Yesterday I received a link to Michael Stelzner’s blog and this post celebrating the “top 10 marketing blogs.” I don’t know Michael and had never visited his site, “Writing White Papers.” The site promotes Michael’s consulting business and his book, which puts him in a sizable club here in the blogosphere.
Clearly, the site is working for Michael, as his blog ranks among the top 10,000 on Technorati and has an authority number of 505 — nearly 10 times what my blog earns. Michael understands how to play the links game.
But Michael, I have to call you out on a very critical issue: Censorship.
Yesterday, I was one of two commenters (the other being Jenn Mattern), who questioned the selection process used for your “Top Ten Marketing Blogs 2007/2008.” I’ll admit to being more critical than Jenn, but I was tactful, as was she. (I don’t know Jenn nor do I read her blog, though I suspect I will now!)
Your readers will never know about our concerns, Michael, since Jenn’s comment and mine have been removed from the site.
So much for “the conversation,” eh?
It’s your blog, Michael. You may post whatever you like and disapprove any comments you don’t like. But when you take down comments, shouldn’t you tell your readers why? (I’ve only done it once and felt compelled to write an entire post about it!)
Jenn and I simply asked you for some detail, since your selection criteria goes directly to the credibility of your list. Do the bloggers honored in this selection know that it took only TWO nominations to make the finals? Do they know anything about the rigor of your review process? If the list represents your top-ten favorites, then just tell us that. Bloggers do this all the time to build traffic and links.
Michael, every blog in your “ten ten” is a pretty dang good one. But your policy for handling comments, apart from those that gush with praise, well, it’s more than a little suspect.
This morning I left this comment. I’ll be interested to see how long it lasts. (Update at 10:45 a.m., 11/7 — the comment below has already been removed! But this one from Markus Pirchner remains — for now! I’ve made a copy just in case it disappears, too!)
I see the comments questioning the selection criteria have disappeared. So, what’s up with that?
Yeah. What’s up with that?
(Update No. 2, 10:55 a.m., 11/7) — To my students: Isn’t this a great case for those researching ethical behaviors in the online world? To help you with the research, also reference this fine post by Amy Gahran. Markus includes this link in his comment over at Stelzer’s blog, but it’s very unlikely it’ll be there for long. Criticism — or conversation for that matter — isn’t welcome at Mike’s place!)