Anyway in the niche he plays, his articles are far more quality than typical. He uses original data, makes interesting graphs, comes to conclusions, etc. It’s not multimedia content to describe how to tie a neck tie… but to his audience of marketers, understanding what makes Digg tick is very important (and appreciated by the marketplace audience). I believe he was comparing that content effort to various lesser content forms or even the “Top 10 Signs You’re Not Going to be a Rockstar” stuff that seems to work really well in Google.

If you click over to that website, you’ll find that most of the articles aren’t really “great content” they’re just pandering to digg/stumbleupon users. They’re all about ‘what’s the average digg user like?” and “differences between digg and stumbleupon users.”

Things like that are bound to get a ton of diggs and stumbles, but that doesn’t necessarily make them great content. The author is assuming that diggs and stumbles mean the content is linkworthy.

I’d argue that outside of Digg/Stumbleupon, and whatever, that average internet users don’t find this content useful or interesting.

I’d also like to see what keywords the person was tracking. After reading some articles, they only seem optimized for terms like “digg” “stumbleupon” etc. He’s not going to rank for those terms.

My argument here is that good content still works. I’ve never had a problem with it on any of my sites. Perhaps his idea of “good” isn’t as “good” as he thinks it is. As somebody who rarely uses digg and stumbleupon (i know i know) I didn’t find the content useful at all.

He should focus on writing content for all users, not just digg users. Sure, it works for gaming digg and getting on the front page, but that’s about it.

You can dream of a world where making good content keeps every happy and Good Content makes for a better web, but what you’re really doing is asking everyone to volunteer their time and effort to cleanup the mess Google has made (and keeps making) on the way to the bank.

Billions and billions in profits put into individual bank accounts of Google shareholders (Google employees), at the expense of a polluted web, and you want us all to fix it by writing good content for free (or next to nothing).

I”m talking about the seo industry as a whole here, and what steps need to be taken to rise above the “bad wrap” that seems to follow SEO.

That, and the differences between our methods and a scientific method. Blind retweets is just one example of non-scientific parts of SEO.

Just don’t want anybody to confuse it with jealousy or spite – it’s not.

What do you care if someone retweets something without reading it? Does that affect your day or business? I hope it doesn’t. Focus on something that does. The rest is marketing and bullshit.

First, you said “than” when you meant “then” #grammarNazi

2nd, I’m not arguing that you don’t deserve the attention. You write quality posts and do know your shit.

What I’m talking about are the people who “vouch” for you simply based on your name, without actually reading what you’re saying.

I mean, let’s face it, I’ve fucked up in the past, and I’m sure you’ve made mistakes too. All I’m asking is that people at least take the time to read what you’re saying before they say “hey, this is good shit.”

There’s nothing wrong with people forming their own opinion, not just retweeting everything anybody famous posts as an attempt to give them a virtual hand job. (ok, i’ve been drinking)

Unfortunately, many people believe stuff simply because somebody said it without taking the ideas on their merits.

I wish more people would take the time to actually read stuff, think about it critically, and form their own opinion before believing it as the gospel truth.

Usually, you can be trusted to know your shit, but the scientific approach involves scrutinizing it, not just believing it because you said so. That sounds more like religion than science to me.

It gets political, too. If you make claims and show data in one post, some people will be inhibited by your rock star status and NOT comment, even though they have value to add. If you simply reported findings, they’d comment. That’s why I think it’s best to report findings objectively, and then report claims in a separate post… to keep the conversations productive.