tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5285812003538838741.post3923406176989882370..comments2009-01-31T20:10:46.508ZChristopher Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10660157291722137172noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5285812003538838741.post-39215505374535349902009-01-31T18:12:00.000Z2009-01-31T18:12:00.000ZGood points. I share the concern about Twitter, but I think the good news is that everybody else does too. It's not too hard to see who the "real" people are versus the marketing hacks.Josh Kleinhttp://www.joshklein.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5285812003538838741.post-14892515383238738352009-01-30T10:27:00.000Z2009-01-30T10:27:00.000ZNo problem, Josh.<BR/>You are absolutely right; unfortunately, it isn't quite as simple as producing high quality content. Whilst the production of outstanding content has become somewhat of a minimum entry requirement for consideration of late, alone it is unlikely to get you very far. This is unfortunate. Hard work in drumming up interest remains the most viable means of drawing attention to outstanding content.<BR/><BR/>I find your comments concerning attention direction as a defensive strategy interesting. Drawing attention to content whilst diverting it away from that of the competitor is a fantastic method for 'politely influencing' the direction of the conversation; provided that these efforts are incorporated with consideration.<BR/><BR/>I feel that there is a very fine line between being perceived to be gently encouraging attention and being perceived to be shamelessly forcing its focus. This dilemma is becoming increasingly obvious through Twitter, which is slowly becoming a platform for pushing one's produce into the online sphere.<BR/><BR/>As you suggest, as time goes by it would be great to see quality content naturally achieving the attention it deserves. For now though, it remains a case of intelligently directing attention towards the content that deserves recognition.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for commenting, Josh.<BR/><BR/>TLRThe Lovable Rogue also known as Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10660157291722137172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5285812003538838741.post-30800826234116438112009-01-29T20:48:00.000Z2009-01-29T20:48:00.000ZYou're definitely right to emphasize that your content should be interesting, informative, and relevant -- and that your chances of the community linking to it increases because of that -- but I just don't think it's enough.<BR/><BR/>It's so tempting. It would be so wonderful if that were the way these things worked out; the best things got the most attention, the second best things got the second most attention, and so on. I hope we get there some day.<BR/><BR/>For now, there's still that part where the people working hard at gaining attention are the ones who get the attention.<BR/><BR/>Luckily, there has been a huge change in that it's no longer possible to have something really crappy gain that attention... well, at the very least it's harder than it used to be.<BR/><BR/>Now, high quality is a requisite but not a guarantee. Being awesome is necessary but not sufficient.<BR/><BR/>Returning to your "reasons for direction attention" -- at this point, I think it can be a defensive strategy. You need to gain the attention so your competitors. It's that old political adage: control the message, control the story.<BR/><BR/>OK, I totally made that up, but I'm sure some political people somewhere said it at some point. And "control" is probably the wrong word... let's go with "politely influence."<BR/><BR/>Financial gain doesn't have to be a part of it. This applies to the green energy movement, religion, political campaigns, non-profits ... whatever.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the reference, Chris.Josh Kleinhttp://www.joshklein.netnoreply@blogger.com