Comments on: The Daily Mail responds at last!

By: Paul Carr

Paul Carr — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:48:31 +0000

Hi Barry,I should start by saying that Tim is wrong on one front and correct on the other.He's wrong in saying I'm not arrogant. I really am. It's infuriating. And as for polite? Hooo-boy. But thanks for covering for me, Tim ;-)However, he's quite correct in saying that I try to correct errors in Bringing Nothing… as quickly as possible. In fact, I even give an email address at the back of the book for that very purpose and I've published a number of corrections already on my blog.In the case of the Nicholas Hellen Google bomb, was I not fair to describe it as such? Is the problem that it was Hellen's name that was the link text and not something like 'evil hack'? And if so, how does it differ from when Operation Clambake 'owned' the term 'Scientology'?Please understand, I'm not saying that I didn't make an error in the book (I even managed at one point to spell a close friend's name wrong!) – I just want to understand the nature of the error so I can correct it properly. Which I certainly will both on the site, and (if I can) in future reprints.It seemed to me that the Hellen thing *was* a linkbomb, if not in the original sense then certainly within the sense it's commonly used today.Perhaps, if you have a sec, you could email me (blog at bringingnothing.com) setting me straight – then I can publish your email as a blog post, with a proper correction? If not, I'll speak to some people more knowledgeable than I (that's a big list to choose from) to get a proper clarification and will write a correction myself next week. Does that work?Meantime – thanks for the nice word about the book. I'm really glad you liked it.Best,Paul

By: Manic

Manic — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:36:21 +0000

Hello Barry, and welcome to Bloggerheads.Having not read the passage you refer to, I couldn't possibly comment on specifics, but:(a) It is possible to describe one *type* of Google bomb as Julie Moult's article describes it and be correct in a way. "Google Bombing, when cyber pranksters create dozens, or even hundreds, of 'fake' sites linked to the targeted webpage to make it seem more popular" as she puts, it is not a fair description of Google bombing generally, as the most effective forms of Google bombing involve(d) real sites and established online IDs, not fake sites and sock-puppets. But it is possible to give a full and accurate description of a goldfish when you are in fact holding an armadillo. Julie's main problem was that she was describing one thing while presenting another.(b) In my experience Paul Carr has always been quick, polite and as accommodating as possible when it comes to the correction of errors, and I've never seen him hesitate to admit fault when a fair call has been made. I doubt there would be any need to 'bully' him or make an example of him, as it is unlikely that he would be anywhere near as arrogant, evasive, or downright full of it as some people I could mention.As for Moult's alleged status as a lunatic, that's for the men in white coats to decide. All I know is that she's an idiot, and very lucky that something like this didn't blow up with a more serious story at its core, because *then* you would have seen some stuff guaranteed to leave a bad taste in your mouth.

By: Barry Womm

Barry Womm — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 12:17:04 +0000

On page 75 of his excellent "Bringing Nothing To The Party" book, Paul Carr spends several paragraphs mistakenly defining a Google bomb in precisely the same way that Julie Moult did. Carr is, I presume, an internet expert who shouldn't make this kind of beginner's mistake, especially as he refers to you as "one of the UK's highest profile online political campaigners" on page 12.Will you also be making an example of him? Or is the bullying (nasty word, but it does feel like that) reserved for those who's opinions you disagree with?I'm not defending Moult's output, btw – she's quite clearly a lunatic – but this campaign leaves a pretty nasty taste in the mouth.