Joined: 02 Jul 2003 Posts: 5810 Location: by the beach, Australia
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:44 pm Post subject:
Phil Tanny wrote:
Just wondering if quality content, defined as useful information, is really what the Net is about.
People try to understand the Internet by comparing it with things that have gone before. But it's not a novel, it's not a textbook, it's not a newspaper, it's not radio, it's not TV, it's not all sorts of things - but it's ALL of those things and a whole lot more. It's almost whatever we want it to be. _________________ Allan Gardyne
... earning a good living from affiliate programs since 1998.
Learn how.
Subscribe now FREE Affiliate Program Tutorial
Well, OK, then let's just say, any gathering of two or more people. You've been to one of those, right?
Yes, one or two.
Quote:
What might a typical conversation tell us about why and how we use the Net?
I'm not sure, but I bet the truth would be frightening.
Quote:
Is the real reason we are sharing this thread together because of the data being exchanged?
Well, personally, it's to motivate both ourselves and others, but also to try and influence others into creating a virtual world I'd like to see.
If I can only just convince everyone that my value system is worth picking up on, all the world's problems will be solved. Even affiliate marketing will be easier.
Seriously, I believe we all have the right answers to our own questions. By talking and reading the thoughts of others we stand more chance of stumbling on associations that lead to these answers.
I'd love to say something like, "dare to think your way towards an affiliate future that's right for you", but I'd better not.
Quote:
My wife's sister and her 14 year old daughter just visited us. I learned a lot from joining their conversations. The three of them talk excitedly for hours about pretty close to exactly nothing.
But they have an incredibly good time talking about nothing!
Don't you just hate people like that?
Quote:
We've all been in a million conversations, and know that the best conversationalists are above all good listeners.
Yes, but active listeners...
More me, that activity is an intense analytical process - not just of the words, but the bits between the lines. That's why I hate skimmers and others who choose not to dig deeply enough. We can all do it if we want to, so why do so many people patronise by such shallow listening?
I don't want to know what you're saying as much as why you say it and what you mean. I expect nothing less from others, too.
If you want to just talk (and listen) for the sake of it, you can do that on your own.
Quote:
And when the best conversationalists do contribute, it's most often their light cheerful musical energy we value them for, not their command of facts or powers of logical analysis.
I'm all for "cheerful musical energy", but less of the "light"...
As a matter of fact I prefer logical, analytical types. If they're funny and provocative, so much the better. Did I mention intensity, too?
AllanGardyne wrote:
People try to understand the Internet by comparing it with things that have gone before. But it's not a novel, it's not a textbook, it's not a newspaper, it's not radio, it's not TV, it's not all sorts of things - but it's ALL of those things and a whole lot more. It's almost whatever we want it to be.
I agree with what you are saying, but I sometimes think it would be better if most people were content to interpret it as "whatever they want it to be", rather than actively try and change it.
This "everyone has the right to publish" approach is the "not enough barriers to entry" problem again.
Just my opinion,
Charlie. _________________ "Before I speak, I have something important to say."
- Groucho Marx
Joined: 22 Aug 2003 Posts: 1322 Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 7:23 pm Post subject:
AllanGardyne wrote:
People try to understand the Internet by comparing it with things that have gone before. But it's not a novel, it's not a textbook, it's not a newspaper, it's not radio, it's not TV, it's not all sorts of things - but it's ALL of those things and a whole lot more.
Yes, I agree. The technology is indeed new, no doubt. And there is an effect of the sum being greater than the parts, good point.
AllanGardyne wrote:
It's almost whatever we want it to be.
You've put your finger on it here. imho.
The Net is new, but we the users are not.
Our brains sit down in front of a computer with the same basic motivations, desires, needs etc that our brains had 500 years ago when the printing press was invented.
So one way to understand the Net is to not get completely distracted by our interest in the new technology, and focus more on the source of the Net, our brains.
Understand the Net, by understanding ourselves.
One way to understand ourselves is to review a fairly long established history of how we have interacted with other mediums. Human beings of every conceivable type, all across the globe, have used TV in a pretty consistent manner for 3 generations now.
Whatever the reasons that billions of us sit for hours in front of TV content few of us will admit we watch those reasons probably have something to do with why we are on the Net as well.
Are those reasons primarily about content? _________________ Free Email Discussion Group For Your Site
Your visitors will build your site for you.
http://Discussion-For-You.com
Joined: 22 Aug 2003 Posts: 1322 Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:20 pm Post subject:
Charlie wrote:
As a matter of fact I prefer logical, analytical types. If they're funny and provocative, so much the better. Did I mention intensity, too?
Yes, me too of course. Intensity especially. I'll happily listen to you talk all night about the techniques you use on your pig farm, _IF_ you're really in to it.
I realize I feed off the enthusiasm, the content itself is secondary.
As I watch my favorite women enjoy each other for hours, giggling hysterically about nothing in particular, I can see I'm the sort who writes analytical reviews on the nature of jazz blah blah blah etc, while they are the ones playing the music.
Words and music all have their place, but words seem a step deeper in to abstraction than music, and thus perhaps a step farther away from the source of whatever it is we're looking for as we engage each other.
As example, all we professors who disdain light conversations might imagine sharing a train ride with a colorful cheerful chatty woman, who spoke only Chinese. I'd guess we'd prefer her companionship to that of another professor, even if we didn't understand a single word she said. _________________ Free Email Discussion Group For Your Site
Your visitors will build your site for you.
http://Discussion-For-You.com
This topic on quality and content is a tough one. Mainly because of the mass subjectivity of it. Let's look at this forum alone. Quality content? What does that mean anyway?
I tend to think of conversations as trash dumps. We throw what we have in and recycle it over and over and over again. I think the problem comes when we believe what we say is not trash.
"Oh no, not what I say. What I say and like is to be offered as a sacrifice to the g-ds." Of course, that too, is eaten by theives and the homeless and wasted out in its own way. How fitting.
Search engine spam is non-existent. Come on, you have venture capitalists and investment bankers for all three engines meeting in the backrooms both prior their ipo and then making phone calls to the executive staff asking for a bump in profit. Those guys meet in backrooms and do "spammy" stuff in order to float the stock in the first place.
So, no, I do not think it appropriate to compare an already tilted windmill to email spam which is push technology through channels that do not carry a profitable margin for carrying said data.
Instead of thinking in terms of "quality content" for the net perhaps choices need to be made for current projects on either a brandable and sellable entity or one that accepts it is just garbage from the start.
Besides, sell of one of your net properties to a buyer and see what you think of it once they hack it up. Ask time warner about that one... _________________ Gekko Speaks-The spot where my alter ego rants and raps about business and internet strategy.
Our brains sit down in front of a computer with the same basic motivations, desires, needs etc that our brains had 500 years ago when the printing press was invented.
Careful - any minute now, someone will modestly mention Ken Guttenberg!
I love it, you love it, but let's wait another 494 years and then decide...
Quote:
One way to understand ourselves is to review a fairly long established history of how we have interacted with other mediums. Human beings of every conceivable type, all across the globe, have used TV in a pretty consistent manner for 3 generations now.
Well, one difference between TV and the web...
If you fall asleep, tin(ny) in hand in front of the latter it won't move on without you.
Quote:
Charlie wrote:
As a matter of fact I prefer logical, analytical types. If they're funny and provocative, so much the better. Did I mention intensity, too?
Yes, me too of course. Intensity especially. I'll happily listen to you talk all night about the techniques you use on your pig farm, _IF_ you're really in to it.
Sorry, but that doesn't exactly fry my bacon - so we're safe.
Quote:
As I watch my favorite women enjoy each other for hours, giggling hysterically about nothing in particular, I can see I'm the sort who writes analytical reviews on the nature of jazz blah blah blah etc, while they are the ones playing the music.
For a moment then I thought the grill was on after all, but I'm not sure I'm happy to just enjoy - I want to know (or at least imagine a reason) why, too.
Take the rock group Rush, for example. Do you really think they'd be anywhere near as popular if their fans were content to just like the music, as opposed to analyse and appreciate the various subtle time changes (and other shifts)?
Quote:
As example, all we professors who disdain light conversations might imagine sharing a train ride with a colorful cheerful chatty woman, who spoke only Chinese. I'd guess we'd prefer her companionship to that of another professor, even if we didn't understand a single word she said.
Sort of smile politely from behind the sunglasses, do you mean? Besides, doesn't everyone regularly change seats on trains near you, too?
Jscott wrote:
This topic on quality and content is a tough one. Mainly because of the mass subjectivity of it. Let's look at this forum alone. Quality content? What does that mean anyway?
It means "content I appreciate and value". If everyone was this selfish, maybe things would be better.
Quote:
Search engine spam is non-existent.
Quote:
So, no, I do not think it appropriate to compare an already tilted windmill to email spam which is push technology...
I get the point about "push" but isn't doing a Google search a form of solicitation? If so, being delivered something other than we hoped for (dare I say expected) is a form of spamming.
Back in the relative quagmire, maybe, but I'm clinging onto a branch for all I'm worth...
Quote:
Instead of thinking in terms of "quality content" for the net perhaps choices need to be made for current projects on either a brandable and sellable entity or one that accepts it is just garbage from the start.
Oh, come on! Where's your (relatively) youthful idealism?
It's come to something when you have to rely on the "seen-it-all old cynics" to dream a beautiful future into being.
Just a thought,
Charlie. _________________ "Before I speak, I have something important to say."
- Groucho Marx
As you know, in his preface Weinberger writes, "The conversation I believe we need to have is about what the Web is showing us about ourselves."
Yes, what could be more pragmatic?
There is a fleshy cabbage between each of our ears that is trying to acheive and maintain a certain electro-chemical state.
Once survival is covered, our brain's desire for this "state of mind" becomes the motivator for all human activity, including the Net. This quest is quite literally the whole show, the reason behind everything.
I believe clear eyed, pragmatic, bottom line oriented people, such as you find in business, may have an outlook that can be very useful in keeping us focused on the goal line each of our brains has established.
As example, is the Net advancing, or obstructing, our progress towards the state of mind each of our brains is seeking?
Does the Net direct our attention inward, towards the _actual physical geographic location_ where what we want will occur?
Or does the Net, and the consumer culture it so often serves, direct our focus outward, away from the action?
Jscott wrote:
Quality content? What does that mean anyway?
I would agree there is no one answer, but for me, quality content is content that best serves my brain's number one agenda, as described above.
If we've forgotten where it is we're trying to go, then it may be harder to evaluate the tools we use to get there.
Jscott wrote:
I tend to think of conversations as trash dumps. We throw what we have in and recycle it over and over and over again. I think the problem comes when we believe what we say is not trash.
Ha! I love it. Absolutely. And when we develop our sense of humor about our own mental trash to a certain point, we may begin to wonder if our thoughts are the path we take to where our brains want to go.
Or are they instead, the main obstruction on that path?
Thanks for joining us JS. _________________ Free Email Discussion Group For Your Site
Your visitors will build your site for you.
http://Discussion-For-You.com
Joined: 22 Aug 2003 Posts: 1322 Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:42 am Post subject:
Can the Net be usefully defined with a single word?
Thought.
Isn't everything on the Net either somebody's thought, or a tool for managing and organizing thoughts?
Does this obvious observation bring useful questions in to focus?
As example, what is thought?
If we look at the Net as wires, servers, markets etc, then this question may seem obscure.
If we reflect upon the equation Net = Thought, then an understanding of thought becomes central, does it not?
Can we really ask "What is the Net?" without almost immediately then asking "What is thought?"
Isn't it ironic that a question such as "what is thought?" does indeed seem remote, when in fact thought is the intimate, moment to moment, every day of our lives, nearly all consuming experience that we all share, without exception and regardless of our differences?
Here's a challenge worthy of a real writer.
What words do we choose so that a discussion of such seemingly central and universal questions occur to readers not as the inpenetrable musing of obscure bearded professors, but rather as common sense reflections upon our shared daily reality? _________________ Free Email Discussion Group For Your Site
Your visitors will build your site for you.
http://Discussion-For-You.com
Joined: 22 Aug 2003 Posts: 1322 Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:27 am Post subject:
AllanGardyne wrote:
People try to understand the Internet by comparing it with things that have gone before.
Just saw a great show on TV (who knew??) related to this thread.
It followed a history of mass entertainment starting with vaudeville, to radio, to early TV.
Vaudeville, popular 100 years ago in the first decades of the 20th century, was especially interesting. This was the last era before any form of electronic entertainment could be piped in to your home. There were thousands of theatres in all the small towns, which hosted traveling variety shows.
It was interesting to watch how mass entertainment has evolved from an event that all your family, friends and neighbors did together eye ball to eye ball with the performers, to our current era where we all sit alone in our rooms typing abstractions back and forth at each other.
Also, even though folks had much harder lives back then, their humor and entertainment tastes lacked the dark cynicism that has become the norm in recent decades. It was refreshing to spend an hour in their era.
Anyway, I suspect it is impossible to capture the spirit of vaudeville in an Internet post.
If you're interested in seeing the Net from the perspective of the last era before mass entertainment went electronic, and became a private rather than public event, check out vaudeville. I found it quite educational, and entertaining. _________________ Free Email Discussion Group For Your Site
Your visitors will build your site for you.
http://Discussion-For-You.com
Already, we're seeing that Google places an age limit penalty on new sites. It also appears to favor very large, old, well established sites
I dont know if thats true allen , it depends on what kind of web site or blog you make , i have a blog that has unique useful info and im actually geting good traffic from google and its 2 months old and has only 40 pages , the only link i have to it is dmoz and a couple of forums that linked to me .
i get over 10 000 visitors a month from google on keyword phrases , I consider that pretty good for a young web site .
Joined: 02 Jul 2003 Posts: 5810 Location: by the beach, Australia
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:03 pm Post subject:
mikedom wrote:
i get over 10 000 visitors a month from google on keyword phrases , I consider that pretty good for a young web site .
That's VERY good for a young site.
Do you think Google places a sort of age penalty on ordinary websites and not on blogs? _________________ Allan Gardyne
... earning a good living from affiliate programs since 1998.
Learn how.
Subscribe now FREE Affiliate Program Tutorial
i dont know allen thats a good question , ive been trying to figure out google this past year and i have no clue how they work .
Although ive been having a fairly good amount of success with my blogs , i cannot confirm that question with certainty .
if you want to see my [URL deleted - please use your signature file - Moderator] thats receiving 10000 hits a month for ideas here it is ,
( i get lots of traffic from google for keyword phrases and traffic from msn for major keywords , but google brings me more )
you can take out the link if you want , its only an example . My other web sites ( not blogs ) are still stuck in that penalty box like you said but then again theres some blogs of mine that are not doing so well either .
so does it mean blogs are never penalised by google ?or in other words are they better than website if you want SE traffic _________________ Tips to increase Affiliate earning
Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 5 Location: Ballwin, MO
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:34 am Post subject:
I can tell you Google is reacting to the presence of "splogs" --
they're going after them.
I have a bird flu blog full of totally original content --
news, news analysis, articles on immune system
boosters, reviews of relevant books etc.
But yesterday I learned I was marked as a spam blog
and barred from making new posts. I did request a
review by a human, and tonight they whitelisted me.
But I just don't understand where the original accusation
came from.
Sure, some -- by no means all -- of my posts link to my
main site.
I'm not rich enough to have a hobby!
And there are some -- by no means an excessive number --
of links to affiliate products.
But all content was totally original. No trace of automatic
generation, RSS to Blog or anything like that.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Your host: Allan Gardyne. Earning a good living from affiliate
programs since 1998.
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
