Just a little something to keep handy as we enter the final quarter, approach the endgame, face the moment of truth and start the final countdown.
Stay in your homes, people. Barricade the doors and channel-surf with caution.
Just a little something to keep handy as we enter the final quarter, approach the endgame, face the moment of truth and start the final countdown.
Stay in your homes, people. Barricade the doors and channel-surf with caution.
Via Wonkette, a report of Sarah Palin going far beyond any past indiscretions. She’s a right maverick, and looking out for #1…. you betcha!
What a winker.
First, a word from Five Chinese Crackers:
As Septicisle points out, in January 2007, the Mail ran a front page ridiculing the fact that the whole Celebrity Big Brother racism debacle was front page news. The Big Brother thing was seen by a far wider audience, involved a group of people openly bullying an individual over a sustained period while they were all in a confined space and there was a whiff of racism in the air. ‘Why don’t we just switch off?‘ was the reaction then. This time, things have changed for some reason. Despite the fact that only a handful of people had complained about Brand’s show before the paper reported it, these people must be sacked. Ban this sick filth! And so on.
And no, it’s not the licence fee alone that makes this different, and as an issue it certainly wouldn’t warrant this level of coverage/outrage regardless.
Ross and Brand shouldn’t have pulled the stunt, and the BBC should not have broadcast it.
But it cannot be denied that most of the people calling for blood would take any opportunity to damage the BBC, and are blowing this way, way, wayyyy out of proportion to that end.
Further, the hypocrites at the Sun and Daily Mail have a track record of treating far more people with far less respect. Take for example the Sun, who surely have Andrew Sachs’ feelings uppermost in their mind when running with today’s front page headline that introduces a two-page tell-all extravaganza about his granddaughter’s sex life; “BRAND YELLED ‘QUE?’ IN BED”
More from Septicisle right here.
Me, I want to leave you with a thought from regular reader Carl Eve, who points out that the people at the Sun also had a personal score to settle with Brand, after this classic performance at an Amnesty gig in 2006.
UPDATE – Hahahahahahaha! I wish I’d said this:
Don’t you just love it? The BBC, as always, has been forced to pull down its trousers and bend over, while the collective tabloid media buggers it silly with its enormous cock of hypocrisy.
And you should expect more of this in the blogosphere, especially now that the media-facing side of it has been so successfully hijacked by unapologetic ultra-hypocrites like Dale and Staines.
A jaw-dropping interview with Nadine Dorries appears in today’s Metro. My letter to that ‘news’paper follows. Will get a copy of the interview online ASAP.
To: Metro Letters
Your interview with Nadine Dorries only furthers her reputation as a self-publicising fantasist. In it, Nadine claims to get 500,000 hits a month on her website (which is not even a blog as she claims). Elsewhere, she has claimed that she has 800,000 readers a month. Never mind that her traffic claims are so fantastic as to be laughable; because ‘hits’ describes the number of files downloaded (pages, images, etc.), this figure cannot possibly be smaller than the number of readers. Nadine’s either making things up, or becoming very confused again.
And that’s just a reaction to the bloody introductory paragraph. You simply have to read the interview itself. With you shortly.
UPDATE – While we’re waiting for Metro to get their main e-dition together, were you aware of this report showing that evangelical Christians are probably getting more red hot (and unprotected) sex than you? Yes, even many of those ‘celibate’ teens. Turns out that celibacy loses its shine when it’s not ‘cool’ any more (“if too many teens pledge, the effort basically collapses” is a key finding).
UPDATE (12pm) – Dorries is now complaining on her ‘blog’ about the part of the interview that raised one of my eyebrows to new heights.
I was a little bit upset this morning to see how a short interview I had given, had been written up. It was smutty. For example, my answer to the question “What would you most like to be doing right now” I believe was something like “Having a meal with my girls and everyone I love round one table.” That’s not what was printed.
Although the interview had been light hearted, my answers had been taken out of context.
Oh dear, oh dear.
Here’s the part that Nadine is complaining about:
What would you most like to be doing right now?
Nadine Dorries: (laughs) You can’t put that in the paper.
Apart from that?
Nadine Dorries: I’d be in Barbados watching the turtles hatch on the beach.
[Pardon me while I vomit…. *bleuuuurgh*…. Damn. All over my handmade Italian leather shoes that were a gift from the Dalai Lama. And now back to the dirt…]
And who would you be with?
Nadine Dorries: I can’t say that either.
You’ve got a secret lover, then?
Nadine Dorries: (laughs) He’s involved in politics. I’m not saying more than that.
All together now; ooooooooooooooooh!
I suppose now we can expect Iain Dale to leap to her defence with The Official Version Of Events.
(Please do watch what you say under comments on my site. No guesses or hints about the identity of secret lovers, for example.)
UPDATE – The article is now live on the Metro website:
Metro – Nadine Dorries reveals her Bridget Jones moment
And, unlike Nadine’s website-that-is-not-a-blog, that page allows comments.
(considers options carefully)
(a ‘long and boring’ post on a subject that fascinates me)
Some of you chaps must think me a bit odd to be constantly putting myself in the line of fire when it was established long ago that champion ‘bloggers’ Iain Dale and Paul Staines won’t hesitate to censor threads, retro-moderate posts, hide behind anonymous abuse and tolerate outright sock-puppeting (and worse) from their allies.
But damn it all, it’s educational material for a growing community.
And this time, it’s not me in the firing line, but Iain Dale…
Iain’s banked a lot on his latest pop at peacemaking, but recently he wasted time chasing* yet another passing ambulance and ended up falling over his own feet and then under the wheels. Entirely.
[*Iain does this a lot, this scrambling to be part of one issue or another, which is why it is more conspicuous when he avoids issues that are not as favourable to the Tories and/or his friends as they could be.]
Here’s the post that did the damage:
And here comes the educational (i.e. ‘long and boring’) part:
First of all, this issue is going to draw out of the woodwork those people who will to take any opportunity to damage the BBC and/or press their case for a change to the licence fee system. There are also people who don’t get/like Russell Brand and/or don’t get/like Jonathon Ross, and you don’t have to be all three to end up mouthing off without really thinking things through or (*gasp*) considering more than your own viewpoint/agenda.
There is also one unapologetic user of sock-puppets on the loose in the relevant thread who has no love for Iain, and at least one unapologetic user of sock-puppets nearby if not in the thread who would have Iain’s babies if he asked.
You also have to remember that all of this is happening in an environment where Iain, by continuing with his bad habit of tolerating anonymous abuse when it’s in his favour, actually encourages the use of anonymity and sock-puppetry on both** sides, even though he spends a lot of his time denouncing the practice.
[**There are many people who will not comment under their own name or usual ID because they see no point in exposing themselves to anonymous abuse from Iain’s regular supporters. So because the people fighting Iain’s corner anonymously attack anyone who opposes or contradicts Iain and are allowed to get away with it, these people start to comment anonymously also. Then the people fighting Iain’s corner start to pretend to be more than one person in order to ‘outnumber’ the opposition and make contradictory arguments without contradicting themselves, and the whole thing spirals into the sewer from there. Take a look at the present state of the site of Paul Staines (aka ‘Guido Fawkes’) to see where this is headed, and please note that we are talking about a wider view over time here, and not describing a development specific to this thread.]
So into the thread we go:
At October 28, 2008 4:54 PM , Martin said…
Good to know you are the side of people who make abusive and offensive phone calls, Iain. We should always put the blame fairly on the people who don’t cover things up properly. It’s the Tory way.
At October 28, 2008 5:03 PM , Iain Dale said…
Martin, your comment qualifies for idiotic comment of the day. I haven’t defended their despicable calls at all. I just think threat the producers deserve the blame for the fact it was ever transmitted. Read the headline again.
Iain’s first mistake is taking what appears to be the easy way out, by only answering an obvious troll*** from a known troller with a brusque slap-down.
[***A more complex and one-sided example of this technique can be seen here.]
In a thread with more supporters, this technique can and frequently does work for Iain, as often there will be a number of people (some each pretending to a number of different people) answering other comments and/or countering other points for Iain with facts/lies/distractions/distortions/abuse/love-custard.
But there is less of that kind of intervention here, mainly due to Iain picking the wrong word (twice) in an ill-advised post.
So from this point on a wave of perceived contempt begins to build as more and more people enter the thread and encounter one unanswered question/challenge after another before they themselves settle on the nature/tone of their own comment.
Iain further compounds the problem and adds to the wave of perceived contempt by responding in the post instead of mucking in on the thread. When doing so, he also makes the mistake of blaming his error on the reader(s); making this gesture appear to be even more arrogant:
UPDATE: People seem to have got the wrong end of the stick here, possibly because I used the word ‘entirely’.
Meanwhile, some familiar faces are beginning to appear (i.e. regular posters who only use one ID and/or are making this kind of comment under their main ID) and – while they may not lay into Iain with flying fists, they do make it clear which side of the debate they stand on… and generally, it’s not with Iain in this thread.
Close allies are noted by their (presumed) absence+, which can only make any anonymous attacker(s) bolder.
What’s also missing here (through no fault of Iain’s) is a clear/central role involving the Labour Party; even though there is at least one individual clearly trolling, no-one is yelling ‘troll’ in this thread. Brown gets a passing a mention and there are some vague suggestions of Daily Mail readers chipping in, perhaps without declaring an interest, but (and this is partly Iain’s fault) no-one is indentifying trolls when there are clearly trolls about or being anywhere near as wary of sock-puppets as they should be****, because these words have been reduced to meaningless partisan barbs and whines after endless false accusations in Iain’s threads (that are SFA to do with my ongoing attempts to see this nonsense curtailed and more to do with certain parties seeing ‘NuLab’ conspiracies behind every contributor not toeing the Tory line).
[****Just for starters; the mob descending on Iain is not as large as it appears.]
In fact, about the only thing that might be seen to be in Iain’s favour at this stage is the fact that he already has comment moderation on; nothing gets published without his say-so, and he doesn’t need to ‘retreat’ to this position.
1. Because Iain is busy playing peacekeeper elsewhere, comments are left uncleared for long periods of time and then published in chunks, which results in a confused and disjointed thread where there is little chance of anything approaching a conversation and a greatly increased risk of some people needlessly repeating hits/points/challenges (not knowing that they have already been made and are merely awaiting clearance).
2. It also makes it near-to-impossible for anyone but Iain to ask folks to stop and take stock of this or that in order to calm the thread. Iain certainly can’t do that at this late stage because it would involve skipping a large number of points/challenges raised by an unknown number of people, many of whom could in this thread be people who would otherwise support him. And an outsider can’t do it, because any such attempt that doesn’t benefit from perfect timing will most probably be buried in surrounding flames when it is eventually published.
3. Finally, the use of comment moderation leaves us in little doubt that it is Iain Dale who is primarily legally and morally responsible for any libel that might creep into the thread.
I think this serves as a fine example of something that might be considered libel and (if you’re reckless enough to think/act this way) could lead to action against an ‘insignificant’ blog, even if it does involve a target (or targets) in less-than-advantageous circumstances:
In this context, I’m confident that I can use this as an illustrative example, but this is not a smart thing to publish when the topic is the potential dismissal of two presenters, each with their own history including a significant/successful battle with substance abuse. (Alcohol for Ross, heroin and alcohol and just about everything else for Brand. But neither of them would be pleased to be accused of cocaine use at the present time, and neither of them should have to put up with baseless accusations about it, and the law is on their side.)
And here to help me to close the lesson is Iain Dale.
Keeping in mind that Iain turned on comment moderation a few days ago (and so reads every comment before he decides to publish anything), it is easy to see that, in the very post that started it, Iain Dale himself expresses his opinion that he alone is responsible for the disaster this thread has become:
As I understand it this was a pre recorded show. While the phone calls were distasteful and ill judged, Brand and Ross are not to blame for the fact that they were transmitted. The fault lies entirely with the programme’s producer and editor. It is they who should be called to account for this debacle.
I personally disagree; I think Iain is primarily, and not entirely, responsible for the disaster this thread has become.
UPDATE(ISH) – While I was writing this (around 11pm), someone – *sigh* – anonymously submitted the following comment which identifies some major factors. It was cleared for publication at about midnight when I was tidying and spill-chucking.
At October 28, 2008 10:54 PM , Anonymous said…
“But the fire being directed at them over Brand’s phone call to Andrew Sachs is entirely misdirected.”
Iain, you suffer the same personality disorder as the BBC. You cannot, never, admit you are wrong.
How can you write the above statement saying ‘entirely’ and then claim your readers have got ‘the [wrong] end of the stick’?
Please, admit you are wrong. You have been soundly battered by your readers.
However, I have noticed you often betray a childish petulance when you are contradicted
(Psst! I could’ve written most of that myself. But it’s not my fault that there’s any uncertainty.)
Please excuse the minor housekeeping notices attached to this post. They have to go somewhere, and both are directed at proven and unapologetic users of sock-puppets.
(Hendren: Even when rewriting history and bravely making false assertions in an environment where you know they won’t be corrected or challenged by your target, you manage to contradict yourself. And that’s all you’re getting, sorry. I do not want to make the mistake of winding you up over your proven sock-puppeting antics and baseless accusations to the point where you’re calling my house and disrupting my private life again. So you ‘win’ that thread. Well done.)
(‘Martin’/Lobster/Dip: It was clever of you to ‘out’ yourself while the heat’s off and almost everyone is looking elsewhere. But what good is an identity with no credibility? And how is it in any way fair to attack someone’s reputation without banking your own against what you have to say? And that’s all you’re getting, sorry. No traffic or linky-love for you. It should be enough that a troll of yours got some attention and actually turned out to be useful for once.)
UPDATE (9:30am) – Some minor links and corrections have been added. Oh, and this:
[+ It should have occured to me last night that Iain’s closest ally Phil ‘Dizzy’ Hendren isn’t likely to turn up in this thread under his main ID, because he is fond of making nuisance calls himself, and Iain has yet to condemn that on his blog. I can’t see either of them wanting to open up that can of worms with so many people on the warpath about the calls made by Ross and Brand, and the unanswered question about where Hendren got my ex-directory number still hanging in the air.]
I am here to save you a needless tube journey:
Yes, that Ted Stevens.
Time – Can Ted Stevens Still Win Alaska?: Stevens, 84, was found guilty Monday on seven felony counts for failing to report $250,000 in improper gifts he received from Bill Allen, the disgraced executive of an oil services company.
FiveThirtyEight – Senate Projections, Baked Alaska Edition: Our projection models are designed to be fairly dynamic — but you don’t usually have the circumstance wherein a sitting senator gets convicted on seven felony counts (appeal pending!) eight days before an election. So, a little bit of creativity is going to be required…
Rolling Stone – The Sarah and Ted Show: Under the old rules, Stevens’ corruption scandal could well have blown over as a parochial scandal of the great, oily North. But since picking Palin, McCain & Co. have staked out Alaska as the living, beating heart of American authenticity.
WSJ Blogs – McCain Calls on Sen. Stevens to Resign, Palin Does Not: His running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, has not called on her home state colleague to resign. While the statement released by the campaign today had the McCain-Palin logo on it, it was a statement only from the Arizona senator.
And, finally, before you even start trying to think of a witty headline, take a look at the quip on Fark that made me give up before I even started:
“Prison; it’s not like a big building, it’s more like a series of cubes.”
If there’s anyone on the planet who would like to try following that, please be my guest.
My new search engine optimisation seminar Google 4 Grown-Ups was very well received on its first outing, and I’m looking to do another one in partnership with Thoughtbubble very shortly.
The following is a run-down of the content, my personal take on the way the seminar was seen and received, and how that might impact on future presentation and delivery.
But for starters, here are some of the nicer things that some people had to say about the first event:
“Tim Ireland is a very enjoyable, entertaining speaker.” – Gareth Herincx, GMTV
“A good overview, with good examples and learning that you can take away and use.” – Kimberley Slack, Findel Education
“Tim is an excellent presenter and manages to keep people involved and entertained.” – Angus Robertson, AMC Network
“The ecosystem analogy is very elegant and easy to relate to.” – Justin McKeating, Greenpeace
“Great people, presenter, content and delivery. An extremely insightful, well planned and creatively delivered event. From the pre-event publicity to the materials on the day, Tim and Thoughtbubble went way beyond most technical seminars, bringing the content to life and making an enjoyable educational day for anyone with an interest in Google and SEO.” – Xavier Adam, Managing Director, AMC Network
The idea when writing the seminar was to develop new, efficient and enjoyable ways in which to cover the following points, and it certainly looks like I’ve succeeded:
Google is the Daddy
Why search engine optimisation should be a priority for any business or body with a web presence; search engines are the source of the majority of web traffic and, in most countries *one* search engine is the source of the majority of web traffic. No prizes for guessing which one…
An early look at how search engines do work from the perspective of how they don’t work; some of the mistakes most of us have made when addressing SEO for the very first time. I need to work on extracting audience experiences in this section and the next; many people are too embarrassed to admit to things like cupboard love (e.g. thinking that spending money on AdWords will have a direct and positive impact on organic performance in the main database). They need to know why pencils have erasers and other cliches.
Why the next step (hiring someone else to deal with it) can also fraught with peril and why many of the little and large deceptions in the SEO industry exist. This time we look at how search optimisation works from the perspective of how it doesn’t work. Just one example: “Solve your SEO problems with PPC!” is like saying “Solve your cheese problems with chalk!”
A back-to-basics exercise where we take a look at how search engines have evolved so far and, crucially, why. Future success in search engines relies on your understanding that search engines continue to evolve in a clear direction where actual relevance and a genuine reputation matter more as each year passes.
The meat in the sandwich for many people; in this section we take a look at issues involving indexability and the concept of coordinating your relevance behind a generic keyword strategy that is scaled in a way that earns you traffic now, and stands to earn you even more traffic as your reputation improves.
This section aims to demystify link popularity and give you a better understanding of the different ways in which web users influence search results. The case studies involve websites that have successfully used viral, community and/or weblog marketing and link generation techniques in pursuit of queries that earn ten thousand, a hundred thousand and a million searches each month in the UK alone.
I’ve found in the past that the most productive part of a seminar can be any period where I shut up and allow questions; Google 4 Grown-Ups has a whole *afternoon* dedicated to specific questions from members of the audience about their website, their optimisation and/or their overall online marketing strategy.
What you should walk away with after the event is not only a better understanding of search engine optimisation, but the ability to better explain your needs and goals to others.
In terms of specific skills, the event also teaches you:
– How to form a keyword strategy that will last for years
– How to deploy that strategy so it brings in immediate returns
– How to structure that strategy so it brings in ever-increasing returns, with link popularity being your only variable
– What to consider when deciding the best method of link generation for your website
Now, some concepts within the seminar are more difficult to grasp than others, but overall the only confusion arose from minor but occasionally vital specifics that an old pro like me takes for granted, so the one thing that’s going to be different about the next event is the availability of a glossary.
I’m also tempted to run as a trial a ‘clicker’ system that lets me know immediately when people in the audience are confused, but does not overly disrupt the flow of any given section. Party clickers used to sell at 20p an item, but they appear to have gone out of fashion and returned as dog-training clickers at a pound and 20p an item, but all the same my mind keeps taking me back to a lecturer I knew who used these to gauge (click-click) when he should provide a little extra information here and there, and (click-click-clickety-click-click-click) when he should go back and explain something very, very carefully.
Other than that, it appears that the only thing that can improve the event is the same thing that gets you to Carnegie Hall; practice, practice, practice.
And with that in mind, I’m very much looking forward to the next event so I can make it even better.