At least according to this Newsweek article on the subject:
In order to crack into the upper strata, you have to post frequently to stay on the fickle radar of this ADD-infested crowd. You have to link prodigiously to other blogs, increasing your profile and increasing the chances for inbound links. And you must hold strong opinions about what you’re writing about—passion is required in a good blog.
Heh.
Interesting article, if a little odd-sided and basic. More interesting to me is that it’s an honest acknowledgement of the dichotomy between the “haves” and the “have-nots” of the blogging world: all too often I’ve seen many of these same A-listers deny there is any such hierarchy. That’s bullshit, of course. I hardly need to point that out. I’ve never been able to figure out why they do that, though.
And what’s up with this?
“If you’re into blogs to make money, you’re into it for the wrong reasons,” says Searls. “Do you ask your back porch what its business plan is?”
Not only does this notion seem quaintly naive, I have to wonder why Doc Searls—of all people, given his background as one of the original Cluetrain authors—is dictating the reasons for people to be blogging. Jeez, get off the high horse. If someone’s into blogs to make money, that’s as legitimate as someone who’s blogging their lives for a few family and friends.
(And speaking of Cluetrain, I’ve got to get this off my chest: I recently read The Cluetrain Manifesto, and while I generally found the core ideas and first couple of essays to be good, mostly it’s overrated. Blasphemy! Yes, overrated; one of the things that really bugged me about the last half is that none of it seemed relevant to, well, the real world, and instead just came off as another business book where the rich guys are preaching their brand of success to that percentage of the upper middle class who are office workers for some big corporation.)
Anyway, the article was via Scoble. Let’s see if I get some link love! :).
In his own link to this story, Doc had an addition comment. Namely, the aforementioned denial of A-listness: "For what it’s worth, I’ve never thought of myself as an "A-list" blogger, and I’ve disliked the distinction ever since I first heard it uttered."
Well, that all explains why my market share over on blogshares has dropped from .0011 percent to .0006 percent, and why I just have two unique inbound links.
Funniest is those two are polaric opposites: one, conservative, heterosexual, the other liberal, gay. I enjoy both thier blogs and love thier links.
Well, regardless of whether he likes it, it’s 100% accurate. It’s more of that protest thing I was getting at.
And the last line from Searls’ post: "I don’t mean that as a put-down of blogging; but rather as a way of getting some perspective on what "alpha" means in a ‘bet that’s seven figures long, and runs horizontally, not vertically."
Wow. I’m sure he meant it to be a humbling thought, but I read that as just the opposite: put in that perspective, "alpha" in a multi-million long alphabet is *beyond* good…
Samuel: Uhhh… I’m not sure which is which, by your reckoning. But they’re both good blogs, no doubt about it.
What? I’m posting to a non-A-list site? DAMN DAMN DAMN!!! Oh well, there goes my elite status. Err….
Jon, Cluetrain Manifesto is a relic, that was "relevant" in its perspective in 1999. Then, in 2000-01, the bubble burst and people woke up and realized the entire world hadn’t changed, at least not overnight, and that all the old rules weren’t dead, just being adjusted by the new ones in painfully slow fashion.
Or something like that;-)
I’m not even sure it was relevant in ’99-’00. But yeah, it’s definitely a relic now. You can tell I’m all over the latest trends 🙂