Scobleizer: “Scoble can’t be more wrong”
Christian Burns
· 2 years ago
Oh, the ol, "Robert Scoble Sucks" meme
Thats ok man, i still consider you a friend even though
JIm Ayson
· 2 years ago
Robert, whatever Jason Calacanis has been putting into that Kool-Aid being passed around Podtech, it certainly makes one say funny things.
Scott Westerman
· 2 years ago
Being open to feedback is a virtue. One of the things I respect most about you is your candor and your total willingness to post other's opinions, pro and con.
I'm sure I'm among the majority who value all you do to expand our understanding of a world that is changing at Internet speed.
Ted
· 2 years ago
Uncov isn't camel case, dumbass.
Victor Agreda jr
· 2 years ago
My how we put our blind faith in these miraculous machines we've created. Did everyone forget who built those machines? Peoples! I have yet to see a robot help me at a store. Sure, self-checkout is da bomb, but who helps you when there's no code for what you're trying to check out?
Our thermodynamic-defying, self-replicating DNA factory, ugly-bag-of-water nomadic selves aren't quite obsolete yet... Pity some don't realize that.
Daniel Brusilovsky
· 2 years ago
Robert,
No one can ever be correct on everything! I still believe in you, and the things you say! You gave me an opportunity of a life time, and I don't know how to pay you back!
Daniel, Apple Universe
William Tildesley
· 2 years ago
You have to remember scoble that these people are scared - scared of people like you and scared of inovations which will threaten ther'ye source of income. Whilst I think your ideas are good remember these guys don't like it that your muscling in on their patch.
I rarely use google anymore it's become almost my last resource I've noticed myself tending to search on Mahalo and other such websites. Like you say facebook is an amazing people search engine, before I was using google to find more information about someone but now I use social networks, which seem to be the best place to find out more about people.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Ted: you sound like a marketing guy who works at Microsoft. They are the only ones other than you that I've found are concerned with the capitalization of their brand names. Me? Just get my URL right and you can call me anything you want! :-)
paul
· 2 years ago
Danny and Dare had outstanding posts today, thanks for sparking the conversation!
Ted
· 2 years ago
@scoble: The internet is pretty hard! Practice makes perfect. You can't screw up the capitalization in videos, though.
Keith
· 2 years ago
Um..it sure would be nice to have a handy LINK to the aforementioned video content to serve as a context for the discussion at hand.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Keith: look at yesterday's post at http://scobleizer.com -- I also link to them above in the last paragraph. There's three separate ones, watch them in order (part I, Part II, Part III).
daniel rueda
· 2 years ago
Great work. glad i found the sight. excellent app platform. I dont agree with everything you had to say. but the fire has been lit and you lit it. alot of haters out there with nothing to back them up. google will probably never get there but kicked since they can buy the bullies. they are so rich nothing matters to them. look how sorry there site is after all these years. universal search big deal, could have been done in 1999. no body needs an algorithim to locate a business, supplies, or service (the meat and potatoes of search.) a vertical locator zip code search with 10 social networked vertical results will do fine. watch my video at vator.tv for a fundamental break down. keep throwing matches i like this fire. MyLocator.com - King of Location. Search Sucks, Locaton is Everything!
Terinea Weblog
· 2 years ago
1. Alot of people are missing the point, looking at Mahalo under a microscope. Its the concept, maybe it won't be Mahalo or even facebook, but this rich knowledge or "Social Behaviors" as you call it, can't be simple rubbished as many people have.
2. It can't scale - Why not, like you say use multiple sources (RSS reader, Facebook, Delicious, Flickr etc) and with the old traditional stuff, maybe hybrid system?
3. I do wonder about Google, why they don't have digg.com or a delicious of some sort under their belts? Jamie
Vic Berggren
· 2 years ago
The same day you claim social networking engines are going to take the cake SEOMoz sez they no longer respect your opinions and while doing so they go ahead and publish an Optimization Paper for Social Networking sites. Kinda falls on both sides of the fence if you ask me.
TB
· 2 years ago
The problem of most of the people is, that they are so inside the GoogleSystem, that they cannot imagine an world after Google. Don't you think there where search monopolies before Google? What's with Yahoo? Can anybody imagine that two smart college students can "kill" Google (=any multi-billion $ company)... like Google did with all others before them? I cannot see all the points of Robert, but the big times (& hype) of Google (>50% market share) will also end finally in some time. I don't know how and when, but it will happen.
Chris
· 2 years ago
Don't take the criticism too harshly Robert. Most visionaries and people who take a risk expressing a view get alot of grief from people. Albert E. was pretty ridiculed when he made his theories. Keep making people think, right or wrong doesn't matter.
Ilya Lichtenstein
· 2 years ago
Beautifully executed linkbait.
TechDumpster (living in First
· 2 years ago
It's funny how you didn't list my comments Robert. You list comments where you just get a scathing response without much logic but you don't list mine that actually refute almost everything you say in your video with logic.
It's a clever strategy to make your opponents seem like the ones who name call in order to weaken the general argument against your lack thereof.
criminyjicket
· 2 years ago
I'm going to cut out the middle man and just say you suck
are we good?
Alfred Thompson
· 2 years ago
Why is it that so many people on the Internet have to insist that someone they disagree with is an idiot? So many people can't seem to disagree without being disagreable. I've come to conclude that the most insulting someone is the more likely they themselves are to be wrong.
Steve Spalding
· 2 years ago
I am going to partially agree with 16 on this one Robert. Having sat in on last night's discussion there were plenty of measured, candid disagreements with your claims.
You have chosen a laundry list of the most scathing of them in what -appears- (I say appears, mind you) to be an attempt to prove your point by contradiction. Since all your detractors are obviously just looking to start a fight -- you must be right.
Well, I am not looking to start a fight but here is what I will say.
Maybe a Malhalo, Facebook or Techmeme -like- product will revolutionize search for the masses, but I would put good money down to say that none of these will topple Google at the search game in and of themselves.
The old directory structure (Malhalo) and even Techmeme rely too heavily of Google to do the initial sorting before they are able to take this vetted information and use it in their systems.
Dozens of people have voiced similar opinions in varying degrees of frustration. Robert, this is a decent debate and honestly it just goes to prove that the tech community still puts the blinders on when trying to separate hype from real market potential.
Maybe you are right. All things are possible, but I am sure (like any good marketer) you know that compelling headline aside, that post doesn't go very far towards predicting the future of search.
David
· 2 years ago
Alot of productive blogosphere time was wasted by people on this today Robert. I don't care if you acknowledge it or not, it was irresponsible to put out so much misinformation that distracted people from productive endeavors.
Danny Sullivan is one of the most positive people I know - he used the F word in his post.
Ditto with Rand - SEOMoz is usually a happy and positive uplifting place and he spent time on this instead of a post that added value.
I'd urge you to think in the future before filming something like that.
Scott Schablow
· 2 years ago
Have you jumped the shark on this one? Many of your points don't seem to make sense. I'll reserve comments until I've had time to sleep on it, also. Perhaps you are sleep deprived?
bueller
· 2 years ago
dude, you are right, you couldnt be more wrong about being right...if you know what i mean.
TechDumpster: well, I don't read your blog and I didn't see it in Google's blog search today (I only had an hour to find everyone who said something interesting).
But, I just went over and checked out your blog and I notice you started out "Robert Scoble once again demonstrates that he is a giant tool."
Ahh, yes, that really should have been linked in here next to Valleywag. Sorry I missed it!
Kanjiroushi
· 2 years ago
It's funny how innovative ideas are at first rejected by the gatekeepers before being embrassed. I think the human mind is wired to reject anything new.
Gubbi
· 2 years ago
Doesn't the inbound and outbound links count as taking social significance for calculating relevance? Sites getting more links are more trustworthy than those being linked to less.... And the sites that are pointed to by these more trust worthy sites are more relevant than those pointed to by less trust worthy. Also, by the network graph analysis one can point out and minimize the effects of localized group of sites using numerous links to point to each other to boost ranking.
Nicholas Butler
· 2 years ago
I know I have said it , but I will say it again, SEO is like the Emperors New Clothes. Anyone trying to explain that the Tailors ( the SEO crowd ) have sold the Emperor ( our Clients ) an imaginary cloak is greeted with fingers in ears and loud "Lah lah lahing".
Ive seen many clients spend thousands on SEO management only to discover that its the law of diminishing returns. The more they enter 1 category of success the less they are able to move their websites and alter their content without another round of heavy funds. It makes no sense.
The only SEO company I could trust to give me accurate results on Google should be Google. They own their system so presumably they are better placed to offer assurances than other companies ?
Anyway . You Said it well Robert and you may be pleased to know at least 1 client of mine watched your Show and "GOT IT" and is now reconsidering the value in SEO for their business. Thank you
Nik
David
· 2 years ago
My reaction: He's crazy, nuts, and stupid.
However, I know from prior experience you're far from stupid, and upon doing some thinking, I understand where you're coming from, it's just still pinging my gut reflex to automatically discredit it a little too much.
I think you've gone too far, but read slowly, and taken with a grain of salt, you make some good points.
meanguy
· 2 years ago
@scoble: yes, your position is a little naive, but even I think people are being a bit dickish toward you here. At least you're excited about something and got off your butt and talked about it.
As blowhards go, I'll take an underinformed excited guy over a boring, well-read "expert" every time. Chances are they're both wrong -- and Cory Doctorow comes to mind as an example of the latter.
I actually think Arrington summed it up best by politely reminding that Google isn't going to just sit idle. Frankly there's not much technology behind Facebook yet.
Sidenote: almost all of the points raised by your detractors in very wordy, arrogant public blog posts today were foreshadowed by what your detractors said in (relatively) private, brief, polite blog comments when you first raised this issue a few days back.
dahowlett
· 2 years ago
I must be the only one who doesn't think RS is clueless - but for different reasons. I thought he was talking about search and the polluting effect of SEO bandits. The fact the SEO crowd are in a hissy fit only serves to reinforce the view I've had they're selling magic fairy dust when in fact it's ad-driven site pimping.
Charles H. Green
· 2 years ago
Robert,
You have a knack for PR. It looks to me like most of the comments are all heated up about the way you phrased the issue--who will be the "winner" at some point in the future.
That's smart PR. It gets people reading. But you know, as do thoughtful readers, that you're raising a very powerful issue--the balancing act between human-based networks, and the ability of technology to mimic them.
It's a debate we saw framed years ago with SEOs vs. Yahoo's original "expert" categorization system of topics. It's a variant of all AI arguments, going back to thought experiments about one's ability to discern the difference between a computer and a person playing chess behind a wall.
It'll probably never get fully resolved--there will continue to be roles to be played by each approach to the world; a dynamic punctuated by occasional blips, as a new kind of technology, or a new form of communication, comes to the fore. But in the longer term, technology and personal relationships generally figure out how to work hand in hand.
I think your dead-on. It's Algs vs Folks, so to speak. What really struck me is that you correctly point out that because of SEOs and "sponsered links", Google "can't" change, it's too beholden. The inabiliy to grow has been the end of every company, since mankind first started trading shiny rocks. But two questions:
1. What about Google's other services? Could it pull an AOL and abandon it's original niche?
2. What's to stop Google from buying the services you mentioned in that four year time span? And even worse, what's to stop them from "absorbing" them?
Also, I think Jeff Jarvis would strongly disagree with your "watch Yahoo" finale, as he believes their time has come. Personally, I don't see how one can look at YahooPipes and tell me this company ain't the future.
francinehardaway
· 2 years ago
good heavens! The only one I like here is Dare. Of course the social graph can improve search. It's the trust factor and the fact that emotional components enter into search. Life isn't all alogrithms.
I'm not a geek and I don't know two things about the future of search, but I believe in the power of the intellect to advance mankind, and that's why I liked the videos. They gave me something to think about, something to write about myself, and a framework --right or wrong --in which to consider social networks.
GOOG will be dethroned. Most of the Fortune 500 of today are not the Fortune 500 of 50 years ago. In the broader scheme of things, something will build on or replace Google the way airplanes replaced railroads.
But predictions on who and how they will be dethroned are far more difficult. Thanks just for raising the questions. I don't expect you to have all the answers.
And keep taking the criticism from the more black/white thinkers. There's no such thing as black/white on most issues.
David Wescott
· 2 years ago
Martino is full of it.
You can ALWAYS be more wrong. ;)
The world of social media changes, utterly and forever, I think 3 or 4 times a week now. so I take all of this with a grain of salt.
Jason
· 2 years ago
funny thing to me is, all the dissenters seem to be making fun of Scoble for merely suggesting that big bad Google might one day usurped by something else. The thought of it!
Oh yeah, that internet thing will never take off either.
Mr. R
· 2 years ago
Someone needs to point out in a different path. It takes courage to swim against the flow. I do believe in Scoble and whatever they have to say must be respectable but not all gurus need to agree with you. Anyways, let's see what happens after and only time will give you credit, ok. Keep it up!
McD
· 2 years ago
In the immortal words of Steve Gillmor: "It all about attention."
Steve also loudly proclaimed: "Microsoft is dead."
You got a lot of attention and made your case. You will therefore influence a lot of people with those points. Google will react and so will Microsoft.
And so will young Jennie Chong (now about 8) who will invent the device that puts human conciousness on the net and enables the ultimate borg complex. The borg complex will invade Google and make it theirs. That will be the end of Google and the dawn of the new era. MS will also be irrelevant in that era since software is redefined to mean "bio-firm-ware" and we're all programmers... just by thinking and sendng out ideas.
Sending out ideas: you ARE programming Robert! We are borg. We need input.
Marco Kotrotsos
· 2 years ago
but...where do Mahalo editor's get they're resources from? google?
At first I was arguing the -point- of Robert's somewhat misguided statements, but I think I lost the forest from the trees. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Google will be blitzed by "social" search systems. The argument seems to have been thrown together without even considering market forces beyond hype. The question I asked was, "Why would Robert do this? Shouldn't he know better?"
Then it came to me. This is the internet equivalent to yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater. Robert disappeared for a time, came back and wanted to draw a reaction. Since there was no Apple rumor out there to ride, he picked the next best thing. "Big Google is on the outs folks!"
We bought it hook, line and sinker -- as we usually do. Bravo for coming back with a bang Robert, I couldn't have played it better. Bashing Robert isn't helping anything folks, if you think he has 'jumped the shark' all you're doing is making the ramp higher.
Alright, I've decided to look at this debacle from a personal marketing perspective. When you do, you might go as far as calling Mr. Scoble a genius. I'm sure he has pulled in a lot of fresh readership from this little spectacle.
In the blogosphere, all press is good press.
Steve Spalding
· 2 years ago
As a final point in this comedy of errors, the entire thing was so well put together that you drew the -worst- possible reactions out of the tech blogosphere. Which, as you certainly know, stratifies the community along two lines.
The people who think you have gone insane (who didn't like you much to begin with).
And the people who think your detractors are just being big meanie heads (a -strong- new reader base).
Once "Bashing Scoble" becomes a meme, you can't make a counterpoint to the argument without seeming like you are just joining in on a public hanging.The more I look at this, the more I am amazed that no one saw it more quickly.
Well played.
Justin
· 2 years ago
Seems like everyone that is bashing you is obsessed with the details. The core idea is very sound. Social graphs will be used to assign trust to many things including search results. Saying Google will fall is just too much for most people to handle. But hey you got all these people talking so: rock on!
shel israel
· 2 years ago
Robert, Nice to have you blogging again, but I'm not joining you at the hip on this particular one. If you feel online friendships are not real, then you must think online relationships are not real. In that case what the Hell is social media's value?
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Shel: I never said that online friendships aren't real. Where did you get that?
Keith
· 2 years ago
Thx for the link locations. I should know better than to post so quickly after a long trip. I think my brain & body were in 2 different time zones.
McD
· 2 years ago
# sarcasm on Robert: I can't believe you think aliens have taken over Google and Techmeme is going to expose them all. Where do you get these crazy ideas? # sarcasm off
You know, when that many people jump on your case that quickly and that hard it always means you've not only got a point but a strong point.
Sort of like what happened to George Bush last week when he took another long hard look at what happened when we left Vietnam.
Lao Ren Cha
· 2 years ago
You probably don't realize it, Robert, but it's almost painful to hear or read a sentence in which number, tense, and direction are so jumbled. When such a sentence opens an article or blog entry, many of us just won't read any further.
You write: "There’s a TON of reaction to my videos yesterday, but here’s the reactions that stood out in my searches this afternoon."
1. Even though "ton" looks like a singular noun, in American English we treat it as a plural noun in this type of construction.
2. Just as we wouldn't say "a ton of book," it makes no sense to say "a ton of reaction."
3. When we speak of the something in the past ("yesterday"), we use the past tense of the verb.
4. We don't say "here is the reactions," because "reactions" is a plural noun and therefore requires a plural verb.
5. We use the conjunction "but" to indicate opposition or contradiction, not connection, between two components of a sentence.
Therefore, your opening should read, "There were a TON of reactions to my videos yesterday. Here are the reactions that stood out in my searches this afternoon."
Please proofread and edit your future posts more carefully, or let a good proofreader/copy editor help you. Thanks much!
Jon Husband
· 2 years ago
You're a guy who takes chances, voices them out loud and does it with enthiusiasm. That does not make anyone an idiot. The real challenge is in how one responds, and I think you are often open, to a fault, which is commendable ... but also makes you vulnerable.
I appreciate the rawness, and like the blogworld, people can go and check things out, mash togeher the support and the rebuttals, and come up with their own view of things.
Everyone who cares to participate has a role in that, and you just do it with your own inimitable style. You being you. I'm sorry for you that people find that an invitation to ad hominem, while no doubt serious and measured rebuttal to explorations voiced out loud will always be welcome. It's what makes up conversations that lead somewhere.
All Comments
Thats ok man, i still consider you a friend even though
I'm sure I'm among the majority who value all you do to expand our understanding of a world that is changing at Internet speed.
Our thermodynamic-defying, self-replicating DNA factory, ugly-bag-of-water nomadic selves aren't quite obsolete yet... Pity some don't realize that.
No one can ever be correct on everything! I still believe in you, and the things you say! You gave me an opportunity of a life time, and I don't know how to pay you back!
Daniel,
Apple Universe
I rarely use google anymore it's become almost my last resource I've noticed myself tending to search on Mahalo and other such websites. Like you say facebook is an amazing people search engine, before I was using google to find more information about someone but now I use social networks, which seem to be the best place to find out more about people.
MyLocator.com - King of Location.
Search Sucks, Locaton is Everything!
2. It can't scale - Why not, like you say use multiple sources (RSS reader, Facebook, Delicious, Flickr etc) and with the old traditional stuff, maybe hybrid system?
3. I do wonder about Google, why they don't have digg.com or a delicious of some sort under their belts?
Jamie
Can anybody imagine that two smart college students can "kill" Google (=any multi-billion $ company)... like Google did with all others before them?
I cannot see all the points of Robert, but the big times (& hype) of Google (>50% market share) will also end finally in some time. I don't know how and when, but it will happen.
It's a clever strategy to make your opponents seem like the ones who name call in order to weaken the general argument against your lack thereof.
are we good?
You have chosen a laundry list of the most scathing of them in what -appears- (I say appears, mind you) to be an attempt to prove your point by contradiction. Since all your detractors are obviously just looking to start a fight -- you must be right.
Well, I am not looking to start a fight but here is what I will say.
Maybe a Malhalo, Facebook or Techmeme -like- product will revolutionize search for the masses, but I would put good money down to say that none of these will topple Google at the search game in and of themselves.
The old directory structure (Malhalo) and even Techmeme rely too heavily of Google to do the initial sorting before they are able to take this vetted information and use it in their systems.
Dozens of people have voiced similar opinions in varying degrees of frustration. Robert, this is a decent debate and honestly it just goes to prove that the tech community still puts the blinders on when trying to separate hype from real market potential.
Maybe you are right. All things are possible, but I am sure (like any good marketer) you know that compelling headline aside, that post doesn't go very far towards predicting the future of search.
Danny Sullivan is one of the most positive people I know - he used the F word in his post.
Ditto with Rand - SEOMoz is usually a happy and positive uplifting place and he spent time on this instead of a post that added value.
I'd urge you to think in the future before filming something like that.
www.drunkenpanda.com
But, I just went over and checked out your blog and I notice you started out "Robert Scoble once again demonstrates that he is a giant tool."
Ahh, yes, that really should have been linked in here next to Valleywag. Sorry I missed it!
I think the human mind is wired to reject anything new.
Ive seen many clients spend thousands on SEO management only to discover that its the law of diminishing returns. The more they enter 1 category of success the less they are able to move their websites and alter their content without another round of heavy funds. It makes no sense.
The only SEO company I could trust to give me accurate results on Google should be Google. They own their system so presumably they are better placed to offer assurances than other companies ?
Anyway . You Said it well Robert and you may be pleased to know at least 1 client of mine watched your Show and "GOT IT" and is now reconsidering the value in SEO for their business. Thank you
Nik
However, I know from prior experience you're far from stupid, and upon doing some thinking, I understand where you're coming from, it's just still pinging my gut reflex to automatically discredit it a little too much.
I think you've gone too far, but read slowly, and taken with a grain of salt, you make some good points.
As blowhards go, I'll take an underinformed excited guy over a boring, well-read "expert" every time. Chances are they're both wrong -- and Cory Doctorow comes to mind as an example of the latter.
I actually think Arrington summed it up best by politely reminding that Google isn't going to just sit idle. Frankly there's not much technology behind Facebook yet.
Sidenote: almost all of the points raised by your detractors in very wordy, arrogant public blog posts today were foreshadowed by what your detractors said in (relatively) private, brief, polite blog comments when you first raised this issue a few days back.
You have a knack for PR. It looks to me like most of the comments are all heated up about the way you phrased the issue--who will be the "winner" at some point in the future.
That's smart PR. It gets people reading. But you know, as do thoughtful readers, that you're raising a very powerful issue--the balancing act between human-based networks, and the ability of technology to mimic them.
It's a debate we saw framed years ago with SEOs vs. Yahoo's original "expert" categorization system of topics. It's a variant of all AI arguments, going back to thought experiments about one's ability to discern the difference between a computer and a person playing chess behind a wall.
It'll probably never get fully resolved--there will continue to be roles to be played by each approach to the world; a dynamic punctuated by occasional blips, as a new kind of technology, or a new form of communication, comes to the fore. But in the longer term, technology and personal relationships generally figure out how to work hand in hand.
1. What about Google's other services? Could it pull an AOL and abandon it's original niche?
2. What's to stop Google from buying the services you mentioned in that four year time span? And even worse, what's to stop them from "absorbing" them?
Also, I think Jeff Jarvis would strongly disagree with your "watch Yahoo" finale, as he believes their time has come. Personally, I don't see how one can look at YahooPipes and tell me this company ain't the future.
I'm not a geek and I don't know two things about the future of search, but I believe in the power of the intellect to advance mankind, and that's why I liked the videos. They gave me something to think about, something to write about myself, and a framework --right or wrong --in which to consider social networks.
GOOG will be dethroned. Most of the Fortune 500 of today are not the Fortune 500 of 50 years ago. In the broader scheme of things, something will build on or replace Google the way airplanes replaced railroads.
But predictions on who and how they will be dethroned are far more difficult. Thanks just for raising the questions. I don't expect you to have all the answers.
And keep taking the criticism from the more black/white thinkers. There's no such thing as black/white on most issues.
You can ALWAYS be more wrong. ;)
The world of social media changes, utterly and forever, I think 3 or 4 times a week now. so I take all of this with a grain of salt.
Oh yeah, that internet thing will never take off either.
Steve also loudly proclaimed: "Microsoft is dead."
You got a lot of attention and made your case. You will therefore influence a lot of people with those points. Google will react and so will Microsoft.
And so will young Jennie Chong (now about 8) who will invent the device that puts human conciousness on the net and enables the ultimate borg complex. The borg complex will invade Google and make it theirs. That will be the end of Google and the dawn of the new era. MS will also be irrelevant in that era since software is redefined to mean "bio-firm-ware" and we're all programmers... just by thinking and sendng out ideas.
Sending out ideas: you ARE programming Robert! We are borg. We need input.
Marco Kotrotsos.
http://kotrotsos.com
Then it came to me. This is the internet equivalent to yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater. Robert disappeared for a time, came back and wanted to draw a reaction. Since there was no Apple rumor out there to ride, he picked the next best thing. "Big Google is on the outs folks!"
We bought it hook, line and sinker -- as we usually do. Bravo for coming back with a bang Robert, I couldn't have played it better. Bashing Robert isn't helping anything folks, if you think he has 'jumped the shark' all you're doing is making the ramp higher.
Alright, I've decided to look at this debacle from a personal marketing perspective. When you do, you might go as far as calling Mr. Scoble a genius. I'm sure he has pulled in a lot of fresh readership from this little spectacle.
In the blogosphere, all press is good press.
The people who think you have gone insane (who didn't like you much to begin with).
And the people who think your detractors are just being big meanie heads (a -strong- new reader base).
Once "Bashing Scoble" becomes a meme, you can't make a counterpoint to the argument without seeming like you are just joining in on a public hanging.The more I look at this, the more I am amazed that no one saw it more quickly.
Well played.
Saying Google will fall is just too much for most people to handle. But hey you got all these people talking so: rock on!
Nice to have you blogging again, but I'm not joining you at the hip on this particular one. If you feel online friendships are not real, then you must think online relationships are not real. In that case what the Hell is social media's value?
Robert: I can't believe you think aliens have taken over Google and Techmeme is going to expose them all. Where do you get these crazy ideas?
# sarcasm off
Sure, but what if he's right.
http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/08/trend-de...
Sort of like what happened to George Bush last week when he took another long hard look at what happened when we left Vietnam.
You write: "There’s a TON of reaction to my videos yesterday, but here’s the reactions that stood out in my searches this afternoon."
1. Even though "ton" looks like a singular noun, in American English we treat it as a plural noun in this type of construction.
2. Just as we wouldn't say "a ton of book," it makes no sense to say "a ton of reaction."
3. When we speak of the something in the past ("yesterday"), we use the past tense of the verb.
4. We don't say "here is the reactions," because "reactions" is a plural noun and therefore requires a plural verb.
5. We use the conjunction "but" to indicate opposition or contradiction, not connection, between two components of a sentence.
Therefore, your opening should read, "There were a TON of reactions to my videos yesterday. Here are the reactions that stood out in my searches this afternoon."
Please proofread and edit your future posts more carefully, or let a good proofreader/copy editor help you. Thanks much!
I appreciate the rawness, and like the blogworld, people can go and check things out, mash togeher the support and the rebuttals, and come up with their own view of things.
Everyone who cares to participate has a role in that, and you just do it with your own inimitable style. You being you. I'm sorry for you that people find that an invitation to ad hominem, while no doubt serious and measured rebuttal to explorations voiced out loud will always be welcome. It's what makes up conversations that lead somewhere.