DISQUS

This is the predictable future of linkbaiters running around for the last couple years saying whatever they wanted about whomever they wanted and suffering zero consequences. More and more people are going to join the "Me Too!!!" bandwagon and the situation will continue to escalate.

It's not an increase in rude behavior. All this stuff was already being said on the back-channel. It's an increased perception amongst the masses in the fishbowl that there will be zero repercussions because of behavior like this, so anything goes.

I'm still not clear on exactly what a "Trust Agent" is, but I'm sure I'm one of them.

I get to know a lot of people.. I get to put my personal seal of approval on both parties that I introduce to each other IRL, because I've gotten to know each one of them and feel that the two of them knowing each other or at least recognizing each other in a crowd at a party would be beneficial to all three of us... In life, not just in business.

That's why I'm a "Trust Agent". People rely on my assessments to make valuable connections with other people.

You can get a WITNESS!!! :D *waving one hand in the air* :)

Well, this is the debate of "uniques" vs Passionate Viewers.

I have about 11 regulars at my site, and the conversations I have with them are what's worthwhile to me. It's cool that I get 80% of my traffic from Google and another 10% from other search engines and referrals, but I don't actually have any interaction with all those passers-by, so while it keeps me looking good in the standings, I really enjoy hanging out with my "club" more than anything else. ;)

haha Sweet. I'm gonna have to start reading these snippets every day I *DON'T* go out! :D

Actually, Mack. You're right about Chris Penn posting about this on twitter at 12:08am EST (7 minutes after vanity urls became available):

http://twitter.com/cspenn/status/2150094353

It's not going to have any effect on your brand, because you're ChrisBrogan on a lot of social media sites already, including the most important, IMO, which is chrisbrogan.com. Articles that you wrote online or that mention you link back to chisbrogan.com as well, so your home base remains intact.

It's just that it looks bad.

It looks like some relatively unknown "Chris Brogan" from Glasgow beat you to your name, when we all knew for days the exact day and time that FB vanity urls were going to be available.

Is that going to matter to someone that's familiar with your track record and achievements in social media? I don't believe so.

Hey Chris. :) Thanks for the shout-out :)

I was in a Tinychat for over an hour with my friends Tyme, Jennifer & Brent hashing out which name I wanted and why. They can tell you they thought it was funny at the time, but I was going to be sure of what I wanted BEFORE everyone had the ability to take names.

There were really two bad decisions. Bad Decision #1 is to have facebook all up in my billcammack google results by choosing my "government name", which is also my brand name and the name of my website as my FB username. Bad Decision #2 is choosing a username that doesn't "dilute my results" and subsequently allowing some OTHER Bill Cammack to have my name... FORGET THAT! :D

The fact of the matter is that we don't have crystal balls, so there's no telling whether Facebook will become dominant as far as people searching for people on google or on the internet in general. If it goes that way, I'm in position, as usual. If it doesn't go that way, I still use FB to point to blog posts on billcammack.com, so I really dont' think it'll be an issue.

What you DON'T WANT is other people that happen to have the same name as you do getting props for YOUR media because they read your name somewhere, searched it, landed on someone else and followed them or added them as a friend because you weren't diligent in "defending" your brand name.

hehehe Look at Jen Simmons in the pic! :D

Short Video Here => http://billcammack.com/2009/06/11/bliptv-summer...

Great Seein' Ya! :D

Congrats, Dude! :D

Sounds like fun! :D

hahah Fun idea! Let's see what happens with it :D

First of all, learn to use the "Reply" button. I almost missed this comment.

Second, according to http://www.co.monroe.mi.us/Monroe/default.aspx?... , if you're still breastfeeding a kid by the age of 12, that counts as a boyfriend, so figure it out.

So what? Women are allowed to go topless too, http://gothamist.com/2008/08/25/you_missed_it_t... but you don't see them doing it.

It's clear that the sign was dumb and anyone breastfeeding a 12-year-0ld kid in NYC is a Mid-Western schoolteacher, so there's no point in jumping on this blog and pushing agendas because you googled breastfeeding today and this is what came up. :D

Good calls, Chris. #3 is really important, because guys don't know how draining it is for chicks to have to have the kids around them 24/7. Get your woman a break from the monotony and it'll pay off when she's able to kick back, relax and focus on YOU instead of the kids.

AHA! Now it makes sense why they jacked up the front page. The "home page" is now the back end for other apps that are going to make it what it should have been in the first place.

Good move. Now we get to see if Friendfeed can counter.

Good Interview. Interesting idea. I'll be interested to see how differently this concept turns out from BET by using a somewhat democratic process of allocating time slots to people.

Of course that's going to call for someone to be the EP of the entire channel so that it doesn't turn out like Manhattan Neighborhood Network cable and just ANYBODY putting ANYTHING on the air, just because they can afford to pay for the slot.

Also, not doing that is how you end up with ALL music video shows and informercials and here we go again...

After you reach a certain number of people that you're following, and that number is in the HUNDREDS, not the THOUSANDS, it becomes literally impossible to read everyone. There are too many updates and too little time to read, think about and respond to them, assuming you have ANYTHING ELSE to do in life.

People feel flattered that other people are following them, but that's completely worthless if the people following you aren't reading your posts. @replying is the way to go, because it calls specific people's attention to what you're saying.

Also, now that there are apps like TweetDeck that you can use to make curated subgroups of your followers, only so many people are really being "followed" anyway, regardless of what people's following counts say.

Twitter Karma allows you to see everyone you're following who isn't following you back and mass unfollow them (or mass FOLLOW everyone that's following you, if you're in that mood).

Sweet! :D

I don't think transparency is the issue. I agree with you that Twitter announcing that they had a "suggested" list would have been nice. I'm not sure if they did or I didn't, 'cause I don't follow what they do very closely.

The question is whether to have a suggested list AT ALL or not, and whether the role of "Kingmaker" is something to be avoided at all costs by companies responsible for "infrastructure", as you put it.

Friendfeed did the same thing. Go read CenterNetworks from July 06, 2008. Scoble, Calacanis, Lemeur & Arrington ALL benefited and none of them were crying about everyone NOT on that "suggested list" getting left in the dust or trying to buy their way onto lists they were already on.

The only reason this got brought up is because Scoble's about to fall off the top 100 Twitter users, like immediately (check Twitterholic or Twittercounter). So this isn't about transparency, it's about HOW the Twitter staff selected the people who were on that list. When I checked the list out the other week, somebody's CAT was on it, and Barack Obama was not.

On top of that, if you want to restrict Twitter as a company from voicing their opinion about who people might want to follow, you also have to restrict the personal accounts of everyone that's known to be an employee from things like #followfriday. Where does the policy end?

Like I said earlier, you can't have people paying to get on the list either, because that removes the list from the realm of "suggested" into "sponsored", which is an entirely different issue.

You can't sell spaces on a "suggested" list, because then it becomes a "sponsored" list. This is similar to how you can pay for placement in Google.

Having said that, having a separate "sponsored list" isn't a bad idea as a monetizing scheme for Twitter.

Good point, Chris. They should have enhanced that message with a REASON why someone would want to try "Farmhouse Blend" other than they can get one quickly, because nobody else is lined up for one. :)

Thanks for the tips, Rob. Installed! :D

Oh man. Somebody "got jokes" hahaha :D