Your 2nd one - generate links through controversy - just think about how likely it is that these links are even relevant to your business. Not likely. So your suggested term - spambait is not a bad call for this.
Where the other variant, based on providing quality well thought out content will draw very differing IBLs. However the term linkbait has a spammish sort of feel to it to me. I would suggest another term for this - such as "link magnet" (OK that sucks too, but you get the idea).
"SpamBait" - That's the new word of the day. I'd prefer linkbait but i'll take spambait where i can get it.
The first set of examples are better "linkbait" because they are attracting targeted visitors and customers. The second set are probably more "spambait" in that regard.
spambait - i like it :)
This is such a modernist, stuffy distinction (no offense Rand, I love you). Posts have value when they get links. You might try to distinguish "intellectual" linkbait from the kind that riles up emotions and call the first one better, but people find value in moronic, provocative juvenile or opportunistic posts. It's possible the first kind of linkbait brings more lasting traffic. Or maybe it doesn't. You may prefer to work on the first kind because it feels more 'meaningful'. But all those dumb tired emails about Sally who lost her liver or the kittens who sleep in toilets get forwarded every day and continue to have value to the senders.
Maybe we could call them LinkGreatBait and LinkHateBait.
I agree up to a point on this...
Yes, they DO undoubtedly mean two different things. However, I'm not sure that much confusion will arise, and here's why...
Firstly, you can put them both under the heading of "A piece of copy written specifically for the purpose of attracting links." The difference lies in the kind of message you're trying to send - "I found this, check it out", or "Can you believe what this guy is saying/doing?"
So, I think we can safely say that both are going to be viral, and that both are going to attract similar results. The difference comes in what you want to do with that. The first will bring *sticky* traffic, which will tend to bookmark you. The second is more for viability, to my mind.
As for what you'd call the two, if you want to separate them, well, I'll leave that little challenge to someone else...
I agree, we should subclass "linkbait", i'd say: "contentbait" and "buzzbait" :)