Another SEO Contest Part 2
Update 1-16-06: The keyword phrase for this contest has been announced. It is v7ndotcom elursrebmem
Now that I’m back from vacation, I’ve had some time to read through all the responses (both on my blog as well as v7n) to my offer to pay prize money to anyone who wanted to compete in the V7N SEO contest, but didn’t want to link to v7n.
The majority of the v7n posts are just a bunch of whiny name-calling, but there are a few recurring points worth addressing.
1. I intentionally misrepresented the facts regarding the rules of the contest.
Here are a couple of quotes from John:
(Talking about how he told everyone in post #83 eight days after the original announcement that the link could be JavaScript or have a no follow attribute)
"To most qualified SEO’s, that would indicate that the contest was not requiring SE indexable links.
Unfortunately, this is the Internet, and few people actually read before they type, and one such fellow is Greg Boser. Greg failed to read even the first post in the SEO contest thread and promptly announced that I am doing the contest with the evil ulterior motive of duping hopeless webmasters into giving v7n thousands of search engine indexable links."
And later on in the same thread..
"It just annoys me that this contest troll can go around with no regard to the truth suggesting that I’m trying to force people to hand over their PageRank, when I was the one who suggested that contestants use JavaScript or the nofollow attribute.
You’d think that Greg Boser would be more responsible about what he writes."
And then there’s my new best friend, Michael Allison’s comments.
"He’s published his own dishonesty for the world to see. Someone who would make the outrageously false claims he’s made and then brag about them isn’t above a cheap shot."
Publishing dishonesty and making outrageously false claims? Am I missing something here? Where did I say v7n was requiring site owners to hand over their PageRank, or create "search engine indexable links?"
All I said was:
"But I also think it is pretty lame to use a contest like this just to build links to your own site. And I also know that there are a lot of great SEO’s who might consider participating, but they aren’t interested in helping v7n out."
That’s it. I didn’t write anything about PageRank. Nor did I write anything about "duping hopeless webmasters into giving v7n thousands of search engine indexable links." All I did was express an opinion about using the completely unoriginal idea of an SEO contest as the basis of a link building campaign.
2. I made my offer because I have a personal vendetta against John Scott.
More from Michael Allison.
"Yeah, it makes the fact that there is some history, and bad blood, between Greg and John rather obvious, now doesn’t it. You don’t have to be a "guru" to figure that out, either."
Actually, Michael, there isn’t any history or bad blood between John and myself. I’ve never met him. And I didn’t even really pay attention to who posted the original contest announcement. (Notice how I didn’t mention John by name in my post?) If a vendetta against John was my motivation, I can assure you the original post would have addressed him by name and also included a few derogatory comments. (Much like the the ones directed at me by you and all your buddies.) I would have also made one of those comments (by the way, my favorite is assclown) the required anchor text for a link pointing to v7n rather than simply asking people to link to Matt.
The truth of the matter is that my post would have been exactly the same regardless of who had posted the original contest announcement.
3. I Created my contest as an attempt to gain favors from Matt Cutts.
Again, comments from Michael (sorry dude. You just make it so easy.)
"For those who are unfamiliar with the name, Matt Cutts is a big-shot software engineer at Google. He is Google’s de facto spokesman to the SEO community and is praised and worshipped day in and day out by SEO types. I wonder why anyone would want to get on his good side, huh?"
"Now, If I was going out of my way to kowtow to Greg, like he is to Matt, I might say something like, "It’s always sad to see grown men debase themselves before a powerful person to curry favor.
In plain Texas talk, though, he’s just a wholly transparent copycat and brown-noser."
Now, if you’ve ever met either Matt or me, I’m sure you can find some humor in Michael’s statements. If you haven’t, I guess I’ll take the time to explain the Matt Cutts thing. (I’ll go slowly so Michael can follow along)
- 1. Participants need to put something on the page in order to make it clear they are competing in my version of the contest.
2. The goal of the contest is to obtain rankings at Google.
3. Google has struggled with cannocialization issues for quite some time.
4. www vs. non-www is one of those issues.
5. Matt Cutts is the most prominent Google employee on the web.
6. Matt’s site has cannocialization issues.
7. Matt has been working hard on a new infrastructure (BigDaddy) that is designed to fix many of Google’s cannocialization issues.
8. Matt has also intentionally chosen not to use a 301 to correct his cannocialization issues, so he can monitor how BigDaddy is doing.
So Michael, what that all means is that the linking requirement doesn’t have anything to do with me trying to suck up to Matt. It is simply a joke that might also produce some interesting data about BigDaddy.
Does the new infrastructure only look a total volume of links to determine which version to use?
Will it be possible for us to convince BigDaddy that the non-www version is the right choice by simply injecting a large volume of fairly low quality links?
Or does age, authority, and and/or trustrank play a role?
At this point, I have no idea. But I can’t think of a better site to use for testing. 
4. I’m a Copycat trying to hijack V7N’s publicity.
PR Jacking is an old and true marketing strategy. And it is also a strategy that I would consider to be quite "Guerrilla." However, in order to engage in PR jacking, you need to jump on a story that is already enjoying a great deal of press.
But that isn’t what happened in this situation. The contest announcement had been online for 10 days before I mentioned it. Up until that point, no one had really picked up the story because as Danny pointed out, SEO contests are no longer newsworthy. They are no longer newsworthy because none of the couple dozen contests that have come and gone after "nigritude ultramarine" have contained anything that could even be considered close to original.
Anytime you are going to attempt to gain some marketing mileage by using something that has already been done numerous times, you really need to spend some time thinking about what you can add in order to give the project something worth talking about. In this particular case, I would bet that coming out of the gate with a cash prize that dwarfs anything previously offered would have been more than enough to generate some traction.
But that’s not what happened. It was just another SEO contest offering the same kind of prizes offered by all the other contests. So I decided to give the story the originality it so desperately lacked. And that’s all it took to turn a non-story into something worth talking about. Now, everyone knows about the contest, members of John’s community are jumping on the bandwagon and offering more cash, and everyone involved has built a bunch of new links.
I would hope that v7n members like Michael would realize that there is an incredible marketing lesson here. Rather than spending time talking shit about me, they might want to consider getting out a pen and paper and taking some notes.
So where does it go from here?
I’m not really sure. The v7n crowd can’t seem to make up their mind. On one hand, they are hell bent on coming up with a plan that guarantees that I’ll have to pay the money I offered. (Which I have no problem with) On the other hand, there are those that think the proper thing to do would be to use the contest as a vehicle to googlebomb me for one of their clever names they came up with.
Obviously, my ultimate decision will depend a lot on what is actually announced on the 15th. If they decide to run the original contest with the linking requirement removed, I’ll gladly contribute my cash. However, if they decide to go the "googlebomb Greg" route, I would imagine we would simply put the current money (as well as raise more) towards a new contest that would either
a) return the favor,
b) use an actual phrase that already produces results, so that we might actually learn something
or
c) a combination of a and b.
Either way, I’ll let everyone know on the 15th
Comments
14 Responses to “ Another SEO Contest Part 2 ”
Got something to say?
I hadn’t made up my mind about you, Greg, but after reading this crap of an excuse to mislead your limited number of readers, I must admit I’ve come to a conclusion. You are indeed obnoxious, and an ass.
What I find interesting is that those are traits you appear proud of, and traits you appear determined to develop even further.
Wow.
I am amazed at the level this back and forth has gone to. I think John Scott and Michael Allison need to take a deep breath and just calm down. And I have to admit that were it not for your original post, I wouldn’t have found out about the contest in the first place.
Completely fair reply Greg. Sorry to see that John Scott is such a whiny little bitch. Maybe this will be fun after all.
Greg, if truly none of the things stated are true, then what exactly would be your logical reason to try to sabotage this contest? Seriously, you look like a complete suck up, and Matt Cutts doesn’t need any more of that type around him.
What you’re doing is grandstanding, and it’s kind of embarrassing. If you want to ride on the coattails of John’s idea, the best you could do now would be not to let the contest participants down, and instead add your donation to the pot.
Telling people who not to link to? You have to be kidding. Our ancestors died to be free from people like you
Respectfully,
Mike D.
I still say it’s a shame you didn’t read the whole thread before you blogged about it, Greg. If you had, maybe you wouldn’t have done this. Or, maybe you did read it all and did it anyway.
Either way, it’s a shame.
Let me start by saying I’m not even remotely interested in SEO or this contest. I just don’t like the things you’ve said and done where it concerns John. I don’t know much about much, when it comes to SEO. Fair enough. But, I do know an awful lot about my fellow man. I know what a google bomb is and you can be assured I’m not that kinda guy at all. I don’t want to be associated with folks who would do that, either. It’s chickenshit.
I do think you’re an suck-up, Greg. You probably think the same about me. The difference here is John’s a friend of mine. It, in no way, benefits me professionally or financially, even peripherally, to have him for a friend, either. In fact, all the time I spend in his forums while I should be working costs me.
Helping him out when someone is giving him a hard time is a pleasure for me, though. That’s just the way I am. You’re a lot better off messing with me than a friend of mine. You can’t hurt me much. But, I’m real protective of my friends. That’s how it is. So, no, I don’t take anything you say about me hard.
I have a lot of work to do, including learning a few things about this arcane art you call SEO. Frankly, I’d probably rather have my eyes picked out of their sockets by the crows than to have to sort through the sea of BS out there about SEO. But, I want to succeed online, so I have to learn what I can about it. I’d rather just make sites and applications and be done with it. But, it’s not that simple, is it?
If only it was.
As far as I’ve heard all along, John has wants the person who places first to get all the money - no matter what links are where. But, like you said, we’ll see on the 15th. In the meantime, I’m sure we all have better things to do than sit around and flame each other. At least, I’ve said what I wanted to say, pretty much, and the record speaks for itself.
And, you know what, Greg? Just in case I’ve lost my mind and I’m totally wrong about you and all this, I should say that I’ve been wrong before and I always live through it. I just try not to make the mistakes too many times.
Like I said, though, I know an awful lot about human nature and I don’t think I’m wrong here.
I’m not going to go round and round with you playing word games. You’re clever and there would never be an end to it. The facts speak for themselves and I’ve said about all I have to say about it.
John & Mike - I promise you that whatever else you might think about Greg, the link to Matt Cutts’ blog is more of a prank and an inside joke than anything having to do with sucking up to him.
I know Greg and Matt and the relationship there requires no sucking up. My guess would be it’s Matt who owes Greg if I were a betting man. Greg’s been overly generous about sharing information that’s helped to make Google a better engine over the last couple years. He’s also someone who needs no help financially or algorithmically from Matt or Google.
As to the “assclown” debate, I’m going to recuse myself.
“…and Matt Cutts doesn’t need any more of that type around him.”
Holy shit! I’m not sure but it sounds like he still doesn’t get it.
Personally I thought the non WWW clause in WG’s alternative was an intelligent and tongue in cheek move to raise an issue and bring it close to the attention of Google. How it can be confused with sucking up I don’t know.
>If you want to ride on the coattails of John’s idea
Sorry, it’s not a new idea.
> and instead add your donation to the pot
Isn’t that what is happening? Just because it’s not coming with a V7n stamp on it doesn’t mean the participants won’t benefit.
Guys, you are playing a game - John got a good idea off the ground - seriously, fair play to him - that’s a difficult thing to do. But WG got in there with his own angle and others followed so fair play to them too.
With all due respect, everyone here is trying to take the highground, and I hate to say - there’s no highground to be held. It’s a gimmick at best and doesn’t really warrant the amount of insults and flames being thrown around.
> On the other hand, there are those that think the proper thing to do would be to use the contest as a vehicle to googlebomb me for one of their clever names they came up with.
If that doesn’t work, perhaps someone can chase WG around the playground with a shitty stick? Hmmm?
> but after reading this crap of an excuse to mislead your limited number of readers, I must admit I’ve come to a conclusion.
I think the vast majority of people reading WG’s blog are more than capable of making their own mind up.
> You are indeed obnoxious, and an ass.
Kind like the pot calling the kettle black there. Turning up at someone’s door and calling them an ass is fairly obnoxious IMO. But hey, if that’s the worst thing that happens today, then I say we’ve all had a good day, right? Sticks and stones n’ all that.
I know it must suck to have someone latch onto something you are doing - it’s happened to all of us plenty of times. And I think perhaps WG maybe approached things a little harshly. But does a SEO competition really warrant cross-blog/forum flames? Schoolyard stuff there gents.
Perhaps it didn’t work out as intended, but I think it’s great that there are effectively duel competitions running - it gives participants many more options.
Maybe someone would like to create a 3rd ruleset and prize fund (or split the WG led fund?) - how about some link popularity for charity sites based on similar rules and the same keyword? There’s plenty of publicity to go around folks.
MG
John scott calling someone obnoxious is hilarious…as anyone who has had the misfortune to disagree with him on his forum is well aware.
John Scott? Who is John Scott? Never heard of him.
If it’s for “old urine” or “naked goats” then I’m in!
Damnit, day late dollar short!
This is why I wanted an interview Greg…
Recommend Greg you leave everything as-is, including your “NOT link” offer/requirement. First, whoever “blinks first” (you or John Scott) will be called a wimp by the other. Second, because it adds a nice twist to the contest and makes it more fun. Finally, we gotta get the page rank of the non-www Matt Cutts blog up there!
Truer words were never spoken.