Mod Hat On (That Means Pay Attention)

[JenNipps]

I thought about sending this in a PM, but there are frankly too many people involved and

I have done my darnedest to keep up with everything in this board. The last two weeks, things went crazy and I've been playing catch-up since I got back from a conference. So things went haywire in one thread in particular.

Personally, I thank Medievalist and veinglory in their efforts in the Examiner thread. Yes, Mac closed it. No, I will not hear requests to reopen it. It will stay closed.

You know how in school when a few kids acted up but the whole class got in trouble?

That's how it is.

Before I was gone for almost a full week, I had been making attempts to redirect, reinform, and split off-topic or possibly contentious posts in that thread. There were things that could be of benefit to everyone, such as the tax stuff, so those went into their own separate thread.

Now for a bit of information:

RankforSales.com (http://www.rankforsales.com) defines SEO (Search Engine Optimization) as:
The true definition of Search Engine Optimization (http://www.rankforsales.com/) (SEO) can be stated as a highly specialized process of building a successful website.
While I'm at it, since they've also been brought up, here is a definition for SEM from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_marketing) (I realize there are more reliable sources, but this is put together rather quickly on my part.):
Search engine marketing, or SEM, is a form of Internet marketing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_marketing) that seeks to promote websites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Website) by increasing their visibility in search engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine) result pages (SERPs) through the use of paid placement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_per_click), contextual advertising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextual_advertising), and paid inclusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paid_inclusion).For more information on SEO and SEM, do a search on Google (http://www.google.com/).

Some of you have used the acronym of "SEV," which I find no reference for in the various search engines I used other than in relation to something in Russia or to a Spanish society.

Now you have your definitions, which, as I recall from re-reading the entire (50+ pages) thread, Medievalist and veinglory tried to tell you repeatedly. Several of you said they were wrong.

Am I?

Are the search engines?

Are the dictionaries?

I really do not care what Examiner is or is not, what it was or was not intended to be. What I do know, what I do care about, is that it is not something I wish to be involved with any longer. If they encourage the spread of such blatant misinformation in their user forums, I wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole.

But that's neither here nor there.

What the point is that everyone who participated in that brouhaha, and I was quite surprised at some of the names I saw in the arguments, has done nothing but complain, argue, and in general gripe about what some people call the Examiner platform, what Mac chose to name this particular board, and some of the decisions that have been made because of that.

Apparently behind-the-scenes stuff doesn't work with a lot of you and you need in-your-face stuff.

Well here's the in-your-face part of it. Are you happy now?

Good. Because I'm not.

And if the decision is ever made to close this board, I will not argue against it just based on the fiasco in the last pages of that thread.

[herdon]

I must say, this is a rather curious post.

I don't know what all the fuss was about in the other thread but it seemed to me that it was closed because of the SEO discussion. I didn't see anything all that out of hand, but I only read the last page or so of responses having mostly ignored the thread for the most part.

Anyway, I find it odd that the thread was closed seemingly because of the SEO discussion and yet this post seems to be starting the same thing up again.

I will say that your SEO definition is pretty funny considering it comes from SEO consultants. Of course they want to make everyone think that hiring them is a requirement ;)

[SouthernFriedJulie]

I only read the last page or so of responses having mostly ignored the thread for the most part.

Anyway, I find it odd that the thread was closed seemingly because of the SEO discussion and yet this post seems to be starting the same thing up again.

I will say that your SEO definition is pretty funny considering it comes from SEO consultants. Of course they want to make everyone think that hiring them is a requirement ;)


Don't be disrespectful. This is a post by a mod in the forum she took on to help keep peace. And you yourself said you mostly ignored the thread.

While I've been an ass in other threads, this type of response is known as trolling. No one on AW likes trolling.

It has been stated in other threads I've read that this is NOT a democracy. Mac owns this board and she chooses the Mods. Don't like it? Tough. Don't like what the mods do? Take it to Mac, don't try to make yourself into the 'Cool Kid' that 'took the staff on'.

Because, frankly, no one gives a darn.

[blueobsidian]

Well, I was the jerk who took things over the line. I apologized in a PM to Medievalist for a completely uncalled for personal attack and I thought I should state it here too. I was in a lousy mood thanks to something completely outside AW, and for some reason I came online. I actually came back to delete or edit my last post and discovered it had been taken care of for me. It was completely tasteless and I'm sorry.

Although, I'm a little confused that the original post states that everyone who participated in the nonsense complained about this board. I never even commented about the new name. I really hope that people know this was me being stupid one time and I generally behave better than this.

I also hope that Examiner isn't villified in this debacle. I've actually never participated in an Examiner forum nor have I ever seen them spread what you would deem as false information. It erupted in their thread, but it doesn't represent their staff or purpose.

[JenNipps]

While this may sound condescending, and I do apologize for that in advance, earlier I had absolutely no intentions of replying to anything posted in this thread. However, I will address a few things.

I must say, this is a rather curious post.

I don't know what all the fuss was about in the other thread but it seemed to me that it was closed because of the SEO discussion. I didn't see anything all that out of hand, but I only read the last page or so of responses having mostly ignored the thread for the most part.

Anyway, I find it odd that the thread was closed seemingly because of the SEO discussion and yet this post seems to be starting the same thing up again.

I will say that your SEO definition is pretty funny considering it comes from SEO consultants. Of course they want to make everyone think that hiring them is a requirement ;)

Herdon, it doesn't matter if it's a "curious" post. What matters is the basic rules of the board were blatantly ignored by several people. The main rule is this: Respect your fellow writer. Another rule is that Mod decisions are not open for discussion.

That said, if you have a better definition for SEO/SEM than what is posted, by all means, please do share it. The definition may well be provided by an SEO consulting firm, but it is the most concise definition I was able to find.

Well, I was the jerk who took things over the line. I apologized in a PM to Medievalist for a completely uncalled for personal attack and I thought I should state it here too. I was in a lousy mood thanks to something completely outside AW, and for some reason I came online. I actually came back to delete or edit my last post and discovered it had been taken care of for me. It was completely tasteless and I'm sorry.

Although, I'm a little confused that the original post states that everyone who participated in the nonsense complained about this board. I never even commented about the new name. I really hope that people know this was me being stupid one time and I generally behave better than this.

I also hope that Examiner isn't villified in this debacle. I've actually never participated in an Examiner forum nor have I ever seen them spread what you would deem as false information. It erupted in their thread, but it doesn't represent their staff or purpose.

No, the original post doesn't state everyone who participated in the thread complained about the name of the board. What it does say is remember how in school when a few kids acted up in class, the whole class got the reprimand? That's what this is.

I honestly have no way of knowing what is or is not promoted on the Examiner forums. Nor do I have any intentions of finding out at this point. The point is that even though blatant misinformation was corrected several times, it was ignored and argued. Not just by you, Kim, but by several.

----------

I honestly prefer to take care of things by redirects and behind the scenes. Most of the time, that works. I don't know about anyone else, but I do not like in-your-face type of confrontations. I do what I can to avoid them, which means I did not think this was avoidable.

I will not let this become a troll playground. I will not let anyone flame anyone else. I will not back down.

There are some obvious large assumptions on my part in the first post. I did that with a purpose: to make a point. The fact that you all replied is proof to me that it worked.

I have some assignments and new duties that came back from the conference with me. I'm trying to do those and mod the best that I can. I'm bound to make some mistakes. When I do, I will admit it and make amends when and where appropriate.

What all that means is that I expect people here to behave as adults and do some self-policing. Time will tell if that's too much to ask, but I don't think it is.

Let's get back to the original business at hand, though, OK.

[blueobsidian]

What the point is that everyone who participated in that brouhaha, and I was quite surprised at some of the names I saw in the arguments, has done nothing but complain, argue, and in general gripe about what some people call the Examiner platform, what Mac chose to name this particular board, and some of the decisions that have been made because of that.


This is the paragraph that I was refering to. Take out some of the clauses and you may see my confusion. I could only assume that I was one of the targeted people you were speaking of because my post was the only one deleted. So I chose to apologize. Apparently that was a bad decision because now I feel that I am being reprimanded on THAT. Did I do it wrong?

I know you can't know what Examiner talks about, which is why I chose to defend them. It is not the fault of the site (or even most of the writers) that a few of us got out of hand.

If SEO isn't something that writers can use, why not just call the board "Content Sites and Blogging Networks"?

[SouthernFriedJulie]

If SEO isn't something that writers can use, why not just call the board "Content Sites and Blogging Networks"?

It is and we can. We all have differing ideas of what it is and how to use it.

I think the problem is just how the conversation went.

Not long ago I got a time out from AW for the same type of thing, only I took it much further than you and behaved badly.

Agreeing ti disagree is fine, discussion is fine, and I for one think that by apologizing- you've been very adult about it. Just don't beat a dead horse, cuz, um, that's necro-beasty :-)

Sorry, just trying to lighten things up.

[JenNipps]

This is the paragraph that I was refering to. Take out some of the clauses and you may see my confusion. I could only assume that I was one of the targeted people you were speaking of because my post was the only one deleted. So I chose to apologize. Apparently that was a bad decision because now I feel that I am being reprimanded on THAT. Did I do it wrong?

I know you can't know what Examiner talks about, which is why I chose to defend them. It is not the fault of the site (or even most of the writers) that a few of us got out of hand.

If SEO isn't something that writers can use, why not just call the board "Content Sites and Blogging Networks"?

No, you didn't do wrong. Remember I said I made some gross assumptions for the sake of making a point. Yes, that could be said as being the same as painting everyone with the same brush, and it was perhaps not as effective as I thought it would be at the time of posting. What I should have said is that a lot of the people were the same, but not everyone.

I was working on a post about SEO/SEM definitions and that they can be used as a tool in writing at the same time you were posting this, so I do agree they can be used. As with any tool, though, it is possible to be too liberal with using it.

It is and we can. We all have differing ideas of what it is and how to use it.

I think the problem is just how the conversation went.

Not long ago I got a time out from AW for the same type of thing, only I took it much further than you and behaved badly.

Agreeing ti disagree is fine, discussion is fine, and I for one think that by apologizing- you've been very adult about it. Just don't beat a dead horse, cuz, um, that's necro-beasty :-)

Sorry, just trying to lighten things up.

OK. The "necro-beasty" made me actually laugh out loud. :)

[herdon]

Don't be disrespectful. This is a post by a mod in the forum she took on to help keep peace. And you yourself said you mostly ignored the thread.

While I've been an ass in other threads, this type of response is known as trolling. No one on AW likes trolling.

I wasn't being disrespectful. I found it quite curious that a discussion would be opened up on seemingly the same topic as the one that was closed. Should I feel free to discuss SEO in depth in this thread? Or should we be shying away from the topic? Or was SEO not the reason the other topic was closed? Etc.

Anyway, while I appreciate you raising the defense for the admins and mods, but I've been coming here for about 5 or more years and I've got this crazy idea that I'm free to voice my opinions so long as I'm nice about it.

[SouthernFriedJulie]

Should I feel free to discuss SEO in depth in this thread?

No.

This is a sticky explaining why a thread was closed.

There is a thread lower down titled SEO/SEV. Knock yourself out.

[herdon]

Herdon, it doesn't matter if it's a "curious" post. What matters is the basic rules of the board were blatantly ignored by several people. The main rule is this: Respect your fellow writer. Another rule is that Mod decisions are not open for discussion.


That's exactly what makes the post curious. I'm fine with the other discussion being closed. Let people cool off. It's all good. I just don't know what this thread is for. Are we free to discuss SEO here? Was it even SEO that made things get heated? Or was it something specific to Examiner.com?

Anyway, I'm not going to read through the whole thread just to see what got everything rolling. I'll assume discussing SEO is fair game.


That said, if you have a better definition for SEO/SEM than what is posted, by all means, please do share it. The definition may well be provided by an SEO consulting firm, but it is the most concise definition I was able to find.


I just don't see that the definition given by them really says anything other than being marketing speak for "you need to hire us." The problem is that not every website needs SEO.

As for how I would define it, I'd say it is self defining. It is the process of optimizing a website and/or content to be "search engine friendly" in order to allow the website and/or content to do well in the SERPS (Search Engine Result Pages).

Thus, by its very definition, SEO cannot be "bad" for search engine rankings. If it is 'bad' then it is not 'optimized'.

I think one thing that those who are new to web writing and thus new to the concept of SEO can sometimes misunderstand is the fact that quality is the cornerstone of great SEO. While it is important to know the basic rules of SEO, it is quality content that will bring the incoming links and incoming links from websites with a high page rank are how you get on page one of Google.

But at the same time, an average article with great SEO can easily trump a great article with poor SEO. The best article in the world won't get much traffic if the only keyword phrase Google can latch onto only gets 102 searches a month.

And, like many things in life, good SEO often boils down to a balancing act.

[JenNipps]

I wasn't being disrespectful. I found it quite curious that a discussion would be opened up on seemingly the same topic as the one that was closed. Should I feel free to discuss SEO in depth in this thread? Or should we be shying away from the topic? Or was SEO not the reason the other topic was closed? Etc.

Anyway, while I appreciate you raising the defense for the admins and mods, but I've been coming here for about 5 or more years and I've got this crazy idea that I'm free to voice my opinions so long as I'm nice about it.

No, SEO is not why the other thread was closed. The other thread was closed for, as was mentioned here (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3573148&postcount=1255):

That's enough.

No one has to listen to anyone else, no one has to share their experience, and no one deserves to be snarked at simply for contradicting the glad-handing, high-fiving circle-jerk. Medievalist hasn't insulted anyone regardless of the fact that she's disagreed with some of you. In turn, she doesn't deserve to be insulted because someone disagrees with her.

I'm actually closing this thread because, quite frankly, I've no interest in watching AW spread misinformation, simply because the least-informed shout down anyone who contradicts them.

You are correct in saying that you can freely express your opinion. However, and I say this again, mod/admin decisions are not open for discussion/debate. The thread has been closed. It will remain closed. End of discussion.

SEO/SEM/SEV was not the reason the thread was closed. For proof of that, look at the title of this board and the other discussions ongoing, one of which I started myself this evening, on that exact topic.

[cllorentson]

\
SEO/SEM/SEV was not the reason the thread was closed. For proof of that, look at the title of this board and the other discussions ongoing, one of which I started myself this evening, on that exact topic.


What does this mean for writers who want to talk about Examiner.com, though? I have read and re-read the discussion, and yes, a handful of posters maybe got out of hand talking about SEO, but I feel like I'm missing something here. There were a LOT of writers contributing to the Examiner topic, which is what the thread was supposed to be about. An SEO discussion, which probably didn't belong there in the first place, got out of hand, and as a result the thread is now closed. I guess what I don't understand is why the SEO discussion now gets rewarded with its own thread, but the Examiner thread is taboo.

Are the writers who write for Examiner allowed to start a new thread? I know it's not a democracy, but I just don't understand what happened here. The classroom analogy doesn't seem to fit here, only because when a student acts up in a classroom, and gets the whole class in trouble, the class is actually there, present, and perhaps silently complicit in the actions of the student.

But in the case of a forum, it seems unfair that we're all getting punished for the actions of a few. I posted in the forum a couple of days ago, then I come back today and the forum is completely closed, due to something neither I nor most of the other posters were involved in.

May we start a new thread for it? Is that allowed? It just seems like such a shame that we don't have a place to post.

[JenNipps]

There are a couple other threads here about Examiner.com. Feel free to use one of those, but everyone who participates in it should know it will be closely watched because of what happened in the other one.

[MacAllister]

I just opened an examiner-general thread for you guys. We'll give this one more try with a fresh thread to start out in.