Is there such a thing as spamming a blog?

Marketing Software Blog: Is there such a thing as spamming a blog?

Yesterday I wrote, with regret, that in order to prevent my blog from being inundated by unauthorized commercial advertisements, I had decided to establish a filtering protocol which would hopefully prevent automatic entry for these . . . people.

Someone who called himself Bruce Riddell (perhaps in response to my action, but perhaps not) commented:

Do you think that blog spam is a problem?

Then you should read today's blog article.
Is there such a thing as spamming a blog?

--
Posted by Bruce Riddell to Cogito Ergo Geek at 10/15/2005 06:55:10 AM

I went to the link (which has been deactivated here) and read what he had to say.


Yesterday I got a comment in my blog from someone accusing me of spamming his blog.

(Geek: It wasn't me. Apparently I'm not the only one he's been spamming, but whomever left a comment on HIS blog seems to have ticked him off. Read on.)

What happened was, I was using my automated blog submission software BLOG LINK GENERATOR to post my custom targeted comments into approximately 100 blogs.

This software finds keyword relevant blogs by searching for all the blogs listed in the Internet search engines that have the chosen keyword in the title. The software then adds a link back to your web site by adding a link to the selected keywords within your posted comment. Using this software to submit your comments to literally hundreds of keyword related blogs at the touch of a button is a real time saver!

(Geek: I'm glad HE is happy with the results. It means nothing to him that the bloggers who provide a media for his parasitic activities resent his uninvited intrusions.)

Anyway, getting back to the point..... I got this comment on my blog accusing me of spamming his blog. I told him that he should be happy for the comments (spam) in his blog. I told him that even though he thought of these comments as spam, that in truth they are valuable, keyword rich, relevant content!

It is absolutely true that the search engine robots travel the blogosphere looking for web sites (blogs) with fresh, keyword rich content and when it finds some it rewards that site for it. In the robot's eyes it can only see the quantity of keyword related content. It doesn't see any spam.

(Geek: well, the 'fresh, keyword rich content' should stand by itself. It usually isn't intended to provide a media-culture for parasitic automated spam software. It's unclear how Comment-Spam constitutes a "reward" for the original blogger.)

I also told this blogger that the fault was partly his. He should have set up his blog in such a way that wouldn't have caused all the comments made on successive days to appear on the same page. If he really objected to repeated posts from the same person appearing on the same page then he had several options of what he could do..

1) He could write a comment on my blog accusing me of spamming his blog. (this is the option he picked)

2) He could have thanked me for my comment thereby adding more content to my blog and he would have increased the search score of both of our blogs.

3) He could have changed the settings on his blog to require validation, members only registration and other options that would have made automated software comments fail.

4) He could have written in his blog more often to keep his content fresh. He could then have set up his blog to only list his ONE blog post per day. This would have limited the comments to that one day only.

(Geek: "The FAULT was partially his"? Does this tacitly admit that there is an unwanted situation, for which fault may be assigned? This lends itself to interpretation. As an afflicted Blogger, I have a slightly different view of these 'options':

1. Comment his blog? I don't want to encourage him by adding traffic to a purely commercial enterprise which is hitching a ride on my readership.
2. Thank him for his comment? It wasn't something that he submitted as a thoughtful contribution to the thoughts I had provided. It was just an advertisement inserted without prior knowledge or permission to use my efforts as a venue for his commercial enterprise. For this, I should thank him? This guy is like the telemarketeers in a boiler room, blind-calling people to sell them something that they don't want.
3. Change the settings on my blog because he is abusing the open-forum style I had hoped to proliferate? Sure, I finally did that. I didn't want to, because it makes it more difficult to establish an open-forum for dialogue on the issues I consider important. I'm hardly likely to thank him for making me lock my doors, draw the blinds, and hide out in my home.
4. I should change my blogging style just to keep HIM from abusing my forum? This is rich. First he suggests that I should blog more than once a day, then he suggests that I publish only one blog article a day . . . just so I can more easily edit out his unwanted commercial advertisements. Frankly, I very much resent his arrogance even more than I do his intrusions. That his suggestions are self-contradictory only makes it more obvious that he is scrambling to justify his nefarious activities in his own eyes, NOT that he truly feels justified for the reasons he has so pondorously expostulated.
   

Anyway, I told him that If he were to ban all automated posting on his blog then he would be shooting himself in the foot. If it weren't for all the automated comments that were being posted to his blog then he would have had NO POSTS AT ALL!

Did I mention to you that almost ALL of the comments on his blog were made by different people also using automated blog linking software?

(Geek: No, Bruce, you didn't mention that. Nor does the blogger find solace or satisfaction in the implication that 'If it wasn't for my commercial comments, he would have "NO POSTS AT ALL!' Note this is a paraphrase. His suggestion that there is no readership of the blogs to which he attaches himself is insulting and demeaning. Further, he suggests that he is, in fact, performing a service to the blogger. Read on.)


I doubt that this blogger realizes that his ego drivel is only interesting to himself and that he is totally missing the real point of owning a blog. As a marketer I believe that the real point of running a blog is to appeal to your true audience which is the search engine robot that is eternally traveling the blogosphere looking for new content. That's it! Period. If you're writing for any other reason then you're endulging in an egotistic venture that is sheer vanity. Think about it!

(Geek: "ego drivel" is about as demeaning and insulting as it gets. There is little one can say which better demonstrates the arrogance and egocentricism of the blog spammer; to suggests that a blog's 'true audience' is a 'search engine robot' is to state that NOBODY reads the blog for the content. Why would a blog spammer wish to advertise in a blog that nobody reads? Could it be . . . vanity?)


Well, that's about it..... I guess that I've alienated just about everyone. You probably realize by now that I believe that blog comment spam can be viewed as a good thing. That is why I don't put up any barriers to auto commenting software. SPAM AWAY!

If anyone is really offended by my opinions, please leave a comment in my blog. I don't mind getting some free additional content :)

# posted by Bruce Riddell : Saturday, October 15, 2005

(Geek: Actually, I was offended before I ever read this self-justifying bullshit. I don't mind that he assumes a privilege that he denies others . . . the privilege of asserting himself with null-content comments . . . without permission, against the expressed wishes of his involuntary hosts, and with total disregard of their sensibilities. I don't even mind that he's trying to profit from someone else's efforts.

I just wish he, and other bottom feeders like him, would get . . . off . . . my . . . back!)