Professional Blogging...must Back Up With Facts?, Is there flexibility to share opinion, findings, think outloud? Options

[cre8pc]

[Kim's note: This thread is split off from here because a debate started and took the original thread off topic. Please refer to the original thread about an article written by Rand to get the idea of what's happening here.]


MV raises good points and is voicing what others don't have the nerve to say. Of course we hate it when we're second guessed and publicly humiliated, as he and Mike Martinez are so fond of doing. It's one of the freedoms of the 'Net that bothers me...

anyway.

There's nothing wrong with demanding facts that back up claims and/or advice. It's also not uncommon to write an entire post that makes claims based on one study. This happens with usability, eye tracking, seo, etc.

With SEOMoz setting up a Board, getting people on it who are not groupies will help keep the company in check and add to its credibility.

Maybe putting the vocal people to work will make rebuttals more productive. Rebuttals need back up information just as much as the situations they rally against

This post has been edited by cre8pc: Sep 22 2007, 01:24 PM

[Ron Carnell]

There's nothing wrong with demanding facts that back up claims and/or advice.

Yea? And do you have any hard facts to back up that claim, Kim?

[cre8pc]

and do you have any hard facts to back up that claim, Kim?

Yep.

I send everybody to Bill. He knows everything

[iamlost]

The following is a quote from a letter sent by Jack Messman, Chairman, President, and CEO of Novell Inc. to Darl McBride, President and CEO, The SCO Group:

As best we can determine, the vagueness about your allegation is intentional. In response to industry demands that you be more specific, you attempt to justify your vagueness by stating, "That's like saying, 'show us the fingerprints on the gun so you can rub them off.'" (Wall Street Journal, May 19, 2003) Your analogy is weak and inappropriate. Linux has existed for over a decade, and there are plenty of copies in the marketplace with which SCO could attempt to prove its allegation.

I write and delete several posts a day - venting my spleen without raising my public curmudgeon level higher than necessary - pointing out that assumptions may be hypotheses but are not facts and requesting proofs of claim made.

It were better to take the time to ensure that assumptions, hypotheses, and facts are well deferentiated; that points made are clear, concise, and complete; that potential counter arguments are considered and addressed; that references, citations, etc. are named and, where possible, linked; that analysis structure and biases are noted...

However, unfortunately in a bloggart-sphere where quantity is considered the equal of quality, being first superior to being correct, and the axiom 'there is no such thing as bad advertising' is taken, often out of context, as gospel, assumptions flourish; lies, damn lies, and statistics are reiterated until taken as truth and proofs fade as shadows at noon.

Perhaps it is the fault of Google: beta as 'good enough for prime time'.

Where is Sgt. Joe Friday when we really need him:

The Facts Ma'am, nothing but the facts.

[cre8pc]

You know...this reminds me of what happened to me yesterday in my blog.

I wrote about something I found interesting. I didn't know for sure if it was anything to be concerned about and I presented no real data or facts. I admitted I was no expert and even joked around at Sphinn that what I discovered was likely nothing.

Before I had posted it, I happened to be talking to Rand on the phone and I had told him about what I found. He didn't react as if I'd discovered gold in my backyard, but didn't think it would be stupid to write about either. I went with it.

So this guy leaves me a comment, basically calling me a stupid idiot and my blog is an example of why blogs are "clueless".

I thought it was funny and also it p***ed me off, so I whined to Bill when WE were on the phone last night. He felt I had actually found something of merit and it was something not many people were aware of.

I do think I didn't express my point for writing about it very well, but in any case, it was a blog post of thinking outloud, guessing, curiosity and Kim-blab.

I'm sure it could be attacked as not being of any value to those who expect just the facts or needing some proof before they can care.

God forbid Rand should ever write just to express his opinions or thoughts. People react to him as if he's writing a new book for the Bible sometimes

When did Blogs lose flexibility?

[iamlost]

God forbid Rand should ever write just to express his opinions or thoughts. People react to him as if he's writing a new book for the Bible sometimes

When did Blogs lose flexibility?

There is a great gulf between personal and professional. A person can wonder and wander, gossip and giggle, change personas like kids dressing up because their blog is solely about themselves and their interests. A professional is expected to uphold some form of implicit or explicit standards which generally include things like accountability, competence, knowledge, ethics, etc. A person writing in a business or professional medium (imcluding blogs) has very different scope and boundaries than when writing in their personal space.

Does that mean that one can not dare not venture an opinion in professional space? Of course not. It does mean that there should be no doubt between what you wonder and know, say as opinion or as fact. With Kim I always know Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know's on third. No problemo whatsoever.

I have and will continue to read both Mr. Fishkin and Mr. VanDeMar with anticipation. However I do believe the following:
* when Rand is writing in his professional persona in SEOmoz about an issue of professional interest he should be especially careful to differentiate opinion and fact, to backup his assertions with verifiable proofs, etc. or suffer dilution of a well earned reputation.
* for Michael to critically respond to points of concern is certainly professional behaviour, however, it should be constructive or querying not abusive, rude, or personal.
* both did good then spoiled it.

Blogs retain their flexibility. They can be personal, they can be professional, they are what we make of them. It is individual bloggarts who can have difficulty differentiating.

[mvandemar]

A professional is expected to uphold some form of implicit or explicit standards which generally include things like accountability, competence, knowledge, ethics, etc. A person writing in a business or professional medium (imcluding blogs) has very different scope and boundaries than when writing in their personal space.

I was originally thinking of doing a piece or series that I was going to title, "The A List Blogger And The Death Of Journalistic Integrity", inspired by the fact that it was being discussed that Bloggers Could Get The Same Protections As Journalists. When I read that, Rand was the first person who came to mind as someone who would be perfect to illustrate why a blanket protection might be a Bad Idea. His post on directories back in August just happened to be his latest, and fit the bill perfectly to illustrate what I needed to say.

* for Michael to critically respond to points of concern is certainly professional behaviour, however, it should be constructive or querying not abusive, rude, or personal.

I did in fact start out by attempting to confront him, which if you did read the original blog post hopefully you caught. All attempts to pin him down to a straight answer were evaded. It is my belief that Rand is not an honest person, and I find offensive his "how dare you question me" attitude in light of that belief. As pops (from seor) pointed out, it's hard to call someone a liar without sounding personal, and his attacking my character in response to me trying to get a solid answer out of him made it a wee bit worse.

This isn't simply about me thinking Rand is wrong about something he posted. It also extends to my belief that he happens to know that there are serious limits to what he knows, but that he feels that as long as he doesn't let on to this fact then he can continue to post whatever he wants, and people will still eat it up.

Originally, given the choices of dishonest and just not that bright, I did give him the benefit of the doubt. His evasions changed my mind. I could be completely wrong, of course... this could be nothing more than a case of him not being able to clearly communicate the ideas in his head, coupled with some sort of hyperactive stage fright that triggers when he is asked to explain himself or back up what he said. It just doesn't feel like that though.

[cre8pc]

More off topic I know...we may need to split this thread

It also extends to my belief that he happens to know that there are serious limits to what he knows, but that he feels that as long as he doesn't let on to this fact then he can continue to post whatever he wants, and people will still eat it up.

Indeed, that is a large perception held by a lot of people. I hear it often. My feeling has always been that he and his company have always been open about their own learning process and share what they learn rather quickly. They made no secret of sending Rebecca to intern under Ammon Johns, for example.

But I see no difference between how they share their findings with how Gord Hotchkiss does his, or Jared Spool, or Jakob Nielsen. All of these people and companies run tests and write up their discoveries in a hurry. Before long, they're viewed as gurus.

Yes, backup data is the best. But we have this medium, the Internet, and have learned that we can literally "talk out loud" with it, esp. with our blogs. It's a more open environment, faster, and not always with sound thought.

I know the expectations for big names is that they must hold a higher standard. Because of this, I try hard to be "Kim the person" first. If I'm unsure of something, I need to admit it and open the floor to others so they'll teach me.

I think Rand tries to do this too, but he's not as successful at it yet. He IS still learning, the same way Danny Sullivan is still learning about what he does, and he is treated like the godfather of SEO.

I'd like to see more patience and tolerance as we all interact. Rand knows he's under attack from the get-go and everyone knows that once you're attacked or threatened, the first impulse is to defend or ignore the attacker and walk away.

[Ron Carnell]

I'm curious, Michael, why you would think that anyone -- me, Rand Fishkin, George Bush, anyone at all -- would owe you an explanation? Or do you perhaps believe that every writer automatically assumes an obligation to personally respond to any and all readers who might have questions? Are you special? Or just a bit naïve?

There's a country western song I hear on the radio occasionally that goes, in part, like this:

"You may not like where I'm going,
but you sure know where I stand.
Hate me if you want to,
Love me if you can."

I think that sentiment, performed and presumably written by artist Toby Keith, both sums up my personal reaction and, just maybe, answers Kim's much wider questions.

I can't speak for Rand, of course, or anyone else, but when I write something for public consumption there is always an implied undertone of persuasion. It might be overt if I'm urging my readers to take action, or it might be covert and subtle if I'm simply sharing personal experience, but in every single case there's an unspoken implication that I want the reader to ultimately see the subject as I see it. I wouldn't take the time to write if I didn't believe I had something worthwhile to say. (Which probably explains my low post count after so many years?)

All writing is persuasive. It has to be, because anyone beyond the age of four or five knows that people are fallible. Conclusions are always opinions, never facts. Even most facts are still opinions inevitably colored by the observer's biases. Writing isn't about communicating so much as it's about convincing. "I'm right about this. Here's why you should agree I'm right."

The writer's arguments might, indeed, be founded on facts. Einstein took a newly discovered fact, E=MC^2, and reached the conclusion that matter could never travel faster than the speed of light. But arguments can also be anecdotal, based just on past experience. So far, no scientist has ever found a particle that could travel faster than light. Arguments can also be founded on logic. Traveling faster than light is the same thing as traveling into the past, disrupting cause and effect, thus destroying the very physical laws that allowed us to travel faster than light. And of course a writer's arguments can (and inevitably must) appeal to emotion as well. If God wanted us to travel faster than light He would have given everyone a warp drive instead of feet.

The successful writer convinces, using facts, anecdotes, experience, logic, emotion, or anything else that works. The unsuccessful writer doesn't. The convincing writer has readers. The unconvincing writer doesn't. It works out pretty neatly that way most of the time, a sort of self-regulated feedback that protects the public from a lot of sheer garbage. Because, without readers, the unconvincing writer usually finds a new hobby pretty fast.

Personally, I'm often willing (nay, eager!) to discuss something I've written with anyone foolish enough to evince an interest. But I'm not going to justify what I wrote. Not to anyone. Read it or don't read it, believe it or don't believe it, I've shared a piece of me and, with the sharing done, my job is done as well. "Hate me if you want to, love me if you can."

All of which is to say, Michael, that the questions I posed to you in the first paragraph are entirely, completely rhetorical. You're under absolutely no obligation, to me or any other reader, to try to answer them. People will continue to read you (or not) based entirely on how convincing you were. Same as will happen with Rand, I suspect. And that's exactly how it should be, in my opinion.

[Wit]

Um: short reply. Rand is posting all this on his company blog. I think that ALL of us would cut him a lot more slack if he just posted it in a SEO forum thread or on a personal "Here's Randfish" blog. I mean: people pay money to get info from his website FCOL.

How would we respond to Aaron if he did the same? How DID people respond to B. Callen when he did something similar? They chewed him up and spat him out is how.

I mean I like Rand (altho I've never met him) and he's posted some nice stuff in the past, but I'm with MV on the idea that if you're posting something as a professional, you have to make sure it's well-backed-up. OR have a very good excuse. Even if the excuse is to "exaggerate" to try and educate the newbs or something. Still I'm not getting that from the seomoz posts - which is making me suspicious now. MeoSoz

[mvandemar]

I'm curious, Michael, why you would think that anyone -- me, Rand Fishkin, George Bush, anyone at all -- would owe you an explanation? Or do you perhaps believe that every writer automatically assumes an obligation to personally respond to any and all readers who might have questions? Or do you perhaps believe that every writer automatically assumes an obligation to personally respond to any and all readers who might have questions?

Well, that's a joke, right? I mean, you threw George Bush in there because, what... George Bush shouldn't have to answer for what he does or says, and by extension, neither should anyone else who chooses to make public claims?

I mean, Ron, you are absolutely right. If someone does not care at all about integrity, and is perhaps just a high school blogger, who is just out there communicating with their friends, then of course you're not going to put them to task for what they write. Their peers might though. In America, even at the high school level, it is understood that with the freedom of speech comes the responsibility of attempting to be truthful.

I know you said I didn't have to reply... and of course, I don't. If I do walk away, you have the right to say that is evidence that I can't back up what I am saying as well, correct? I mean, again, especially if you feel no one has the right to question what you write, you can pretty much say anything you damn well please and never be called to task for it, right, Ron?

Why are you trying to imply that the fact that he has every right not to answer equates to me being wrong for questioning him?

But I'm not going to justify what I wrote. Not to anyone.

Since you absolved me from needing to reply, I'll go ahead and return the favor.

More off topic I know...we may need to split this thread

Kim, going to pm you.

-Michael

[iamlost]

Personally, I'm often willing (nay, eager!) to discuss something I've written with anyone foolish enough to evince an interest. But I'm not going to justify what I wrote. Not to anyone. Read it or don't read it, believe it or don't believe it, I've shared a piece of me and, with the sharing done, my job is done as well. "Hate me if you want to, love me if you can."

Personally I have great sympathy with this point of view. When writing as a person or when writing fiction. The idea is the thing: what are the consequences of time travel, if it were possible? And as you say, how well you do it.

Professionally I do not. Professional reputation requires proof when ideas are presented as fact or hypothesis. Being wrong is less important than having viable reasons for the claim. It is possible to be personally liked and professionally ridiculed. Not a nice place to be.

A lot of bloggarts in our industry (especially SEO) need be a little more white paper, a little less link bait. Or their professional reputations will diminish.

Read Danny Sullivan, Ammon Johns, Bill Slawski. That is my standard for our industry. Others meet it as well. If you want similar professional stature do the work.

Aside: celebrity is not the equivalent of professional.

why you would think that anyone -- me, Rand Fishkin, George Bush, anyone at all -- would owe you an explanation?

Rand does not owe Michael an explanation. His ideas may owe a response to criticism to maintain their validity. His reputation may owe a response to maintain its reality. May, not must. The writer's choice. The readers' conclusion.

All of these people and companies run tests and write up their discoveries in a hurry. Before long, they're viewed as gurus.

When Rand does the same it is solid stuff. It is when he doesn't that is the centre of the current tempest.

But we have this medium, the Internet, and have learned that we can literally "talk out loud" with it, esp. with our blogs. It's a more open environment, faster, and not always with sound thought.

And personal embarassment and professional weakness are visible to all for ever. Proof-reading, editors, and peer review exist for a valid reason: reputation insurance. When posting on the web you are in public. Many seem to have difficulty with that concept.

I try hard to be "Kim the person" first.

Do you know how 'not to be Kim'? The Zen of Kim. There is a book in there...

<added>I agree with Wit, post 880</added>

This post has been edited by iamlost: Sep 22 2007, 11:12 AM

[Ron Carnell]

Well, that's a joke, right? I mean, you threw George Bush in there because, what... George Bush shouldn't have to answer for what he does or says, and by extension, neither should anyone else who chooses to make public claims?

No, I specifically threw Bush in there because I think the comparison is apt. The President has to answer to authority (Congress) if he does something illegal, as would a writer if he plagiarized or libeled, and the President has to answer to the people (voters) if he (or his party) is to remain strong. But clearly the President of the United States does NOT have to personally respond to every citizen or journalist with a question.

I know you said I didn't have to reply... and of course, I don't. If I do walk away, you have the right to say that is evidence that I can't back up what I am saying as well, correct?

NOT correct!

On the contrary, Michael, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. You have every right in the world to disagree with President Bush and call him to task for the mistakes you feel he might have made. However, when he doesn't call you on the phone tonight to respond personally I don't think you can offer that as "evidence" you are right and he was wrong. If you want to be perceived as right you have to offer your own facts, not rely on the reactions of someone else.

[mvandemar]

NOT correct!

Ok, you're just wrong then, and tossing out of scale non-applicable silly analogies doesn't really make your point.

Peace.

-Michael

[Respree]

Professional reputation requires proof when ideas are presented as fact or hypothesis.

Ok, you're just wrong then, and tossing out of scale non-applicable silly analogies doesn't really make your point.

Gee, I wonder how we reconcile the two.

Would it have been more palatable if the article was prefaced with, "I my opinion..."

It's all opinion, isn't it? I thought that was a given.

This post has been edited by Respree: Sep 22 2007, 01:00 PM

[cre8pc]

okay...so.

We, as in blog owners, forums posters, those who have clients...are constantly offering advice on "how to get web sites ranked in search engines" when EVERYBODY knows the search engines themselves have never told us exactly how to do it.

We've been theorizing, testing tricks, using tools, testing results, trying ideas, trying what the search engines themselves think we should know, reading patents, on and on and on...and many of us are considered "experts".

Go to Sphinn. Every other headline is a "list of ways" to do something, and rarely is it ever backed up with white papers, test data, analysis, before and after screenshots, controlled studies, etc.

I get that wanting information to back up claims is vital. It's even more so for those in a position of authority.

Look at Mike Grehan. Every time he writes for Clickz, there is a backlash of blog opinion. Last year he wrote something that got so out of hand that his family was threatened. I've never been able to view the SEO industry the same since then. To have a different opinion, not not follow the party line or be outspoken is not easy to do in this industry.

In this instance, Rand is taking heat for not backing up advice or findings. MV is taking heat for demanding substance.

In the SEO/M industry, what exactly IS an expert, anyway?

[mvandemar]

Professional reputation requires proof when ideas are presented as fact or hypothesis.

Ok, you're just wrong then, and tossing out of scale non-applicable silly analogies doesn't really make your point.

Gee, I wonder how we reconcile the two.

I'm sorry, but as far as I can tell you're trying to make some sort of tongue-in-cheek reference about two quotes that were not in response to each other, taken out of context, and make some sort of connection between the them in the process. No offense, but I would be wildly guessing at what you were actually trying to say in order to reply. Could you elaborate a little perhaps?

-Michael

PS This isn't sarcasm, by the way. I really don't see what what connection you are making.

[Wit]

Kim - Well I have often insinuated that I had inside Google information. Then again I always added the :silly: smilie when I did.

For some reason I kinda like MV's "mediums" analogy in his blog post. This thing smells like a horoscope to me. (soz in advance to all of you who are into horoscopes )

[yannis]

Is this a holy war?

"The characteristic that distinguishes holy wars from normal technical disputes is that in a holy war most of the participants spend their time trying to pass off personal value choices and cultural attachments as objective technical evaluations. This happens precisely because in a true holy war, the actual substantive differences between the sides are relatively minor."

There is a clear distinction between writing a blog and writing a professional article, although sometimes people forget the difference. My perception of a blog - irrespective of who wrote it - is 'personal opinion'. On the other hand a professional article should be backed up by facts and references.




Yannis

[mvandemar]

Also, please remember... I wasn't talking about Rand being wrong on some experimental aspect of SEO that requires either months of experimentation or hacking into Google's source code to get to the bottom of... I'm talking about him making statements like that a if directory isn't niche, or if it markets to webmasters, those constitute signs that Google would (and from his tone, should) be penalizing them. I'm talking about how he contradicts himself. I'm talking about how he tries to equate links pages from Government owned sites as benchmarks for what paid directories should be compared against.

These aren't "iffy" issues.

-Michael