Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott
Here we are discussing a proposed method of evaluating web page authority, and personal attacks just devalue the thread.
|
Is it permissible to discuss an issue
related to the original post, having to do with whether an A-List blogger has any responsibility whatsoever to try and retain
some semblance of journalistic integrity, even though it is generally understood that they aren't held to the same standards as other publications? This isn't meant as a personal attack per se, but there really is no nice way to spin what Rand did with that post, you know?
I think it was highly irresponsible for someone with the type of readership and following that Rand has to post what he did, and even more so when the slightest bit of research shows that he obviously was wrong.
I posted a portion of what I found in his comments. Here's an edited version:
Quote:
Aviva itself appears to rank in the 900's for [web directory], out of 800,000,000 results. That phrase has an allinanchor: of 2,630,000. [search engine optimization] only has an allinanchor of 413,000.
Despite how you might want to spin it, for whatever reason, I think you have to give them some kind of credit, wouldn't you agree? They rank in the top 0.0001 percentile for an industry that is what appears to be 6 times more competitive than yours.
...
... they rank in the Top 200 for [real estate directory]... are you saying that they would be a waste of time for real estate webmasters to pursue that kind of relevancy? They are #202 for [shopping directory], in the 400's for [business directory], in the 200's for [insurance directory]...
...
"Good thing we checked"... please.
|
If you want to post some random theory, thought, or opinion, then fine, that is your right. But if you are going to take the status you have built up for yourself as somewhat of an authority in the field and use it to tear apart someones livelihood, then I would think that you had better make
damn sure you have your facts straight.
-Michael