Thought: When is criticism real, and when is it only a linkbait?
I have been thinking about trends in the online world where it is easy to call any criticism a piece of writing that is not worthy of anyone’s time. Imagine you wrote an article talking about how bad your employer is, and I wrote an article saying that the only reason you criticized your employer on your blog was to gain traffic for your site. What would you think?
I wonder if such a thing is justified. I also wonder if there is any absolute way to make sure something was written with some good intentions, or if something was written only to generate traffic for one’s site. Without such an “absolute way“, it can be hard for anyone to criticize anyone else and not be labeled as a person who criticizes others just to gain publicity and traffic.
Example: Connor Wilson saying that Franky criticized Matt Mullenweg only to get traffic
I was reading a blog post by Connor Wilson recently, in which Connors was opposed to the idea of a guy called Franky criticizing Matt Mullenweg regarding the issue of banning sponsored WordPress themes for the WordPress platform. In the post, Connor also said the following:
Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.Don’t call Matt a hypocrite, don’t stick your Splashpress sponsored nose into the open source business of WordPress and don’t attempt to use Matt Mullenweg, who is basically the face of WordPress, as leverage for traffic. UNLESS you get off of the software and move to an alternative.
If you have such a moral dilemma with the creators, move on to a company with an app that is ethically satisfying, to you.
In the above quote, Connor said that Franky should not use the name of Matt in order to generate traffic for Franky’s site. That made me think: how can one be sure that a blog article really intends to be critical, and how can one be sure when a blog article was written simply to attract traffic? Is there a way to prove that something was written to be critical, or if something was written only to generate traffic? The same idea can be applied to Franky’s post; how can we know he really got affected by Matt’s decision on sponsored WordPress themes, since he is still using the WordPress software on the very site he criticized Matt on?
Some people criticize in order to be heard. Others criticize to get website traffic. Yet others combine the two to get both.
There is nothing wrong with producing quality content and expecting incoming traffic. That is why whenever there is a critical analysis about something, one of the questions that comes to my mind is “Why is he or she interested in this topic?” Similarly, when a post is not a critical analysis and is instead simply criticism about something, I wonder about the same question. Sometimes, people write articles simply to impress readers and generate traffic. Other times, people criticize others because they actually feel they are not satisfied with something.
Is there a way to find out when a blog post was written only to get traffic, or if it was written with at least a little bit intention of sincerely talking about some issue?
That makes me wonder if there is any good way to figure out when a criticizing article was written to be only a linkbait, and when a criticizing article was written because there was something useful to write about. Can I say that Connor was only trying to generate traffic for his site by criticizing Franky, or can I say that Franky was only trying to generate traffic for his site by criticizing Matt? Can they both be sincerely criticizing something they are not happy with? Or could they both be using different names simply to attract traffic? How can you be sure that this very post of mine that you are reading was not written only to generate traffic?
Is it ever possible to criticize someone else without being called a person who only wants publicity and nothing else?
Are stereotyping or misinterpreting writing which criticizes someone or something we value to be written only to generate traffic and for no other benefit? Is writing something to generate traffic always bad? How can we ever criticize anyone or anything without worrying that someone out there may think that we are criticizing intentionally only to get attention for our website? Is anything that is done to earn money or get something like blog traffic not good at all? What level of scale or analysis can be used online to find out the answer?
The answer can very easy or hard, depending on whether or not we have experience with such things in both the online and the offline world.
Loading ...
( July 19th, 2007 at 3:38 pm )
Don’t we all write in the hope to get traffic and some links.
Call everything linkbait? Too easy. Linkbait is the most overused term when it comes to blogging and having nothing to say.
I still think wordpress.org should become a charity as Connor puts it.
( July 19th, 2007 at 5:27 pm )
I agree with Franky on the fact that everyone would like everything to be link bait.
However, how can you say WordPress should become a charity (as I put it) when they need to make an honest living too, just like those sponsored theme submitters. The difference? WordPress helps people and is a great piece of the web. Sponsored themes are just lazy link spammers with deeps pockets thinking there will be SEO benefits.
( July 19th, 2007 at 5:40 pm )
Connor, maybe I wasn’t clear enough when differentiating between wp.org and wp.com.
ORG is open source. COM is a business, directly benefiting from any edit to the .ORG source code. And that’s where the hypocrisy is IMO.
I totally agree with the spammy quality of 98% or more (sponsored or not) submitted designs. But there also have been killer designs, based on link bulding or with only one sponsored link.
If the viewer/directory is considered being part of .ORG, the open source community (no it isn’t, Matt owns the domain), I think the community has to work it out and not one person making a black/white judgment, based on his wider popularity. Of course if Matt says ‘black’ he finds a majority of support. Think there wouldn’t be any support for Matt if he said that sponsored themes are OK?
On another note, hit me up please, you’ve got my email.
( July 19th, 2007 at 8:31 pm )
There are many forms of linkbait, but not all are going to work, which is why I myself do not like it when people say, “You just wrote this to get traffic, didn’t you?”
Is it wrong to want people reading your material? Hardly. But what if some guy had a bunch of ads and wrote the linkbait article to get ad views. Would that same person who criticized linkbait say, “You wrote this post to get some more money, didn’t you?”
I myself am guilty of doing something mostly for linkbait. I wrote the WP Ajax Edit Comments for RA Project with the main purpose of getting links back to RA Project. Am I ashamed at that? Heck no. I gave to the awesome WP community, and the WP community was kind enough to give back. I didn’t trick anyone into linking to the site, and RA Project is all the better for it.
So is linkbait bad in my opinion? No. It’s only bad when the readers pay for such a practice through trickery and manipulation.
( July 20th, 2007 at 7:08 am )
I’m sure everyone if not most people who have a site, or rather, a blog would like to have some traffic.. or a lot of traffic or wouldn’t it be useless? Unless its a private blog..I’m sure its a bit of both.. and most likely the statement made is what the person believes in, unless otherwise stated.
( July 20th, 2007 at 4:10 pm )
Franky, thank you for coming and commenting. I really appreciate it.
Yes, a lot of blog content is produced in order to get some attention of some sort, even if it is in a closed group like a password-protected entry. Linkbait is indeed abused a lot as I hinted above, and sometimes even a very good article or a critical analysis is written to both communicate an idea or a message and to also get traffic for something.
Can you explain a bit by your idea of how wordpress and charity go hand in hand?
Also, I think many businesses simply choose a domain suffix like .com or .org depending on how it looks. For example, MoveableType.org uses a .org domain name and at the same time it is commercial too, making money.
I also think that the community should have a say and that banning is not the answer; curbing out spam is the answer in this, as many people want want to use sponsored themes to earn an honest living.
Connor Wilson, thank you also for coming and explaining. I really appreciate it.
You bring up an excellent point: WordPress can make an honest living too, just like sponsored theme authors. However, I personally think two things: sponsored themes which use link spamming techniques and are full of spamming links and are built only to promote certain specific spammy businesses should be targeted in a plan to reduce or eliminate [very hard] all spammy wordpress themes, and in my view, only spammers should be targeted while normal or non-spamming sponsored theme developers, who want to earn a living, should not be penalized.
Do you think there is a way to have a mass-protest against all spamming sponsored wordpress themes and at the same time, allow non-spammy-linked sponsored wordpress themes to breathe with us too? That way, both sides can come at a solution, and the innocent people caught right in the middle can benefit too.
Thanks Connor!
Ronald, you just commented to get traffic, didn’t you?
Just kidding. I think it can be completely normal to want to have people read our material. Good point about the posting-for-money linkbait criticism, where anyone writing something good but earning money can be criticized for doing it only for money.
Yes, linkbait can be bad if people are manipulated, like being told that some sponsored wordpress themes are good when they are in fact not, or being told that all sponsored wordpress themes are bad when in reality not all of the sponsored themes are bad. People need to make up their own mind; we can simply educate others and ourselves.
For example, Franky talking about this topic the way he is can be ok if he has no financial interest in this, or even a linkbait/traffic interest. Otherwise, if Franky has any conflict of interest, then it is manipulation and he is manipulating others. Same thing with my opinion on such an issue. Similarly, if Connor and you have no financial interest in this, then talking about it with logic and wanting to get traffic is better than talking about it without declaring one’s personal financial interest, as is the case with Matt’s comments on the issue of sponsored WordPress theme where he has financial interest in the final outcome of the sponsored theme issue.
Linbait is simply a concept; it has been overused and abused so much that people think linkbait = evil. “Do not say the L word anyone!“, as Bes jokingly said.
Vera, thanks for the comment.
Good point, that a blog can survive only when it has traffic, and without traffic, it may prove to be a waste of time for a blogger who may want to earn money through traffic, or who may want to express something, or who may want to combine the two, or even something else.
About the “statement made is what the person believes in“, could you explain that a bit more please? I think I understand, though I want to know more what you had in mind if that is ok.
Thanks again.
( July 20th, 2007 at 4:25 pm )
I think all themes, if they want to be released massively and be popular, no matter the quality, should be devoid of sponsored links. WordPress theme developer/designer? Want to make money? TAKE CLIENTS!
90% of all my freelance jobs are WordPress based. It’s out there.
Cutline, for example is a great free theme. Franky and I both use it, in fact. Linking back to Chris Pearson comes out of respect and appreciation for the great theme. If I didn’t say it, no one would be able to tell at first glance I use Cutline, but I still link out. It’s that attitude that needs to be had by free theme users.
( July 20th, 2007 at 4:32 pm )
Hi Bes,
thank you for your answer. I could write a novel now, but I will stick to a link and a quote from the Mambo/Joomla history.
We, the development team, have serious concerns about the Mambo Foundation and its relationship to the community. We believe the future of Mambo should be controlled by the demands of its users and the abilities of its developers. The Mambo Foundation is designed to grant that control to Miro, a design that makes cooperation between the Foundation and the community impossible.
Right now Automattic has EVERY power. Automattic is a business. Wordpress(.org), as a platform, is open source and community based. Who guarantees me that Automattic won’t change the license tomorrow, just as MT did. Hence my call to release the name/trademark to the community. And then a foundation/charity is the only option to warrant long term community based concept.
Connor, indirectly we fight the same case.
(And I’ll soon get back to you)
And totally forgotten, my entry was not linkbait, but purely my own opinion. Of course when writing on several blogs, one choses the most appropriate one. And if an entry becomes perfect linkbait, that is welcome, but I never try to create linkbait. I wouldn’t follow up entries on other blogs otherwise.
( July 22nd, 2007 at 1:04 pm )
Connor Wilson, thank you again for the response.
Now that makes even more sense, since you offer an alternative business that you think those sponsored theme business people should think of relocating to. I wonder if sponsored theme authors simply feel their business model works for them, or if they feel too much competition in the actual paid clients market? I am not sure, since I have not looked into that. Sure, some or many people may not agree since they may ask why they are being told to quit their business, but now we have a solution, basically saying that ad-sponsored themes should be dropped and paid theme clients should be taken instead. I like your approach on this.
You are an example of that, like you pointed out, that WordPress can bring in direct paid clients. I prefer a solution with “Hey, here’s a replacement way to make money. Sounds good?” than “Don’t make money through this and simply go away.” At least now the negotiations can begin, since we are also considering the money factor for the other side.
Good points, thanks Connor.
Franky, thank you again also for your response.
Nice example quote. I see the point you are trying to show, regarding Automattic controlling everything, or most of the things. Do you know if the main Joomla team is only making money through the ads on the Joomla forum, or if they have something else running to generate income too?
Regarding your initial post and the original topic of linkbait, thanks for answering that too. If I understand this correctly, in your view, if a post offers a sincere opinion, whether from a person or something like an ad from a service or a company, it is probably not written only as a linkbait.
Good point about follow ups too.
Thank you.
( July 22nd, 2007 at 1:37 pm )
Bes,
Joomla is entirely donation/sponsor/ad based. More on that at the opensourcematters FAQ.
If I discover a sense of honesty in an article, I will rarely qualify it as linkbait. What is linkbait to me?
Lists, written for digg or whatever platform.
Unexpected flames, timely not placed in a surrounding. My flame at Wisdump was based on Matt’s post and decision.
Senseless flames. Sometimes someones flames to linkbait, without actually having a point.
And to make everything clear. I have no financial interest in using WP nor have I ever released a (sponsored) theme. Also, I don’t agree with theme authors encoding adsense, adult spam links aso, but I have no problem with themers releasing quality sponsored or link based themes (read only one visible and G-rated link).
( July 27th, 2007 at 10:11 pm )
Franky, thanks for explaining. I like your concept of unexpected and senseless flames.
Also, your last paragraph is nice, and it should hopefully clarify more things to other people about your original post at Wisdump.
Thanks for explaining.
( November 1st, 2007 at 12:40 am )
[...] by an increasing number of people. On my other site, I talked before about the possibility of linkbait and real criticism coming so close together, that the difference can appear to be nonexistent, even if there is a huge space and difference [...]