Its the weekend and what better time time to catch up on some comments here at DJI.
Jason Calacanis decided to weigh in on a post I did a few months ago, wherein I took exception to the shrill tone of the anti-PPP rhetoric. I also ranted a little about how A-list bloggers didn’t “get” blue-collar blogging types [which got picked up by Lorelle] I make it a habit of replying back on my blog whenever possible, and comments on my blog or no exception.
This was Jason’s reply:
What a joke… a couple of years ago Scoble, Jarvis, and I were the blue collar bloggers! We were hustling trying to get our vocies heard and a couple of years later–after blogging daily/hourly–the supposed “A List” got some traction and attention.
Here is a tip: THEY EARNED IT!!! They busted their butts for years blogging in an intelligent way. They were not given their seats at the table–they took them!
There is no “A List” — it’s a myth.
There are people who blog every day, have something intelligent to say, and who get linked to more than the folks that are some combination of a) new, b) have little to say, and c)are not hustling.
If you want to be part of the A List you can do it in [the message truncates here]
And this is my opinion:
You know what’s a joke? Being so far removed from ordinary bloggers that you don’t think there is an “A-list”.
Listen, I’m not disparaging the fact that you, Scoble, Jarvis (and a host of others) are not hardworking. Far from it.
But there are intangibles that you all bring to the table that most people don’t have; and I think it speaks to the fact that even though you guys do have the credentials (Jarvis), the connections (Scoble), or the publicity/notoriety (you — from Weblogs) that you *still* have to work so hard says something.
Blogging is damn hard work, and harder still when you have kids to feed and are working lousy hours at work — and you don’t have the connections, notoriety or credentials to fuel your blogs success.
And let’s not discount it. When you have the ability to meet people most people don’t; when you have the inside track before most people do; and when you are actually *creating* news as most of us *can’t*, that’s what really separates “A-listers” from the rest of us.
I’ve come a long way in blogging, but I’m not blind to the fact that the vast majority of bloggers — even those who bring something new, refreshing, and regular to the table — may find barriers to blogging success in spite of hard work or their talent. I’d like to believe in the democracy of blogging, but the fact is that there are certain advantages that some bloggers have that others don’t. Not having them doesn’t mean you can’t be an A-lister, but I have yet to find one that didn’t have any.
The “A-list” exists, and it exists naturally. Do I think some of them “call it in”? Sure. But some of them also continue to blog just as hard as they do when they first started. But to think that a natural stratification doesn’t exist — or if it does, is easy to penetrate if you “are good and work hard” — is quite frankly, blind and a little arrogant.
[Yes, I am referring to your “how-to be an A-list recipe” with regards to Techmeme].
[And yes, I’m also referring to 2007, not 1997, or even 2002 when there were a tenth (hundredth? thousandth?) as many blogs competing]
March 17th, 2007 at 2:34 pm | Permalink
Tony, just left this comment on the original post but then realized you created a brand new one responding to Mr. Calacanis so…
>>>
I get the feeling (though I could be wrong) that Jason reacted more to the title of this post rather than the substance, which is sympathetic to those who would contract themselves with PPP with the idea of honestly taking on writing assignments for whatever wage.
So there are several issues here, as I see it:
* Is there an A List and an Everyone Else List?
Yeah, I think there is, due to a consensus of factors mentioned by both Tony and Jason: hard work, hustling, great ideas, consistency, original reporting etc. AND there are some natural advantages that some current A Listers used and use to their advantage, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
* Are there barriers to reaching the A List?
There are, and I think there are probably more now than ever before. It’s still possible but I think doing all the right things (busting one’s ass, etc.) doesn’t necessarily get you over the top in 2007.
* Is it okay for bloggers to sign up with PPP?
(This in my view was what the original post was about). I’m not a fan of PPP, think it’s dangerous to the credibility of the blogosphere, but if people want to sign up and be super transparent about the practice, I don’t have a problem with it.
>>
I would humbly add one more issue to the equation:
* What does being an A Lister mean?
Is it being popular in terms of traffic? Influential in terms of having the ability to affect and direct the blogospheric conversation? Does it mean attaining the notoriety to grab speaking engagements and keynote addresses and such? Or is it the ability to flat-out make money from blogging?
March 17th, 2007 at 3:04 pm | Permalink
The “A” list itself is a vague definition. It also gets back on why a blogger is blogging.
“A” list could mean (to a blue collar blogger): make enough money from ads so you can quit your day job. And as we’ve seen from some articles regarding how even Guy Kawasaki and Dave Winer don’t make tons of money, plus how little blogging pays as a profession.
Many people in the middle - as in - I have a well paying job and use blogging as a hobby, where the money is just secondary - blog for different reasons altogether. My main reasons for following the popularity have to do with the challenge, improving my writing, the ego boost, and getting more feedback on stuff I write.
For me, the A-list blogger is one where you can blog one sentence about a donut and get tons of comments and links, just for opening your mouth.
But what is the common thread? I think what all bloggers want, is just confirmation that they’re being read. That you put a post out there and someone comments or clicks on a link you recommend. I think to an A-list (or B-list) it’s easy to forget where we started when you’d put a post out there and get 0 comments, day after day after day.
So I really agree with what Lorelle said on Blogherald about links every once in a while, to a new blog or a smaller one you’ve never heard of.
I don’t think that’s too much to ask from any blogger - it’s how we got started after all.
March 17th, 2007 at 3:56 pm | Permalink
Not having trackbacks or comments is this age’s equivalent of not returning phone calls.
I do notice Scoble and Techcrunch still have open comments and trackbacks however.
March 17th, 2007 at 7:23 pm | Permalink
[…] Calacanis says that there is no A-list. Tony from Deep Jive Interests says there is. […]
March 17th, 2007 at 7:42 pm | Permalink
Nice post, Tony, although I basically agree with Jason Calacanis on this one. I agree that the A-list (although hard to define) exists. But Jason is pretty much right about how to get in.
Unfortunately, in reality things are not that simple. A blogging career goes through phases of zero -> a few guys read my stuff although I’m not sure why -> wow, my first 100 subscribers -> OK, now I have some traffic, why isn’t the money pouring in yet -> quite big, not a-list yet -> TechCrunch, bite my dust. It can be compared to going from a college band to a rock star. You have to be really good, you need to work hard, you need to be very persistent, you need to have (or earn) some important friends, and, lastly, you need some luck.
Not everyone gets all those, for one reason or another - even people who do write good and do work hard.
March 17th, 2007 at 7:57 pm | Permalink
I don’t think the A-listers need to be criticized for the fact that there is an A-list and there are obstacles to getting there - but recognizing that it’s true seems important. Likewise, it’s important to recognize that the clear majority of people on that A list are white men. Ask a mom to write about breaking tech news with authority and consistency and you likely just aren’t taking the reality of her life into consideration (exceptions not withstanding of course) - it’s more complicated than that even, but the point is, a libertarian “any one can do it” attitude is a politically libertarian perspective, and one I personally disagree with. I like to help people learn how to increase their visibility and effectiveness in the blogosphere, but not everyone has the privilege to simply execute and command attention. i believe that’s the facts of life - but ultimately that’s my opinion, just as the “anyone can do it” stance is a very subjective opinion as well.
As for PPP, I think it’s creepy but am somewhat sympathetic to Tony’s arguments. Presuming disclosure, of course.
March 17th, 2007 at 8:14 pm | Permalink
Hmmmm… I would say, if you don’t like the rules, then change them. Oh, but you can’t. You’re blue collar. Never mind.
March 17th, 2007 at 8:29 pm | Permalink
It exisits. No doubt about it—but I think the reality it that we all have our “personal A-lists” which may not be as outwardly significant to others—but should matter more to us on a personal level.
And like life, it doesn’t get you anywhere to be envious of what other people have. It’s better to be thankful for what we do have, even when we are busting our asses.
March 17th, 2007 at 9:07 pm | Permalink
[…] I commented a bit on Tony Hung’s Deep Jive Interests (I suggest checking out the comments there) but here are some further thoughts, using my own experience as an example. […]
March 17th, 2007 at 9:15 pm | Permalink
I’m only going to ask one question. Can you name 5 bloggers who live outside of the Pacific Northwest, California, Washington DC, and NYC? I have a hard time with that.I can come up with talking points memo, informed comment, and that’s all. Can someone point to a few more?
It strikes me as a certain type of elitism that tech bloggers almost entirely must live in San Francisco, Political bloggers in DC, and Celebrity bloggers in New York or L.A. And yes I know that’s where the action is for those industries. But I was under the impression that the internet was democratize all of this.
Calacanis seems to think that putting him on the “A list” meant that you were demeaning his work. It clearly wasn’t. I think most people that we would consider “A-list” think that it’s a myth. All of us that aren’t on it know that it isn’t a myth.
March 18th, 2007 at 12:17 am | Permalink
Eric,
Some interesting questions you raise.
I think in terms of your last question, being an A-lister isn’t just about traffic numbers, Technorati ranking or Alexa reach … its about influence. I left a similar comment over at Jim Kukral’s blog, but basically real A-listers are able to influence people, events and the news because they can *make* and *create* the news.
Dave Winer starts talking about creating an open source iPod killer? That’s news because he has the connections to get a project like that started, and the fan following to get enough publicity to get interest from early adopters and investors.
That’s A-list.
Cheers
t @ dji
March 18th, 2007 at 12:22 am | Permalink
Webomatica,
Some interesting points. Most saliently, you mention the desire to be read as a motivation for blogging. I’ll go one further and say that most bloggers just want to be heard as a valid voice contributing to a conversation.
We would all like to believe that its possible to be heard (and therefore validated by some kind of reply) by the content of your blog. However, that’s like saying all you need to create a top40 hit is to be a talented singer.
Cheers
t @ dji
March 18th, 2007 at 12:24 am | Permalink
Steve,
People enable and disable trackbacks for all kinds of reasons — I’m sure A-listers have their reasons, but I’ll agree: enabling them is a good thing. How else are people meant to discover other conversations if trackbacks aren’t enabled?
Cheers
t @ dji
March 18th, 2007 at 12:27 am | Permalink
Robert,
Blue Collar or no, taking it up with what is perceived as the very bane of blogging’s existence takes balls. Giant brass balls.
Good for you, sir ;)
Cheers
t @ dji.
March 18th, 2007 at 12:39 am | Permalink
[…] March 17th, 2007 There an interesting argument going on in the blogosphere. Its captured nicely in the exchange between Tony Huang (deep Jive Interest) and Jason Calacanis: […]
March 18th, 2007 at 12:44 am | Permalink
Stan,
Thanks for dropping by.
I have no argument with jason’s strategy — in that it will make a successful, known blogger. But let’s be clear for a second.
It won’t catapult you into the real A-list stratosphere.
Your analogy for rock star status is pretty good, but I don’t think it quite applies to A-listers and the tech blogosphere because the mechanisms which drive it aren’t quite the same.
The music industry has a vested interest in seeing the churning of music and rock stars, so that is apparently new and fresh is available; the presumption is that stale sounds aren’t popular. There is some truth to this.
The blogosphere is different because its self-regulating *AND* the stuff that drives the blogosphere is popularity (i.e. links). If this is the case, then bloggers who create the news, or who are first to break the news, will always have an edge up on bloggers who can’t or not able to. That’s not to say that bloggers can’t find other ways to be popular or get links.
But in the tech-blogosphere its news that gives a blog its *real* juice — opinion comes second. Sometimes its a close second (see Scott Karp), but it will never be higher than news.
A-listers have Juice. Their traffic numbers, Technorati ranking, and all the other metrics are secondary, and *created by* their status as bloggers of influence. They can create the news, and they can report the news.
The rest of us help it along.
My point is not that the A-list crew are *bad* — only that that they never seem to acknowledge that there is a different plane that they exist on, and that “effort” can make good bloggers better, but it will never be able to bridge that distance no matter how hard anyone tries.
Cheers
t @ dji
March 18th, 2007 at 12:47 am | Permalink
Tony - I like your definition of A List, the ability to both make and create news. And that ability implies connections, access, and influence that most ordinary blogger folk don’t have.
Probably most regular and ambitious blue collar bloggers are shooting for B List: lots of traffic, respect and a certain amount of influence within the blogosphere, and a little bit of money to buy off the significant other/family!
March 18th, 2007 at 12:50 am | Permalink
Eric,
I’d settle for the B-list any day. ;)
t @ dji
March 18th, 2007 at 12:53 am | Permalink
Marshall,
Thanks for comments … balanced, as always. ;)
Your points about demographics are an excellent one. I’m still waiting for the day a mid-west former-nurse soccer mom is as revered Scoble in the technosphere based on the strength of her opinion and pithy wit alone.
(if you find her, let me know so we can give her some link love)
Cheers
t @ dji
March 18th, 2007 at 12:53 am | Permalink
Tony - another question based upon your last response to Stan:
Is it possible for ambitious bloggers to work their tails off, network, and build audience/influence/connections to the point of becoming A List?
I would venture that it is possible — which would technically have me agreeing with Jason — but there are significant hurdles to doing this. Further, I would guess that it’s much harder to go from scratch to A List in 2007 than in, say, 2004.
March 18th, 2007 at 12:54 am | Permalink
Hugh,
Your comments about being blue collar as not being able to change the rules betrays an elitest mind set.
That’s all right. I’m sure it was meant to be a joke, right? That’s what you do — jokes. Right? ;)
t @ dji
March 18th, 2007 at 12:59 am | Permalink
Eric,
I think it is. But you would have to make drastic changes to your life and off-line career to do so. If I was a trucker in “real life”, for example, it would be hard, to suddenly pick up and spend all day in or around tech people on-line, or off, in order to create a network worthy enough to be close enough to news-events to be an “a-lister”.
My presumption in all of this is not that its impossible for some people. Its only impossible for bloggers who have real jobs they can’t leave and real families that can’t move who consider blogging a hobby and not a profession.
If you did, then all bets are off — and I will happily concede that to Mr. Calacanis.
Cheers
t @ dji.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:00 am | Permalink
I do agree with this “rock star” analogy. How this becomes classist is like this: Paris Hilton gets to record an album for no reason other than she’s famous and a celebrity.
Many A-list bloggers were already famous before they started blogging. So they didn’t really have to do the relatively hard work many of us did to even get one link or one subscriber.
The only difference is whether or not this is some wrong that must be righted or whether it’s worth losing sleep over, or would I blame this A-list for my relative lack of readership.
But if I think about this class analogy in the “first world” does knowing millionaires who inhereted all their money prove a detriment to me getting up and going to work every morning? I earn a comfortable middle class existence and that’s good enough for me.
Same with blogging. “B-list” all the way… Eric Berlin knows what I’m talking about here…
March 18th, 2007 at 1:01 am | Permalink
David,
I agree. But don’t mistake me for being envious — I am merely commenting on a situation that I saw in the blogosphere.
Rather I commented almost two months ago.
I’m not sure why Jason decided to dredge this argument up of all days this weekend. :P
cheers
t @ dji.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:07 am | Permalink
Webomatica,
I don’t begruge the A-list — they exist because they must exist as a function of individuals who were already the sometimes-powerbrokers, connectors, and rarely, kingmakers, of the web2.0 / tech-side of things.
All I’ve ever said is that they *do* exist, although often times they don’t acknowledge the fact that there is a real fundamental difference. Furthermore, when normal (or “blue collar bloggers”) try and contact them, or do something different, they rarely acknowledge them. Some of that is a function of their popularity and the volume of requests they get — I understand that.
But with the PPP case, many of them didn’t even try and understand it from a different perspective. The paid posting phenomena is more nuanced than the black-and-white crusade that most A-listers rage on and on about, partly because disclosure does exist, albeit in a lame form, and partly because people who use PPP are a very different kind of blogger than A-listers know (or care to know)
Cheers
t @ dji
March 18th, 2007 at 1:08 am | Permalink
Tony, again that’s a good point, and in the end the truth is more complex and nuanced than what would appear to be at first glance.
And I too wondered about Jason’s digging (netscaping?) back to your February piece to kick start the current bruhaha!
Webomatia: If you’re referring to how Blogcritics helps bloggers improve their writing and gain exposure, then I certainly do know what you’re talking about!
March 18th, 2007 at 1:11 am | Permalink
Knots — they exist, but I see the point you’re trying to make, and its a good one. Geography matters because many of them are able to meet in person, whether it be at conferences or what have you.
“Go to conferences once or twice a week / month” — sure, if I live in San Francisco. How about if I live in Toronto? Or Toledo? Or Topeka? (I’m not going to mean Jason’s presuming that we fly to places where many of these conferences are because that would be arrogant and elitest)
Cheers
t @ dji.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:15 am | Permalink
Knots — that quote is directly from Jason’s “how to be an A-lister” –>
http://www.calacanis.com/2007/03/17/the-dumbest-argument-in-the-blogosphere-a-list-vs-blue-collar/
[and I’m going to presume he really meant “2-3 events / conferences per *month* ” … after all, at $200-500 a conference, it would be arrogant and elitest if he meant “per-week”, which I’m going to presume he didn’t]
March 18th, 2007 at 2:35 am | Permalink
Tony,
Like any field, blogging also has its own set of celebrities (the so called A-list) and like any field, it is not easy to get in unless you have solid talent or connections.
Now that doesn’t make PPP a good thing. I agree with Calacanis on PPP. It is similar to prostitution.
If someone writes a blog consistently for a long time and if it is good, readers will naturally follow.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:33 am | Permalink
“I’ll do a lot of listening to figure out …”
Good for you, Robert. But let me point out that asking this question epitomizes what people are talking about in terms of “blue collar” - as in, there’s a lot of people who are just barely scraping by, and aren’t well-off professionals (please, I know, life is tough for everyone, but there’s very different levels). Maybe you can evangelize that understanding to the rest of the A-list.
Oh, it’s not a revelation that “A-list” is per-topic, not global. WE KNOW! This is a comment box, not a book. The problem *you* miss with that, is that the issue is the same in big ponds or small ponds. Further, it’s like saying “You can be the president of the local knitting club, why doesn’t that make you happy, little Z-lister?”. Because sometimes that’s just not much (reply: What’s wrong with the knitting club? I like knitting! Are you against knitting?” - no, but nobody likes being told to stick to knitting and so implicitly to stay away from where the big boys play).
March 18th, 2007 at 8:03 am | Permalink
Well said Seth. Great post Tony.
And Robert “It’s easy to own a niche that you define.”
True. And well…. that’s a mighty lonely place to be isn’t it?
Tony, although you don’t require it, here are additional pieces to back you up:
Clay Shriky: “Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality”
http://www.shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html
New York Magazine: “Blogs to Riches”:
http://nymag.com/news/media/15967/
David Armano’s Levels Of Influence:
http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2006/08/levels_of_influ.html
And I wrote a few similar posts a long time ago myself:
“”There is no A list. There is only your list.” - “It’s not about lists. It’s about links.”
http://www.paradox1x.org/weblog/kmartino/archives/004218.shtml
“If you believe in The Long Tail, then stop saying the web is “flat” okay?”
http://www.paradox1x.org/weblog/kmartino/archives/004606.shtml
Again great post.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:25 am | Permalink
“Gee, I work insane hours doing a job I hate, and yet am only just scraping by. How come nobody wants to read my blog?”
If what you want are lots of readers, I’d recommend instead making insane amount of money, working only two hours a day doing something you love, and shamelessly name-dropping your famous friends on a regular basis.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:26 pm | Permalink
Sorry Hugh, instead of drawing sophomoric cartoons about the size of penises and getting laid for low-grade chuckles, some of us actually found love - REAL LOVE, got married and had kids. It’s called having a family, you should try it some day. If you do, you’ll learn some people have to work jobs they don’t like to support the ones they love. (How many Tesco employees did you gab with about discovering their dream job?) Life is not a goddamn label on a bottle of wine for most of us. Shame on you for pimping that crap.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:26 pm | Permalink
Robert Scoble (and others), yes we do live in a Google world, where the in-bound link exists as currency. Sometimes popularity does translate to relevance, but other times not.
Let’s go with the lawn-mowing blog example. LawnMowerDude works hard at a blog for a year, starts to generate some in-bound links and is therefore occasionally listed high on the SERP (for certain keywords).
But then someone who is extremely well-linked to (an “A Lister” perhaps) comes along and writes one or two lawn-mowing posts, maybe because they just bought their first house. Is it not the case that they will quickly trump LawnMowerDude on the SERP (assuming the same keywords)? Thx.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:34 pm | Permalink
Jordan: in the old Google world you’d be right. But in the new Google world? PageRank is devalued for what I call SearchTermRank.
People who are linked to with the words “Lawn Mower Blog” are more powerful, yes, but someone like me who is linked to mostly with the words “Tech blog” aren’t going to have much power to affect the “Lawn Mower blog” rankings. Unless I get people to link to me with the words “Lawn Mower blog.”
And, if I try to do that, I piss off my readers, who are there for tech. So, it’s not a good game to play.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:42 pm | Permalink
Mr. Scoble, that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. How did you get on the A-list? If you do one blog post with “Lawn Mower” in the title, you would achieve the highest, or close to it, SearchTermRank for lawn mower blog in less than a week. Go ahead, do it. Call my bluff, weed whacker.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:43 pm | Permalink
Karl: Sometimes I think about creating a reading list for A-list denial. But nobody would read it :-(.
A few more items to add anyway:
Jon Garfunkel: “The New Gatekeepers”
http://civilities.net/TheNewGatekeepers
Nick Carr: “The Great Unread”
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/08/the_great_unrea.php
Shelley Powers: “Guys Don’t Link”
http://burningbird.net/connecting/guys-dont-link/
March 18th, 2007 at 1:59 pm | Permalink
Robert, I hope you’re right. If you’re not, you should be!
But a couple other (obvious) things I’ll point out. First, in the Google world, it’s not people who are being linked to but rather pages. So it’s not just other bloggers we all compete with (if I may refer to it as “competition”), but rather all pages in the index — and I’d argue that we compete moreso with institutional content than other bloggers because they’ve been around longer, spend money on SEO/SEM, etc.
Second, a well-linked “authority site” is far more visible and therefore far more apt to be linked to from other pages associated to “lawn mower blog”. So I’d argue that it’s easier to shift your popularity across all the “A lists” if you’re an “A lister” in any given topic area.
Thoughts?
March 18th, 2007 at 2:38 pm | Permalink
Oh, sorry, was someone trying to get my attention? I was watching Twittervision. http://twittermap.com/twittervision
Oh, and linking to other bloggers just to make sure that Seth approves properly. Would hate to not have his approval. My favorite posts of the day are here: http://www.google.com/reader/shared/14480565058256660224
Anyone trying to do a tech blog and wondering why no one pays attention? I’ll give free advice and subscribe to any that are good.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:09 pm | Permalink
Just wanted to add another relevant link to the discussion here. It’s an evolution of the “levels of influence” post that Karl points to
http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2006/08/influence_rippl_1.html
The influence ripples are meant to demonstrate that “big” and “small” players can both extend influence and even influence each other. But the bigger influencers have broader ripples due to their exposure and reach.
Really amazing discussion here. It’s probably better that this post happened over the weekend because I’d be to busy scraping by at my day job to digest all of this if it happened during the week. ;)
March 18th, 2007 at 4:15 pm | Permalink
“I’d like to believe in the democracy of blogging, but the fact is that there are certain advantages that some bloggers have that others don’t. Not having them doesn’t mean you can’t be an A-lister, but I have yet to find one that didn’t have any.”
I live on a farm in Colorado, and virtually nobody outside of some Java programmers had ever heard of me when I started my blog. I’d never met any of the A-list “gatekeepers” at that time. I had written three computer books, but any of the 30,000 tech book authors will tell you that ain’t much of an advantage, especially today. I’m certain no A-lister had ever heard of me. And I’m female. And older.
I’m just sayin’… it never occurred to me that there are “gatekeepers”…they sure didn’t prevent–or elevate–me during the time my blog was growing. The way Technorati works, it’s not possible to get a high ranking by A-listers linking to one another… it is only unique links that count, so mutual linking/back-patting doesn’t improve their rankings.
Every time — EVERY TIME — I hear this argument it depresses me because in my opinion, it feels like a lack of respect for readers. It makes it seem like blog readers are too stupid to do anything but follow/read the A-listers or what the “gatekeepers” tell them to read. I think people are smarter than that. I think people can make better choices than that, and after all… if there are “sheep” A-list groupie readers out there, those aren’t the readers we’re looking for anyway.
Yes, there’s a little bit of bootstrapping needed to get the word out that a blog exists, but usually simply commenting (with interesting comments) on other blogs is more than enough to start that ball. But I’ve seen some complaints about the A-list from people who’ve gotten dozens of links from the A-list and, in my opinion, *squandered* that exposure by not having enough other things the readers found valuable enough to come back to.
I agree that it’s not enough to just “work hard”, because it must be the *right* kind of work… something that seems to be missing from this conversation a lot. I believe that only the readers can decide what is “good” and “valuable” and most important… worth their scarce time. When someone says, “This guy works hard and has great content but no readers because of the gatekeepers”, it’s much more likely that his content–while great–isn’t what the reader is able to justify spending time on. There’s no such thing as “objectively good content”… there is only what readers find value in. And personally, I have a great deal of respect for the readers.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:20 pm | Permalink
I think Tony mentioned something in the title that everyone is overlooking: Do you WANT to be an A-Lister?
Scoble and Armano hit on it, it’s more about the niches. As long as my blog readership continues to grow, and I continue to get the chance to know bloggers that are smarter than I am, and as long as I continue to get writing/consulting/speaking opportunities from my blogging, then I’m a happy camper. It’s not about being an A-Lister to Scoble’s readers, it’s about being an A-Lister to MY readers.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:45 pm | Permalink
Kathy, I hear ya, but you know, you were co-author on some of the biggest Java related titles ever. I’ve read “Head First Design Patterns” - terrific book. You’re a respected author. You’re not some unknown creating good works on your blog, in need of being heard. Your blog had a head start.
Of course - it *is* what you do with it which counts. You worked your ass off to make your blog the success it is. You’ve earned your readers for good reason.
But saying that it was *only* the work you posted to your blog that brought you your initial readership isn’t true - it’s what brings them back.
And that is a *huge* point that gets lost in this ongoing denial.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:59 pm | Permalink
Kathy, your argument strikes me like saying “Every time I hear that we all can’t be above average, it feels like you’re saying readers are stupid! It sounds like we’re dumb, sheep, that we can’t overcome the laws of mathematics by hard work and optimism. I think people are smart, that we can all be above average. If there are people who are below average, those aren’t the readers we’re looking for anyway.”
While that would be excellent marketing, it’s also irrational nonsense.
After all, who wants to admit to being below average? Yet roughly half are (don’t nitpick this, you know what I mean - pun intended). And an exponential distribbution (”power law curve”) is much worse.
You’ve also set up an unfalsifiable situation - anyone who doesn’t get the readership will be told he or she is not worthy, and you then define worthy as the _status quo_.
Does it do any good to point out these sorts of logical fallacies? Does the argument ever progress?
Mack: Suppose, even if I don’t want to be an A-lister myself, I find it really tedious to have to always beg a handful of BigHeads for notice in order to get decent distribution. Suppose I don’t like a system where a few egotists have essentially free reign to bully and abuse everyone else “below” them, and nobody outside the tiny elite can call them to account. Suppose, adding insult to injury, I was constantly hearing how it was such an open system, and whatever flaws I perceive must be because of some failing of mine (parallels are left as an exercise for the reader …). Might this not sometimes be at least a tiny bit irritating?
March 18th, 2007 at 6:07 pm | Permalink
“I continue to get the chance to know bloggers that are smarter than I am”
For the record, Mack is being humble. Guy is as smart as they come.
“Kathy, I hear ya, but you know, you were co-author on some of the biggest Java related titles ever. I’ve read “Head First Design Patterns” - terrific book. You’re a respected author. ”
Karl makes a very good point here. Starting off a blog with a book is an advantage—of course getting your book out is a ton of work, but being published prior to blogging helps get the ball rolling in terms of having a successful blog (if that’s your goal).
Personally, talking about this stuff doesn’t depress me as long as it’s it respectful and intelligent. BUT, it’s a good thing that it only comes up every few months because my experience as a non-published person who’s done well with a blog is to be true to your blog, your content and your community. No denial here—not all bloggers are created “equal”—but some of the best ones out there are not on the “official list”—they reside in our own heads and hearts. The best thing we can do is reflect that in our own blogrolls. By the way—which I’m a big fan of.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:17 pm | Permalink
I agree with Robert that it is easy to become an “A Lister” in a niche that doesn’t have much competition, but then in anything outside the mainstream high traffic niches, there isn’t really an A List, because you wouldn’t get the traffic and links.
It is possible to create news as a new blogger, it is much harder to get that news mentioned unless it totally conforms with the status quo, and I can give 2 real examples that are actually totally on topic as well.
Not too long ago I broke the news that Clickbank, one of the largest affiliate networks require disclosure as per the FTC requirements on WOMM. It is highly significant, yet so far I don’t think the story has been linked to other than by people splogging me.
If you search on Google for Clickbank Disclosure, the only references you will find in the first 10 results are
1. My post and tag page
2. Social bookmarks for my post
3. Comments I have made on blogs
Compare that to how many people have talked about PPP and disclosure
A second example are my various tools to help with disclosure, such as my disclosure policy plugin and feedburner disclosure feedflare. I think the plugin is now up to around 10 links from bloggers.
In WP blogging circles I think I have done as well as can be expected, 2 links from Lorelle (including on the Blog Herald), WTC, Wordpress Podcast (twice), but very few outside links.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:24 pm | Permalink
“Mack: Suppose, even if I don’t want to be an A-lister myself, I find it really tedious to have to always beg a handful of BigHeads for notice in order to get decent distribution. Suppose I don’t like a system where a few egotists have essentially free reign to bully and abuse everyone else “below” them, and nobody outside the tiny elite can call them to account. Suppose, adding insult to injury, I was constantly hearing how it was such an open system, and whatever flaws I perceive must be because of some failing of mine (parallels are left as an exercise for the reader …). Might this not sometimes be at least a tiny bit irritating?”
From my point of view, I have no idea what you’re talking about. My blog The Viral Garden won’t be a year old for 2 more weeks, and I’m on pace to hit 600 blogs linking to me by the time it does. Now, here’s the kicker:
March 18th, 2007 at 6:31 pm | Permalink
“Mack: Suppose, even if I don’t want to be an A-lister myself, I find it really tedious to have to always beg a handful of BigHeads for notice in order to get decent distribution. Suppose I don’t like a system where a few egotists have essentially free reign to bully and abuse everyone else “below” them, and nobody outside the tiny elite can call them to account. Suppose, adding insult to injury, I was constantly hearing how it was such an open system, and whatever flaws I perceive must be because of some failing of mine (parallels are left as an exercise for the reader …). Might this not sometimes be at least a tiny bit irritating?”
From my point of view, I have no idea what you’re talking about. My blog The Viral Garden won’t be a year old for 2 more weeks, and I’m on pace to hit 600 blogs linking to me by the time it does. Now, here’s the kicker: I can count the number of combined links I’ve gotten from Scoble, Kathy, Seth Godin, Jarvis, Calacanis, and Hugh on ONE finger. And I’m not trying to call them out, my point is, you don’t NEED ‘approval’ from A-Listers to be successful. If you’re creating interesting content, and being a good blogging community member, the rest will take care of itself.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:42 pm | Permalink
Sigh … (my emphasis) “Mack Collier. Gender: male; Industry: MARKETING; Occupation: Community Evangelist / Social - Media Consultant;”
Why am I not surprised?
That is, if your *profession*, your *job*, is promotion - sure, you probably can do it better than the average Z-lister. Moreover, there’s a “surivorship bias”, since you wouldn’t be telling such a story if you were on the other end.
Once again, is there any reasoning I can offer which will not be met with platitudes? (If you do what you love, the money will follow, sing - let the sun shine in, face it with a grin, smilers never lose and frowners never win …)
March 18th, 2007 at 6:49 pm | Permalink
Lots of interesting thoughts here (and I now have more blogs to read).
I think this is an important issue. If a blogger that is just starting out has the perception that they aren’t getting anywhere after putting in what they see as hard work (and let’s just say for argument’s sake they do have “interesting” content) they may be tempted by all the tactics many bloggers frown upon - gaming, paying for links, PayPerPost, etc.
People resort to gaming when they think the system (in this case, a meritocracy) is broken (in the form of an A-list that only links among themselves). Imagined or not, the perception is out there…. I’m sure you remember some of the justifications for 2000 bloggers.
Now in my personal experience I feel the system is working just fine, but I can relate to the empty, shouting to the ether feeling of a blogger just starting out, too. That was me a year ago. I can understand why people look for shortcuts - and they might see this A-list thing as a convenient excuse.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:33 pm | Permalink
Karl: “But saying that it was *only* the work you posted to your blog that brought you your initial readership isn’t true - it’s what brings them back.”
You’re right — to say *only* is certainly not true, and I did imply that. But I’d still argue that my “initial readership” fueled by the books was quite small. Had I created a Java or software dev blog, that would be a different thing… my book readers would certainly come if I was posting code, discussions from the book, etc. But that’s not what my blog is about. I have another theory about where I got my initial readership (according to my stats, anyway), and it was from commenting on other people’s blogs.
“And that is a *huge* point that gets lost in this ongoing denial.”
I disagree.. it’s definitely a point that shouldn’t be lost, but I think it’s still a minor point for most of us. There are a lot of ways for anyone to get that initial readership, so I don’t think the kickstart is all that meaningful, unless you’re REALLY on a fast path up like Guy Kawasaki.
Mack: “you don’t NEED ‘approval’ from A-Listers to be successful. If you’re creating interesting content, and being a good blogging community member, the rest will take care of itself.”
Yay : ) I think there’s a huge misconception about the effect/value of links coming from The Big Guys. I, too, can count the page views I’ve gotten from a link-from-A-lister, and it’s not much.
Seth: “You’ve also set up an unfalsifiable situation - anyone who doesn’t get the readership will be told he or she is not worthy, and you then define worthy as the _status quo_.”
That’s ridiculous. There’s no objective “worthy” — it’s just whether a certain number of people consider something “worthy” of their time. How is this different from, say, an indie-film/music scenario? Plenty of art-house films have fewer people deeming the film “worthy” of their time, yet that in no way means the film itself has some kind of objective “unworthiness”. Any given group of people can decide what’s worthy of their time. Period. That may have little to do with a notion of objective “quality”. But you can’t expect to create the equivalent of a high-quality indie/art-house film and expect–and think you deserve–blockbuster readership.
“whatever flaws I perceive must be because of some failing of mine… might this not sometimes be at least a tiny bit irritating?”
Sure, but putting all the blame on others is just as irritating. Isn’t there something in the middle? Seth, if I had an important social message I wanted to get out, I’d take some lessons in marketing/advertising, as offensive as that might be. I’d hold my nose and do it for the greater good. Greenpeace has done a damn fine job of wrapping “good for you like broccoli” up in an “engaging and desirable for you” package.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:36 pm | Permalink
Ever notice that the first people to show up to a “There is/is not an A-List!” argument are always Calacanis, Scoble and Macleod? And it’s always the same “little ol’ me is on the A-List?? we WERE the little guys before our heads got big!” self-serving nonsense they try to push. You can tell they are the true wankers because they are the ones who can’t stop talking about the A-List in an aw shucks false modesty kind of way. Seth F rocks and everything he has said about this topic is spot on.
(Insert drawing of a penis in a fat guy’s mouth here and then har-har to yourself about marketing metaphors/creepy sex before clicking away.)
March 18th, 2007 at 8:57 pm | Permalink
[…] Tony is doing epic battle with Calcanis over whether or not the “A-list” exists in blogging. In my opinion it’s a ridiculous argument to suggest that the A-list doesn’t exist. I don’t personally read Jason’s blog, but I’ve seen it mentioned more times than I can count. Jason saying the blogging A-list doesn’t exist comes across to me like a pro athlete saying professional sports is a joke and that anybody can do it if they want. To make the A-list takes time, motivation, persistence, a little luck, and certain personality traits that not everyone has. There’s a couple good comments over at Jim’s blog too - sorry Jim, I usually agree with you (except for that BlogKits thing), but I’m 100% behind Tony on this one. […]
March 18th, 2007 at 11:30 pm | Permalink
Perhaps we should legislate some Affirmative Action for bloggers, where requests to A-list sites get randomly redirected without warning to underperforming blogs.
Or on the other hand you can quit whining, get hip to this decade, and realize that we are each at the center of our own A-list. My own blog is the best on the whole internet! The only 4 people who matter all agree.
The era of mass media is over. You will never be Elvis.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:16 am | Permalink
Class: I show up on nearly every post that mentions me by name. Sorry you haven’t noticed that yet. It’s not an “A list” thing. It’s called Google Blog Search (I search for Scoble so I know whenever someone is talking to me on their blogs).
As for being on the A list. I’m sorry, I gotta run, there are photographers in my bushes. Hey, get out of there!
Heheh. Not.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:31 am | Permalink
[…] Deep Jive Interests » Yes, Mr. Calacanis, The A-List Exists. No, Its Not Easy To Break Into (If You Wanted To). […]
March 19th, 2007 at 2:29 am | Permalink
[…] Tony has this thought: The “A-list” exists, and it exists naturally. Do I think some of them “call it in”? Sure. But some of them also continue to blog just as hard as they do when they first started. But to think that a natural stratification doesn’t exist — or if it does, is easy to penetrate if you “are good and work hard” — is quite frankly, blind and a little arrogant. […]
March 19th, 2007 at 9:26 am | Permalink
Kathy, I don’t this mean in a rude way, but do you understand what an “unfalsifiable argument” is, in terms of a logical fallacy? That is, a claim which cannot be disproven, because it will be redefined or justified in a way so that no disproof is possible. When you write something like “it’s much more likely that his content … isn’t what the reader is able to justify spending time on”, then you use that to set up a kind of tautology - if people have readers, they’re popular, and if they’re not popular, they don’t have readers. And this edges by implication into saying the unpopular aren’t worthwhile, since readers don’t “justify spending time on” (the next move of course is to say that singing in the shower is worthwhile, that is, writing one’s heart out to nobody might satisfy someone …).
Note one reason that this is cast by apologists in terms of “blame”, is because it facilitates denial both by creating a strawman, and by playing to the “haves” ideas of their own deservedness (i.e. if they are meritorious, while others are not, this then justifies their dumping on those below).
Seriously, is there any way to get the argument beyond platitude? I mean, these are pretty transparent once they’re analyzed. But the reason this argument goes around so much is that the rebuttals don’t ever seem to make a difference to the evangelists.
Note, for my work, the point is not that I can’t play marketing games because of some ideological purity, but rather that having to beseech a few gatekeepers and/or needing a press agent to get significant attention, is a pretty damning indictment of the myths we see in this discussion.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:40 pm | Permalink
[…] Monetization Mar 19, 2007 at 7:39 pm by J. Angelo Racoma - There is an ongoing debate over at Deep Jive Interests, where our very own Tony Hung has challenged Jason Calacanis‘ claim that “there is no A List,” and that “it’s a myth.” […]
March 19th, 2007 at 3:26 pm | Permalink
If anyone wants to see how they stack up again an A-lister:
http://www.kineda.com/blog-fight/
March 19th, 2007 at 5:38 pm | Permalink
[…] Added by Rand: To get a good background on this topic, read A-List Types Refuse To Acknowledge Blogging’s Blue Collar Class by Tony Hung (who’s incredibly likeable), then the offending piece by Calcanis (appropriately link-condomed), The Dumbest Argument in the Blogosphere, and finally Tony’s cogent response - Yes, Mr. Calcanis, the A-List Exists. […]
March 19th, 2007 at 6:16 pm | Permalink
Class Warrior is trying to take the moral high ground whilst still keeping her anonymity. Is this what she teaches her kids? Lucky them.
[Yes, “Her”. I know who she is. She wasn’t counting on that.]
March 20th, 2007 at 3:22 am | Permalink
Here’s a statistic I’m quite interested in:
The two blog posts at Deep Jive Interests - c. 90 comments with several replies from Tony.
The two blog posts at Calacanis.com - c. 28 comments, with no reply from Jason.
Any thoughts on that?
March 20th, 2007 at 9:36 am | Permalink
hey, Tony! ever think of starting a blogroll, linking to other non-A-list bloggers and sharing the linklove? Why don’t *you* go around and leave comments on other people’s blogs, thus getting them to link back to you?
or are you simply interested in kvetching and linking to A-listers, thus helping them in their Technorati ranking?? and thus perpetuating their reputation as A-listers?
Which is pretty much what you’ve done in your post–perpetuate links to the A-list to make a non-point and thus totally dissed the rest of the blogosphere that’s just like you!
To quote a new-old saw: “if your not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.” Right now, with all your A-list post links, you’re part of the problem. If you don’t support other non-A-list bloggers, your not doing your part and you shouldn’t expect anyone to even notice who you are. Start reading bloggers other than the A-list, start commenting on blogs other than the A-list, and start linking to other bloggers.
That is, unless you think you’re better than the rest of us…
March 20th, 2007 at 9:48 am | Permalink
Hi Tris, I would love permission to post that comment with suitable attribution
March 20th, 2007 at 11:50 am | Permalink
Hi Andy…
feel free to email me off-blog about that :-)
T
March 20th, 2007 at 12:13 pm | Permalink
oh, you can find the addy on my blog…in the sidebar.
t.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:21 pm | Permalink
A couple of months ago, a post I wrote was picked up by TechMeme. Got me about 50 visitors in an hour. No comments.
A few days later, a marketing blogger with a readership of maybe a 100 people a day blogged about a post I had written. It also got me about 50 visitors, several of which left comments and talked about how they found my blog from following the other blogger’s link.
Much of this ‘I wish the A-Listers would link to me!’ episode is all about ego. A link from an A-Lister doesn’t guarantee you anything other than a few extra visitors. If the link isn’t relevant to the readers, then that extra traffic is totally wasted.
A good, relevant link from a blogger with 50 visitors a day, almost always trumps an ‘oh BTW check this guy out’ link from an A-Lister with 2,000 visitors a day.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:43 pm | Permalink
I’ve had the same thing happen to me, too, Mark…
been on Techmeme. Been Instalanched (7K readers in one day.) Had a big story on Kos (5K readers in a day.) Been quoted in Time. Been written about in the Boston Globe. Been linked by Jarvis, Jay Rosen, Dan Gillmor, JDLasica….I could go on…
And it’s not because of links from those guys that my readership’s grown. Rather, my readership’s grown mostly from people I’ve met at conferences, who’ve gone in and read my blog, then subscribed or added me to their readers. It’s come from also getting into google search. It was also getting de-indexed from Google search that made my readership (other than the stalwarts) plummet–this was due to a bug in the conversion of Blogger blogs to GoogleBlogger and has been fixed. Having the right keywords on posts geared towards a particular niche, having those posts get in Google’s top search, has been far more important than any of the A-list links I’ve ever got….including my contributor status at Huffington Post.
Are you taking notes, Tony? You should.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:49 pm | Permalink
Tish, blogrolls don’t send much traffic, except perhaps for the very, very top. They help a little in terms of PageRank, but not a huge amount. Beware search statistics - there’s a lot of spammers and spiders there. Some of the numbers are not real in a meaningful sense.
Mack: You’re indulging in the common pastime of pummeling a strawman, because it feels so good to knock it down. I don’t see people claiming one link from an A-lister will launch them from the Z-list into fame and fortune. Rather, the point is that there’s an exponential distribution of attention, with a few people having a huge amount and everyone else comparatively little. That transient spikes don’t change this makes the point stronger, it’s a confirmation not a refutation.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:39 pm | Permalink
Seth I just checked, and it seems you have gotten a TON of links from blogs with well over 3,000 links:
http://www.technorati.com/search/http%3A%2F%2Fsethf.com%2Finfothought%2Fblog?sort=authority&authority=n&start=0
Serious question, but with all those primo links, how in the world do you only have 200 blogs linking to your blog after almost FIVE years of blogging?
Hint: People don’t like whiners. And most bloggers don’t link to people that they don’t like.
Just a thought.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:51 pm | Permalink
Seth…
I seem to have a fairly decent Google page rank for someone who keeps a very tidy blogroll of folks who’ve I’ve actually gotten to know in the two-plus years I’ve been blogging(I have a personal blog y’all can find if you Google me…it used to have a higher readership till I stopped blogging on a certain subject)and who comes up lots in Google’s search (or did till they got funky) on terms like “citizen journalism”. The Constant Observer’s a very niche-y blog, and since I’m a new pro, non-academic, I don’t get the kind of links I might if I were a long-term pro journalist writing on the subject.
Do I care? No. Not when I hear from some very respected folks that I’m one of the “finest writers on citizen journalism.” And I have outlets that actually do pay me for writing about it…when I feel like writing professionally about it…
As for blogrolls–well, I see my stats. You don’t. I know where links to my blogs come from. You don’t.
I think, too, that you’re neglecting to mention that post links “age out” of technorati vs. blogroll links, which perpetuate. Some of the A-list maintain because of all the blogrolls they’ve been linked on over the years combined with post links that replace the ones that age out. But even some long-term A-listes, such as Doc Searls, have dropped because of the current influx of Asian blogs…
Thing is Seth, you’ve got your own little dead horse to beat, and you’re own “issues” about the A-list that need to be worked out. That’s your thing, nobody else’s.
And it doesn’t help people who really don’t have much of a clue as to why they should be blogging…which really isn’t about the A-list, unless you’re plan is to be the next Mike Arrington…
BTW, love your little bit of blog-comment bullying above re Mack. real class.
March 21st, 2007 at 9:04 am | Permalink
Mack: You’ve just demonstrated *unfalsifiability* again. One of the main approaches of A-list apologists is *personal* *attack* - make it an issue of the critic’s failings.
Serious question: Do you understand the concept? Do you grasp that in an exponentially distributed system (”power law”), only a few can have a huge amount, and hence most people will almost by definition not have much. So if all critics are dismissable as “whiners”, to use your term, no criticism can ever be valid.
It’s really, really, annoying to have to keep trying to explain this, in the face of what seems like a rather revealing mean-spiritedness.
[By the way, note self-consistency in my point about a single link not being the be-all and end-all, versus total exponential structure]
Tish: I’ll skip the statistics discussion for length. See above regarding attempt to trivialize critique.
I will say it again: Mathematical distributions are not refuted by making a personal attack (semi-humor: “Who says everyone can’t be above average - maybe you are below average, you sniveling sour-grapes complainer, because you don’t deserve any better!”)
March 21st, 2007 at 1:55 pm | Permalink
“Mack: You’ve just demonstrated *unfalsifiability* again. One of the main approaches of A-list apologists is *personal* *attack* - make it an issue of the critic’s failings.”
First of all, if you’ve read my blog, you know that the last thing I am is an A-Lister apologist. I’ve in the past taken Seth, Rubel, Doc, and Hugh to task on my blog, and on others. I just think they aren’t the problem in this case. If anything, I’m a Z-Lister apologist.
But I don’t apologize for whiners.
“Serious question: Do you understand the concept? Do you grasp that in an exponentially distributed system (”power law”), only a few can have a huge amount, and hence most people will almost by definition not have much. So if all critics are dismissable as “whiners”, to use your term, no criticism can ever be valid.
It’s really, really, annoying to have to keep trying to explain this, in the face of what seems like a rather revealing mean-spiritedness.”
No Seth, what’s annoying is when someone’s blog isn’t growing, and they blame that lack of growth on others holding them back.
If you’ll take off your victim cloak, you’ll realize that the rest of us are telling you how to have a successful blog. To date, I have had ONE true A-Lister link to my blog. From scanning your links through Technorati last night, you’ve gotten 50-100 links from blogs with more than 3,000 links. So let’s dump the ‘I can’t grow cause the big blogs won’t link to me’ excuse, because it’s not flying.
Try this experiment: Email all the A-Listers on this thread alone, and tell them ‘Hey there! I wonder if you could help me. I am struggling to find a way to grow my blog, and I noticed that your blog is obviously very successful. If you have the time, could you give me a few quick tips for how I can grow my blog as well? Maybe share with me some stories of how you were able to grow your blog into the success that it has become. Please feel free to answer at your leisure, and I really appreciate any help you can give me!
Thanks so much!
Seth’
Now even given your whining here to many of these same A-Listers, I have a feeling that if you swallowed your pride and actually reached out to these bloggers and sincerely asked for their help, that they would bend over backwards to do what they could to help you.
Or you can keep chanting about how you are the victim, and we can revisit this topic in another 6 months. And you can remind us why its the A-Listers fault that they have each added 1,000 links to their blog in that 6 months, while you’ve lost 50.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:44 pm | Permalink
OK, I got a litte snippy with the “A-list apologists” bit.
Loudly and ferociously repeating a personal attack on me doesn’t change a mathematical structure. I suppose it’s an internally valid statement to say something like “I’m saying YOU are below average because you are dumb, you are stupid, you are a poopy-head …”, etc. However, we still all couldn’t be above average, whatever the merits of my particular standing.
In an ideal world, your redoubled vituperation wouldn’t distract from the fact that you haven’t addressed my points about exponential distribution and logical unfalsifiability. You seem to be trying to make up for that weakness with even more derision. It shouldn’t work like that.
[Actually, I’m thinking of giving up my blog - the bogosphere gets filled with True Believers because, to a good approximation, after a while they’re the only ones left!]
March 21st, 2007 at 3:14 pm | Permalink
“In an ideal world, your redoubled vituperation wouldn’t distract from the fact that you haven’t addressed my points about exponential distribution and logical unfalsifiability. You seem to be trying to make up for that weakness with even more derision. It shouldn’t work like that.”
Seth in my mind there’s nothing to address.
Right now you have 200 blogs linking to yours, and you have apparently been blogging for almost 5 years. So I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to assume that you had around 200 links a year ago.
A year ago my blog had zero links, while yours had around 200. Now a year later, my blog has almost 600 links, while yours still has 200.
Now here’s the kicker, whereas you have received SEVERAL links from blogs with more than 3,000 links, I have received ONE such link.
So again, I don’t see how I am being held back by the A-Listers, mainly because my blog has grown in SPITE of them. And if MY blog can grow WITHOUT the aid of A-Listers, then there’s no reason why yours cannot WITH links from big blogs. Still, it obviously hasn’t.
If you want to quote probabilities and power laws knock yourself out, but it seems as little more than excuse making for why your blog is struggling to tread water. Last year you had every opportunity in front of you that I did to grow your blog. Yet a year later, you’ve gone sideways. That’s no one’s fault but your own.
“Actually, I’m thinking of giving up my blog”
That might be for the best.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:04 pm | Permalink
Seth…
if you’ve got hard, verifiable numbers, then write up a report and publish it somewhere where folks can see the numbers.
Right now, all your highfalutin’ claims of numbers, and insinuations that I probably can’t understand the math, sound a heck of a lot like the Second Life smoke-and-mirrors.
And numbers are quite fudgeable. I used to be an accountant, Seth. I know how “creative” numbers can get.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:24 pm | Permalink
[…] Tony posted an epilogue, to end the ongoing debate that he seems to have started (which I linked to here). […]
March 21st, 2007 at 5:29 pm | Permalink
tish: Sigh. I was going to let my opponents have the last word, but just to clarify: I merely meant overall that it’s very easy to overestimate traffic statistics due to the large number of spiders and comment-spam. For example, a while back, there was a “study” on Google vs. Yahoo that got covered in the New York Times, and when their data was examined, it turned out to be misleadingly repeatedly counting junk and webspam pages. That’s the sort of error one can make if not careful. Yes, it’s exactly like Second Life, overestimates are easy to do.
And I’ll point out I keep hoping that people can understand the math :-(.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:09 pm | Permalink
Tony:
You need to use the tips I published regarding sending your subscribed comments through an SMTP server.
What happens if you don’t do this on many hosts is that any emails over the quota you are allowed in a particular period of time get dumped without any notice.
I am subscribed to the comments, and most of the comments are not coming through to me, because there is probably too many emails being sent.
March 21st, 2007 at 7:23 pm | Permalink
[…] I have been involved a little in the conversation over on Tony Hung's blog regarding A List Bloggers, and Tony has actually just made a clarifying post. I thought these screenshots from Twitter would bring a few smiles for all involved. […]
March 21st, 2007 at 8:11 pm | Permalink
[…] A-list Epilogue: Just So We’re Clear — Its Not About Being A Better Blogger March 21st, 2007 at 4:21 pm by Tony Well, the debate is still raging on the original post (perhaps simmering is a better term), but I thought I would wrap up the debate with an epilogue-type post. […]
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:06 am | Permalink
Tish, my earlier comment had links to a number of well respected pieces, with math that even I can understand :)
Kathy and Mack - ask yourself - is a spam link worth as much as a colleague’s showing respect? Do you really mean that? If not, then you are implying that different inbound links have different values.
I believe inbound links are as important as what David Weinberger made them out to be. And as Google made apparent.
To deny this, and say that links are not some form of measure of respect or influence, is to deny an essential nature of the web.
Oh and for some further proof, see the Google Operating System blog on how Google Blog Search ranks search results:
http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007/03/how-google-blog-search-ranks-results.html
Oh and Mack - no one I know suggests you need A-Lister approval to be a success - only that it helps.
A-listers - in their respective communities - are *the* Attention Influencers of the Web. That still doesn’t mean you NEED them.
Read Tipping Point okay? Just do it.
Oh, and you’re attacks on Seth? You’re a real class act dude. Real friggin’ low to call someone a whiner and kick sand in their face over how much more *successful* you are then they are.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:37 pm | Permalink
[…] This time, Jason Calacanis (for the “A-List”) and Tony Hung (for the “blue collar” bloggers) go at it, with healthy interjection from Hugh MacLeod of Gaping Void. Tony makes good points about the fact that many A-List bloggers were already famous when they began blogging, and that they tend to be clustered in California and New York City, but other than that, I’m not sure why anyone (especially someone as talented as Tony) should dwell on this subject. […]
March 26th, 2007 at 4:05 am | Permalink
[…] The A-List Exists. No, Its Not Easy To Break Into. - Tony Hung tells it all about the A-Listers and hardships of successful blogging. […]
March 28th, 2007 at 5:39 am | Permalink
[…] Tony Hung has the last word on the “A-listers vs. blue-collar bloggers” debate he started by saying that being an A-lister isn’t about blogging ability, or traffic, or Adsense earnings, or being highly regarded - It’s about their ability to be so close to The News, that they’re either creating it, reporting it, or delivering it. […]
March 29th, 2007 at 1:33 am | Permalink
[…] Affectionately inspired by the minor fracas going on between Mr Hung and Mr Calacanis. With an obvious nod to Stop Crying If Harry Hill was here he would say, “There’s only one way to settle this…” Related Posts Dealing With The WheezingNew Broom Wants To Keep Sweeping CleanKeepVid: Saviour of the Computer Blues MeltdownSwitch From New Blogger To WordPress In Ten Quick(ish) StepsCompetition: Better Bob To Win Beth […]
March 29th, 2007 at 9:46 pm | Permalink
[…] The same is true of bloggers and website publishers. Quite simply and brutally, it’s just that hard. There’s a bit of a heated discussion today between Tony Hung and Jason Calacanis, two of my favorite online folk, over on Tony’s Deep Jive Interests. Part of the argument is over the notion of “A List bloggers” versus “blue collar bloggers”: whether the two groups actually exist, and what the latter group can and should do if they want to make the esteemed ranks of the former. […]
March 31st, 2007 at 4:23 pm | Permalink
You can work hard all your life, and still die poor. Look at all the maids, janitors, cooks, and dishwashers out there, busting their asses, for minimum wage or less. Work isn’t enough, obviously, and anyone who says work’s the main thing that makes one successful is ignoring reality.
Popular bloggers like Kawasaki and Winer don’t make much from their blogging, but they can do better blogs because they made money in the business years ago. Past success can make future success more likely. (The lesson here is to stick with it, and accrue your successes.)
This thread reminds me of an explanation I was given about Fine Art, and why some work is considered Art-with-a-capital-A, and other work, that seems to be as good, is not. I’m going to butcher that explanation up a bit, but it might explain something.
* It must have technical quality. (Meaning it has to look good.)
* It must fit within Art History. (Meaning it must contribute to some idea of “progress”.)
* It must be documented. (Meaning scholars or journal editors must know about it.)
When people talk about “hard work” in art, they’re usually thinking only about technical quality. A talented, hard working artist isn’t going to ever get into a museum if they don’t also work hard at the other two parts. That means they have to study art history, and, specifically, recent history, to create work that creates something akin to “progress.” It also means they have to take time to promote it, in a manner that scholars will accept.
It’s not what you do, or your work, that matters as much as how your work relates to past work, and to specific elite audiences. That puts most artists at a distinct disadvantage.
There are a billion artists in the world. Only a few thousand will ever be considered Artists, in the contemporary Western, academic sense. It’s not for lack of talent, but because the masses of artists will never have an Art History book, nor subscriptions to Art journals, and don’t know how to write academic English (or have an agent who can), and don’t know the addresses of the scholars interested in their particular type of art.
Hung is correct in his analysis.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:43 am | Permalink
[…] I should say, it’s never quite the popularity contest. Yes, there was this whole deal on A-list bloggers and the rest of us a while back, and while their words do outweigh the rest of us in the blogosphere, it makes no […]
June 13th, 2007 at 7:01 pm | Permalink
[…] or something; while “D-list blogs” are none of these things. Others disagree. (Read 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and […]
July 5th, 2007 at 8:52 am | Permalink
[…] is no A-list”, for our non-German reading readers). This issue seems to raise its head every few months, and I am continually flabbergasted that people such as Mr. McLeod continue to deny its very […]
July 7th, 2007 at 12:42 pm | Permalink
[…] subject of A-list, Z-list bloggers may be getting a bit long in the tooth, but it does strike a nerve with many. I’ve had a fairly compelling comment exchange with […]
July 30th, 2007 at 9:18 am | Permalink
[…] take on the A-list argument - entitled Stop Crying - is top of his best-of list. And, for those who missed it before, […]
September 22nd, 2007 at 2:05 pm | Permalink
[…] a true blog class war breaks out, what should we do? A thread at Deep Jive Interests keeps getting longer (65 comments!). I suggest government […]
March 27th, 2008 at 8:43 pm | Permalink
[…] Yes, Mr. Calacanis, The A-List Exists. [?] Share This Popularity: 25% [?] […]