Disqus - Latest Comments for dotlizard

Re: 5 Ways To Become a “Media Junky” In Your Niche

dotlizard — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 01:07:06 -0000

Great post.

(heh). Seriously though, you have very thoroughly covered a viable plan, one that on the surface looks a little daunting, but with consistent practice, has social media success written all over it.

Consistency is the key, I think - it's the people who make these efforts day in and day out, that grow a loyal readership and the respect of the community. If done well enough, this can be a career in its own right, or an adjunct to a related career, where these accomplishments are a great asset.

As always, well written, well organized, and spot on.

Re: Creating Comments Cautiously

dotlizard — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 04:00:26 -0000

I agree with everything wholeheartedly but one thing - the 'great post' comment. Two reasons: first, because there are so many spam bots that use a similar tactic (short comment, praising the site or the post) as a kind of social engineering so that they may drop a spam link in the URL field. It's easy to overlook these small, innocuous spams as opposed to the horrid multi-link blasts, that's why the bots do it. Second, it has always struck me as a little bit spammy on the commenter's part when it's a short, effortless, generic compliment - I wonder if they are just skipping down their linklist, leaving comments as a way to get traffic. In my opinion, a good complimentary comment should give some indication that the commenter has actually read the post.

My advice would be to make the effort to craft a thoughtful comment that directly addresses something in the post. If you don't have anything to add to the discussion in general but want to encourage the blogger, for instance in this case if I hadn't had this to add, I might have said something like, "I always enjoy your posts, they are well thought out and clearly written. Thank you for taking the time to put this together, I think everyone who blogs and comments can benefit from this advice."

Re: Paying Atenshin to Speling,, Grammer and, a Punctuashin,./

dotlizard — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 02:25:52 -0000

I have an excellent command of written English, but when writing casually I love to play fast & loose with things like capitalization, fun made-up words, and of course my beloved ampersand. I actually think all-lowercase looks calmer and prettier, at one point on my blog I would only create captial letters by using a span style = text-transform:uppercase. I'm not making that up.

But now I feel completely self-conscious here, like I need to follow the rules to prove I know how :) (since so many do not).

Perhaps when we get to know one another better, I can let my capital letters down and it'll be OK? But not if it drives you crazy. I am at least respectful enough to hit that shift key at the appropriate moment, it's the least I can do.

Re: Why Plurk Rules The Micro-Blogging Universe

dotlizard — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:44:24 -0000

You've distilled the appeal of the Plurk into what I believe to be the most succinct and insightful post I've seen yet.

I believe there's also an addictive factor, which applies to those susceptible (as is true with all addictions) -- a combination of the demanding Karma system, and the immediacy of the AJAX updates in the lower left corner of the timeline, new Plurks, new responses, always "just one more" before you click away. I base this belief, in part, on the fact that I know many very avid social media users who checked out Plurk and said "meh -- I don't get it". This is probably a lot like trying coke or heroin for the first time, not everyone proceeds to become a cokehead or a junkie, but those who do, oh, they "get it".

Welcome to the subset of online social folk who "get" Plurk, we're always happy to add another addict to the fold.

Re: Pugnacious Hillary Clinton

dotlizard — Thu, 22 May 2008 01:50:14 -0000

omg i am so furious i could just spit right now. who the hell does she think she is and how DARE she invoke the civil rights movement like it applies to her calculated, deliberate decisions to go AGAINST HER PARTY and leave her name on those ballots? she has done everything in her power to tear the Democratic party apart. sometimes i wonder when she converted over to the GOP, ya know?

Re: Pugnacious Hillary Clinton

dotlizard — Thu, 22 May 2008 16:04:48 -0000

after reading @baratunde's post & exchanging a tweet, i've formed a new working hypothesis and he's confirmed it: Hillary has converted to the GOP, and is on a political suicide mission to destroy the Democratic party from within. when we say she's positioning herself for 2012, we are talking about the Republican ticket -- McCain having by that point aged out of contention.

Case in point - did you see the interview BillO had with Hillary? He was positively fawning over her. Asking these pseudo-tough questions that were artfully designed to allow her to shine, thereby giving her a great introduction to her future supporters.

alright i'm probably paranoid, over-reacting, and being snarky. but if i hear that woman comparing her manipulative, dishonest, sneaky political strategy to the civil rights movement one more time my head WILL explode.

Re: “Social Networking Wars” An Hilarious Video From Current

dotlizard — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:50:09 -0000

forget the skanks, you've got a fun wall!

Re: 2008/09/02/pingfm-solving-the-problem-or-exacerbating-it/

dotlizard — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:54:27 -0000

i completely agree, Mu. i have come to tune out the posts i know are being broadcast, because i don't expect that the poster will be involved in any subsequent conversation. especially on Plurk, because it is all about conversation there.

my other objection is that since i do belong to and actively participate in multiple social networks, i get tired of seeing the same identical post in three or four places. Ping.fm is entirely one way, so there's no way i can indicate that i've seen a certain post and have no need to see it again and again. the worst is on a service like Friendfeed or if using Twhirl, where the duplication really starts to get annoying. add to that services like Jaiku, which allows you to include feeds from other services, it makes the lifestreams terribly polluted with repetition.

i would much rather see people get away from Ping and focus on Friendfeed (which is now cluttered with duplicated broadcast posts), since FF is far more interactive and even provides a centralized location for feedback and participation.

Re: Blogorific!

dotlizard — Thu, 03 May 2007 16:28:54 -0000

me too! i'd say it was a coincedence if i hadn't found you through a trackback on her site but still. me too! nice to find actual writing out there. not that you don't. i mean ...

oh, this is getting awkward :)

Re: Culture of Violence…Happy Fun Time Ediition

dotlizard — Fri, 18 May 2007 13:11:23 -0000

i would get all mental too, if they withheld my sunday coupons. take the parade magazine, the travel section, even the freakin' comics, fine, but keep yer meathooks off my coupons!!!

um ...

Re: proposition 8 and the politics of hate

dotlizard — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 00:47:14 -0000

i am so glad i know the both of you, it's very comforting after researching this post and hearing so many people saying so many ugly things.

i hope good will prevail in this. i really, really do.

Re: they’re cows the size of schnauzers but they’re cattle

dotlizard — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 02:31:36 -0000

I am totally digging the mobile browser version on the 'berry

Re: Zicam and the Reputation Management Fiasco

dotlizard — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:31:53 -0000

i am hesitant to talk about this in public -- google being what it is -- but i have a client that wants me to do this, and it is definitely an ethical challenge. he's not promoting anything that's going to destroy people's taste buds, but he is making some fairly outrageous claims about some really basic (but highly overpriced) supplements. quackwatch and another similar site both have whole pages devoted to him, very well-ranked. they have mercilessly dissected his whole professional life and been very harsh, in my opinion. however they do have some valid points.

it's a dilemma. here is a client that pays his invoices promptly and is a really super nice guy, except he may be a little delusional about the benefits of his product line. i try to edit him and restrain him from making any egregious overstatements about his supplements, and yes i am helping him rebuild his digital brand. i am trying to toe the ethical line best i can, but i still feel a little icky doing it.

hope you get your taste buds back!

Re: Quantum Entanglements: The Social Media Scandals

dotlizard — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:43:30 -0000

@KatFrench true it is difficult to be "that person", but in the end it's very helpful and in fact necessary for someone to step forward. In the time that everyone sits and waits for someone else to say something, more harm gets done.

You hit the nail on the head with the "charismatic" - that is the hallmark of a good scammer, and probably even a really good warning sign. The old adage saying, if it's too good to be true it probably isn't, applies.

Re: Quantum Entanglements: The Social Media Scandals

dotlizard — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:20:27 -0000

oh, and if all this wasn't bad enough, guess what? an old friend of mine who is in a managerial role in a large health care corp tells me: "NOBODY needs money for dialysis, or any related renal therapy or complications in this country. The federal government has been paying 100% since 1972 for anyone who needs it - no other insurance or financial criteria required."

this isn't something that's widely advertised, you pretty much have to either be in health care management or be a kidney patient to be familiar with this bit of info.

but it does make LillyBarb's deception that much uglier, doesn't it?

Re: Quantum Entanglements: The Social Media Scandals

dotlizard — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:08:42 -0000

my deepest apologies. i wrote, researched (and proofed) most of this well past the time any sane woman would have gone to bed, and i was definitely woozy.

that's no excuse of course. i should not have made that error.

Re: Quantum Entanglements: The Social Media Scandals

dotlizard — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:41:33 -0000

thanks :) that was deeply embarrassing.

Re: Quantum Entanglements: The Social Media Scandals

dotlizard — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:13:41 -0000

thanks to everyone for your kind words. i just want to emphasize that i hope that this knowledge doesn't create an atmosphere in which people decide against helping - just that we all agree to ask the right questions before we give, and not be shy and wait for someone else to ask.

in this case it took extensive research by a good number of people (who contributed in threads on Plurk and on my research blog posts), to uncover the truth. it isn't easy, but it is worth the effort.

not everyone who has emergency needs is able to receive help from an organized charity, so there is still need for grass-roots community support. i just hope that people consider carefully all the factors before they commit themselves, either emotionally or financially.

and thank you, Tamar, for giving me a platform to reach more people in the social media sphere than i could have on my own.

Re: Quantum Entanglements: The Social Media Scandals

dotlizard — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:32:05 -0000

that's actually a really excellent way to expose a lie, in fact in the LillyBarb case, someone offering to send flowers was a catalyst for the discussion that led to us discovering the deception. i think it also played a major role in the outing of Kaycee Nicole, but my memory may be hazy on that and there is a lot of the original story that's been completely erased from the internet.

it is a very polite way to make sure there's something really going on, and not another sob story.

Re: Quantum Entanglements: The Social Media Scandals

dotlizard — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:00:50 -0000

i have just finished typing a lengthy message to a kind soul on StumbleUpon who has taken it upon herself to speak up for LillyBarb. She has contacted Dave, and she has been copying his correspondence into messages to me, in which she is basically advocating for giving money to LillyBarb, because lots of people are uninsured, and she has real needs, etc etc. her tone in contacting Dave has caused him to open up in the most sorrowful terms, lamenting the 'feeding frenzy' on Plurk and why would these people attack poor LillyBarb?

this kind Stumbler has likened this situation to giving a few dollars to a homeless man on the street, even though he might drink with the money, she does not judge. i wrote back in no uncertain terms that i often give money to panhandlers but i refuse to hand over my money, earned honestly, to someone who has been stealing the content of others for financial gain for years, and using it to represent her skills as a counselor. Not to mention posting articles on Squidoo, and receiving direct compensation for *stolen* essays. this is not a poor, pathetic soul crying out for help and a bottle of Thunderbird, this is a sophisticated scammer who got caught short.

at this point the medical needs are a moot point to me. i'm sure the criminals of this world would all like it very much if honest, hard-working people were to take up the cause of helping them in their time of need, no questions asked. i fail to see any virtue in that sort of giving.

Re: Quantum Entanglements: The Social Media Scandals

dotlizard — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:29:20 -0000

correction: the aforementioned kind soul on Stumble has clarified that she is not trying to advocate for giving money, which i inferred from her previous message. i just wanted to make that clear, i would never want to misrepresent someone's intentions.

i'm beginning to think that a concerted effort needs to be done to notify the copyright holders of the stolen content. i know a few people have sent a few emails here or there, but the very fact that LillyBarb's close associate is quietly reaching out to people he perceives as sympathetic to his cause tells me that this unrepentant fraud is going to continue until someone makes it stop.

the fact she's not made the effort to take down any of the stolen content suggests she has no intention to change the way she makes money. am i just being reactionary and fussy right now?

Re: Quantum Entanglements: The Social Media Scandals

dotlizard — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:04:28 -0000

i think some of the folks who helped uncover this have made a few preliminary contacts, but nothing organized. and to my knowledge, nothing's been taken down yet. (sigh)

Re: Quantum Entanglements: The Social Media Scandals

dotlizard — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:19:53 -0000

(sigh) oh, Beamer, i'm sorry the world has got so complex. used to be, if a con artist wanted your money he had to be right there, up close and personal. this doesn't mean our ancestors had less to be wary of, they just had different things.

see back in the day, it was the archetypical "snake oil salesman" who roamed the wild west selling magical potions and elixirs off the back of his buckboard -- the townspeople were still taken in, but it took a LOT more effort. perhaps i shouldn't have implied that doing due diligence on LillyBarb was such hard work, when you consider the trials and tribulations endured by the con men and the sheriffs who would run them out of town, back in those good old days. that was hot sweaty work for all involved, and all we did was sit at our computers and click things.

but, the fact is, technology does make it easier -- it doesn't require taking your show on the road in order to find fresh, unsuspecting victims. maybe because we can just sit at our computers, we're lowering the threshold, and more people will cross it and become scammers? possibly.

when you contrast this with the benefits: the availability of information, the connections, the amazing friendships that are made possible by the technology of the new millennium, i'd say it's totally worth it.

just be as careful as you would if someone sidled up to you on a bus bench and said, 'hey look i won this lotto ticket but i'm not a citizen. i'll sell it to you for half the winnings, and you can go cash it in!'. you know? be careful out there. we've always had to be careful out there. we just have to adapt, grow, and evolve in the ways we take care.

Re: Quantum Entanglements: The Social Media Scandals

dotlizard — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:01:23 -0000

she called herself LillyAnn but a little digging by a helpful commenter on my original research blog post revealed that she was not, in fact, a 44 year old woman named LillyAnn, but a 51 year old woman named Barbara. LillyAnn would be a nickname/alias/whatever.

my usage of LillyBarb was entirely snarky.

Re: Is Viral Marketing for Everyone? An Interview with Language Trainers, Creators of the Accent Game

dotlizard — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:32:05 -0000

viral marketing is such a fantastic opportunity, but it is available only to the very creative, or those with the money to hire the very creative, or of course, the very lucky.

my favorite to this day is "will it blend". they doubled their sales with very little investment, and that's kind of what it's all about, isn't it?

this particular campaign does seem to have succeeded wildly, the idea of giving ordinary people their 15 minutes of interweb fame is genius. Brighton SEO is obviously very good at what they do.

Re: http://www.techipedia.com/2008/blogger-outreach-sears-style/

dotlizard — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:53:24 -0000

Tamar, i would love to win the Family Fun Package, which I would like to send to my friend Devyl (shhhh! don't tell her!) who got laid off today, and is facing the holidays with no way to do anything for her tween.

as for me, I'm fine thanks :)

Re: http://www.techipedia.com/2008/blogger-outreach-sears-style/

dotlizard — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:31:44 -0000

just noticed you can enter three times, this is entry number two, for the Family Fun Package for my friend 'Devyl', a single mom who got laid off yesterday, and is facing rough holidays for her and her 'tween'.

Re: Quantum Entanglements: The Social Media Scandals

dotlizard — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:23:44 -0000

Offhand, I'd say this is the single best bit of information we've gotten in this whole mess. I'm sure that it is fraud, but it is extremely difficult to get a fraud prosecution started on something like this, where the evidence is scattered across the internet and many of the victims may not even realize they were victimized - such is the nature of crimes that take advantage of the emotionally fragile.

I'd say that Gabrielle and LillyBarb were involved, unless Gabrielle set up all her mom's profiles and handled them up until the time things switched to the "I'm logging in as my mom and she needs help" etc. Seems likely that it's turned into a family business at this point.

I think the most challenging aspect of trying to prosecute such crimes would be the majority of victims not wanting to identify as victims, since in doing so they forfeit any illusion of benefit they may have gotten from the situation - and illusory benefits are important to the emotionally distressed.

Your direct personal knowledge would be a great help towards putting together a case that would have the possibility of being prosecuted.