I think this all kinda ties in with what you blogged about regarding using social media as a weapon.

The most important thing imho is not to present opinions/conjecture as factual (or even leave any sense of ambiguity with this), and to be able to back this up or justify it when needed.

I think you are one of the more provactive bloggers that I follow, but on the other hand, you are also one of the most diplomatic, go figure :P

I now have a new favorite word.

In the middle ground there are posts that make good points but have language tweaked to rile people’s anger. Like, ehem, a certain post titled, “It’s Not the Recession, You Just Suck”…

God, I take so much shit for that post. :) Agreed, part of why that post was provocative was because of the language, and that was intentional — not to “get attention” or to be “link bait” but to make people uncomfortable and to make them think. There was a point larger than simply getting people to read it. It’s possible I’m a little sensitive about that post and having it simply be written off as “link bait”. :)

I don’t think “being nice” is a good marketing strategy (though I think Rand has done a good job using “nice” as a market himself. he’s an expection, though), but I don’t think you have to be in people’s faces to get attention either. I look at Bruce Clay. They’re pretty PC and polite, but they’re helpful. And they have a history of being helpful and I think that’s been a good branding point for them.

Nathan: Agreed. :)

Getting noticed means you’ve got to be noticeable – and that means you can’t lie the way the other chips are lying. That’s the obvious. And people who focus on the obvious find themselves at the ridiculous ends of the spectrum – the people we mock enjoyably every day.

In the middle ground there are posts that make good points but have language tweaked to rile people’s anger. Like, ehem, a certain post titled, “It’s Not the Recession, You Just Suck” – which, while it made good points about sucking it up and getting things done instead of wallowing in self pity, could easily be construed as a “piss everyone off to get attention” post. If nothing else it was a study in good headline/title writing.

Still, at the end of the day nobody gets anywhere by adding their agreement on a point that’s become common knowledge, or by being “nice.”

Provocation should be the result of innovation. Shattering paradigms brings us forward – sometimes at the expense of the stone thrower. But throwing crap on the walls for no other purpose than bothering the patrons isn’t worth a damn.

Andrew: haha, nice analogy. It’s hard. Part of me understands where she’s coming from. There have been times where I’ve gotten flagged and then wanted to withdraw, just bury my head in work and let someone else be the figurehead. But at the same time, when so much of your brand is “you”, you can’t just pick and choose what you’re showing people either. I’m torn on the Sarah Lacy thing. I think it’s lame she just ran away, yet, I know how often I’ve just wanted to run away, too.

John: [takes notes, stands ups, applauds]

Dr. Pete: WTF are you trying to say? F’n douchebag. ;)

My only gripe is that, for every SEO who I see really being provocative to fight something worth fighting, there are 100 wannabes who think being the next Graywolf or Sugarrae means insulting people at random and using the word “douchebag” 10 times in every post.

Me? I’m more like a contrarian, speaking up when the forces align in a “if we form a cabal, we can say anything and pretend it’s true” sense. I hate to see falsehoods floated as fact, especially by lazy figureheads who got onto their pedestals for non-performance-based reasons. And I am especially offended by those who act that way to cash in on the otherwise uninformed.

In SEO world I think there is truth and there is clique. They are opposing forces. The clique can pull a person away from truth with the promise of rewards (the clique will like you!), but only until those rewards are worth less than the truth (everyone else says you’re a Rockstar poser). It’s a never ending battle… the more bs talking heads there are in the clique, the less value it seems to have relative to the truth. But if everyone sticks to the truth…. life is boooooring, the community’s thirst for conflict remains unquenched, and an exclusive clique starts looking very appealing (the dark side?).

The best defense the clique has, to avoid having to work and be truthful (or admit they are in fact posers), is to paint the truthful ones as “provocative”, call them “haters” and label their messages as “attacks”. Typically the posers will lean back on their hundreds of years of experience while doing this (even though the rest of us know pre-2003 SEO had almost nothing to do with modern SEO).

This concludes lesson one. For homework, revisit the named individuals in the post above, and identify their attributes and tactics. Are they generally factually truthful? or are they generally all about the BS? Are they “in” a clique, with others who are full of BS, and is that clique getting large? Do they call their detractors “attackers”? Or are they “outside” of the clique? On the outside, do they still survive on their merits and abilities? What does that say? Explain your work.

Having said that, injecting your personal shit into your online presence, then withdrawing it later cos you can’t take the heat, is kinda cowardy in my books.

It’s like promising a fudge sundae with your meal, then deciding to pull it later, cos the price of that is too high.