Spamming email, vain consultant

Young whippersnapper aspires to give advice to the old pro; the old pro declines, most ungraciously.


  1. McGehee »

    9 November 2013 · 8:04 am

    I once actually had a former high school classmate offer to fix up my website for me. Once I was finally able to convince him I meant it when I said no, I never heard from him again.

    Considering I hadn’t previously heard from him since high school, I can’t say I’m surprised.

  2. fillyjonk »

    9 November 2013 · 8:40 am

    In short: “I want to make money off of you, so I’m going to write a condescending but vague e-mail referencing your site.” Or, “I think you’re gullible but egotistical.”

    I get something like this maybe twice a year. I guess I’m so far under the radar that the SEO jerks can’t find me. And I’m glad of that.

  3. Dan T. »

    9 November 2013 · 11:39 am

    Interesting linked article… and the chain of links it leads to, including your earlier rant about “SEO-friendly” headlines linking/quoting a Washington Post column on the subject. Things have evolved somewhat since that column; now, instead of avoiding clever wordplay in favor of cramming in references to every celebrity and topic that’s currently trendy in hope of getting search engine hits (but wording them in boringly straightforward ways because search engines don’t get wordplay), the trendy thing now is social-media sharing, so the popular headline style is “clickbait” to arouse enough curiosity to get people to read the article (“6 Mind-Blowing Facts You Never Would Have Guessed!”) linking to articles that arouse enough artificial emotion of some sort to get them to click on the “share” button. At least the old-style SEO-friendly headlines actually told the reader what the article was about.

  4. CGHill »

    9 November 2013 · 11:52 am

    This is, incidentally, why I don’t work in New Media: I am far more likely to come up with a title that screams “WTF?” than a title that tugs at your clicking finger. And I never know what’s going to be picked up by social media, or why; if I did, I’d hang out my shingle and license that content for a small, or better yet a large, fee. I did set up the requisite social-media buttons — three of them, anyway — but none of them give me any feedback other than “Yep, somebody shared this,” and I don’t feel compelled to subscribe to some complicated analytics package just to bolster my Klout score (which, plus or minus a point or two, has been 59 for quite a long time).

  5. fillyjonk »

    9 November 2013 · 12:10 pm

    But I always feel so smart when I figure out what your titles are referring to. (sometimes it takes me a few minutes).

    I don’t do MOST of the social media stuff. I twit, because it’s a handy release-valve when life gets me down, but other than that, no.

  6. CGHill »

    9 November 2013 · 12:48 pm

    I do two and a half; I am active on Twitter, I maintain a presence on Facebook, once in a while I drop in on Google+ — which may appear to be more than “once in a while” now that YouTube has connected its comment function to Google+ — and, just for S&Gs, I reactivated my MySpace account. Maybe two and three quarters, then.

  7. Dan T. »

    9 November 2013 · 1:24 pm

    Your titles actually do arouse enough of my curiosity to often get me to click on them, but I’m probably not the normal target audience for advertiser-centric sites. (Yours clearly isn’t one of those; AdBlockPlus only blocks 1 of 94 items on this page; I’m not sure what that one is.)

  8. CGHill »

    9 November 2013 · 1:28 pm

    Probably, which gets a call when SiteMeter records a page view.

RSS feed for comments on this post