Comments on: Dear Fiona (if that IS your name) http://tametheweb.com/2008/07/08/dear-fiona-if-that-is-your-name/ Libraries, Technology and People by Michael Stephens Thu, 24 May 2012 02:45:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Stephen Francoeur http://tametheweb.com/2008/07/08/dear-fiona-if-that-is-your-name/comment-page-1/#comment-5362 Stephen Francoeur Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:09:15 +0000 http://tametheweb.com/?p=3133#comment-5362 For me, the issue was not really about the content on the blog posts but really about the lack of authenticity in the people behind the site. I don't mind linking to commercial sites as long as they offer some accountability about who they are and what they are up to. On the sites that Fiona King asked me to link to, there was no attempt to explain who the posting author was (no credentials, no bio, no nothing), nor was there any info about the blogs themselves (what company or organization or institution was responsible for the blog). That lack of transparency is, for me, a major red flag whenever I am evaluating a web site (and that's what I teach my students in workshops and course-related lectures that I do at the college where I work). Even if the content was really outstanding but there was still that lack of information about authorship, I wouldn't bother linking to it; sites like that just smell funny to me, regardless of whether they are trying to "monetize" the site. For me, the issue was not really about the content on the blog posts but really about the lack of authenticity in the people behind the site. I don’t mind linking to commercial sites as long as they offer some accountability about who they are and what they are up to. On the sites that Fiona King asked me to link to, there was no attempt to explain who the posting author was (no credentials, no bio, no nothing), nor was there any info about the blogs themselves (what company or organization or institution was responsible for the blog). That lack of transparency is, for me, a major red flag whenever I am evaluating a web site (and that’s what I teach my students in workshops and course-related lectures that I do at the college where I work). Even if the content was really outstanding but there was still that lack of information about authorship, I wouldn’t bother linking to it; sites like that just smell funny to me, regardless of whether they are trying to “monetize” the site.

]]> By: royce http://tametheweb.com/2008/07/08/dear-fiona-if-that-is-your-name/comment-page-1/#comment-5357 royce Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:10:03 +0000 http://tametheweb.com/?p=3133#comment-5357 Very interesting. I figured the "fiona king" phenomena was the work of the Lee LeBlanc. Very interesting. I figured the “fiona king” phenomena was the work of the Lee LeBlanc.

]]> By: Thomas Kozak http://tametheweb.com/2008/07/08/dear-fiona-if-that-is-your-name/comment-page-1/#comment-5356 Thomas Kozak Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:37:06 +0000 http://tametheweb.com/?p=3133#comment-5356 I'm curious as to your opinion of the actual material being pushed. My take on the "100 unbelievably useful" list is that it's pretty bland and safely ignorable, but there's an interesting question here. If the link were to some incredibly useful material, would you refuse to link to it because the purveyors have a vested economic interest? Conversely, if the sites/blogs in question were "legit" would you link even if the content was only moderately valuable? My point is, I definitely understand the desire to not be a stooge for somebody's get-rich-quick-2.0 scheme. But at what point do you say "yeah, you're trying to cash in on a blog network, but I don't care because the content is valuable?" Or do you hold firm and refuse to link to something cool because it's run by bottomfeeders? To be clear, I don't think the issue really comes up in this case. The site you mention looks pretty weak - definitely not worth propping up some fly-by-night marketing scheme. I'm just curious what you think about this, especially as more and more companies decide that "viral + blogging" is a hot buzzword combo. For instance would it have been okay to link to "I Love Bees" even though it was an elaborate advertising scheme? I’m curious as to your opinion of the actual material being pushed. My take on the “100 unbelievably useful” list is that it’s pretty bland and safely ignorable, but there’s an interesting question here.

If the link were to some incredibly useful material, would you refuse to link to it because the purveyors have a vested economic interest? Conversely, if the sites/blogs in question were “legit” would you link even if the content was only moderately valuable?

My point is, I definitely understand the desire to not be a stooge for somebody’s get-rich-quick-2.0 scheme. But at what point do you say “yeah, you’re trying to cash in on a blog network, but I don’t care because the content is valuable?” Or do you hold firm and refuse to link to something cool because it’s run by bottomfeeders?

To be clear, I don’t think the issue really comes up in this case. The site you mention looks pretty weak – definitely not worth propping up some fly-by-night marketing scheme. I’m just curious what you think about this, especially as more and more companies decide that “viral + blogging” is a hot buzzword combo. For instance would it have been okay to link to “I Love Bees” even though it was an elaborate advertising scheme?

]]>