Self-link?

April 22, 2007 8:17 AM

Self-link (?)
posted by Civil_Disobedient to Etiquette/Policy at 8:17 AM (46 comments total)

User zudfunck asks what a certain type of blog is (omitted to avoid generating any extra traffic). Zudfunck's website (in user profile), links to precisely this type of blog, going so far as to have a definition of what that blog type is in the right nav bar, and links to the type of blog's home page.

I don't think the CEO of the company is involved, just because they're located in different places (at least according to WHOIS). Still, it feels weird a bit strange, as jess already noted, kind of like someone who was paid to advertise it on different websites.

And the users that are favoriting this post are rather suspicious as well. We've got this fellow who just signed up today to favorite this awesome question and one other. Which one? Why, a remarkably similar post.

Should I get my pitchfork, or am I overreacting? Also, I'm a little hazy on where the boundaries for self-linking cross into self-marketing. That is, if I ran a website that had reviews of a bunch of Amazon-related links to books about cows, then posted a question like, "Does anyone know any good books about cows?" -- it's not a self-link per se, but it's clearly hoping someone will link to their site and generate ad revenue.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:18 AM on April 22, 2007

Also, to clarify my overzealousness, I personally find corporate confidence artists and marketeers more loathesome than some random user that takes a bunch of pictures and links to it on the front of MeFi. At least the latter guy had good intentions, bannable as they are. I'd just hate to see this place fill up with pseudo viral posts and comments to shill another goddamned "product" that we all just have to buy.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:27 AM on April 22, 2007

Ironically, zudfunck's website includes a little blurb about Pepsi Blue and its relation to Metafilter.
posted by odinsdream at 8:34 AM on April 22, 2007

the zudfunck user is definitely weird. I guess they were looking for whatever "breakthrough" tumbleblogs do aside from the vague descriptions you can find online. I don't think they have anything to do with the tumblr service, as their blog is pretty ho-hum. I've seen the blogs run by the people that started the service and they're fantastic.

Some other new user gives an enthusiastic response, but I think you're grasping at straws here Civil_Disobedient. I don't see any connection between the two, it's not some underground marketing junk, I think it's just one weird post followed by a positive comment from someone else.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:35 AM on April 22, 2007

And then there is yesterday's FPP on the blue about Tumblr: Blogging for the technically challenged.
posted by ericb at 8:36 AM on April 22, 2007

OK, Matt, I'll put out the torches and hang up the nooses.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:37 AM on April 22, 2007

It struck me as odd too, but I couldn't find anything suspicious in poking around. I think zudfunck is just a slightly lost-in-the-woods newbie as far as good mefi protocol goes; if anything, the fact that he read the FAQ enough to get curious about the Pepsi Blue thing is a mark in his favor.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:53 AM on April 22, 2007

I was kidding about the CEO thing. It just seemed like the most transperant way evar to get people to read your blog. I agree with mathowie-- it's not a marketing ploy, just a weirdo who wants people to see his own blog.
posted by sneakin at 8:53 AM on April 22, 2007

Don't know if it means anything, but the zudfunck blog links back to the AskMe question.
posted by EatTheWeak at 9:02 AM on April 22, 2007

He asks a question he answers at his own blog, which is an example of the subject of the question. And this question is staying up why again? "Definitely weird" only captures part of the rule-bending here.
posted by mediareport at 9:26 AM on April 22, 2007 [1 favorite]

He asks a question he answers at his own blog

Yeah, this smells very fishy to me. I don't know whether it qualifies as a self-link, but how about "stupid question the poster has no reason to ask except to generate publicity for a particular blog format he uses"?
posted by languagehat at 9:37 AM on April 22, 2007 [1 favorite]

What languagehat said. I'd delete the question toot sweet.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:40 AM on April 22, 2007 [1 favorite]

I think he wants us to be trapped inside his feedback loop.
posted by hydatius at 9:42 AM on April 22, 2007

At the very least, all those mouse-over pop-ups on the Mini Zud ought to earn a stern reprimand.
posted by EatTheWeak at 9:51 AM on April 22, 2007

At the very least, all those mouse-over pop-ups on the Mini Zud ought to earn a stern reprimand.
Damn straight.
posted by hydatius at 9:59 AM on April 22, 2007 [1 favorite]

I don't see any connection between the two

This explains much.
posted by 3.2.3 at 10:33 AM on April 22, 2007

If it's not deleted as shilling it should arguably be deleted as chatfilter. He makes it clear both here and on his blog that he's not asking a question, he's starting a discussion.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:34 AM on April 22, 2007

I get pretty overzealous about this kind of thing, so treat my opinion as inherently biased, but it really looks fishy to me, too.
posted by Malor at 10:42 AM on April 22, 2007

what a round yank.
posted by quonsar at 10:57 AM on April 22, 2007

Did you just call me a "roundeye"!?

FREE BAN QUONSAR!!!
posted by loquacious at 11:10 AM on April 22, 2007

Since the poster knows the answer to his own question, it is not a legitimate Askme question.
posted by bru at 11:18 AM on April 22, 2007

Clearly there's agreement here, except for mathowie but i guess whe shouldn't listen to someone who has already been banned from the site once.
posted by Catfry at 11:18 AM on April 22, 2007 [4 favorites]

Whether or not he's got anything to do with the development of the service, I think any AskMe that is disingenuous to the degree of asking a question for which the answer is already known by the asker should be deleted forthright.
posted by Rhomboid at 11:31 AM on April 22, 2007

If this one stays up, I'm going to go ahead and ask my question about who the world's smartest, strongest, cutest baby girl is.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 11:47 AM on April 22, 2007 [2 favorites]

Oh, no debate there...
posted by y2karl at 11:55 AM on April 22, 2007

It's a bit fishyodd that 2 of the question's 5 tags (Mini; ZuD) are elements of his/her username and blog/website name.
posted by CKmtl at 12:11 PM on April 22, 2007

If this one stays up, I'm going to go ahead and ask my question about who the world's smartest, strongest, cutest baby girl is.

Patar, I've read your definitions and dissertations on that girl, but who is she really? Yeah, she's smart, strong and cute, but who is she really?

So... if it's not a self link, how is it not chat filter?
posted by Gary at 12:14 PM on April 22, 2007

This question should be removed. What possible reason is there for it to stay?

1) Does it ask for a specific remedy to a specific problem? No.
2) Could the answers help out someone else in a similar (sic) situation? No.
3) Is it a thinly veiled attempt at getting people to pay attention to something (tumblelogs) that the poster him/herself has an interest in? Yes.
4) Is it, at very best, chatfilter? Yes.

What purpose does keeping this question up serve? Certainly none that I have seen the mods give as a purpose of AskMe.

And this opinion is coming to you from someone who lamely tried to defend PreacherTom. So its not like I've got a hair-trigger pitchfork.
posted by googly at 12:25 PM on April 22, 2007

Irrespective of whether it's considered a self-link, I think the question should be removed. At the very least it's chatfilter. But as Googly says, it's not an attempt to solve a problem.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:28 PM on April 22, 2007

It's incredibly disingenuous and it would be a stupid chatfilter question anyway. It's pretty amazing all three mods have no problem with it.
posted by puke & cry at 12:41 PM on April 22, 2007

I've deleted it, just now. Since Matt and Jess were there first, I thought I'd let it sit and see if zudfunck would at least show up and respond, but it doesn't look like much is happening and, yeah, not a good question as presented.

Lazy sundays, go figure.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:50 PM on April 22, 2007

modfight!

*puts $5 down on jess*
posted by mediareport at 1:22 PM on April 22, 2007

From the little prick's blog:
"Apparently I did a Bad Bad thing at this site. It was never my intent to disparage anyone or anything, merely have an open discussion on a blogging format I feel needs more exposure. I will go elsewhere in the future."
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:00 PM on April 22, 2007

What an asshole.
posted by puke & cry at 2:02 PM on April 22, 2007

Yeah, if you want "an open discussion", do "go elsewhere in future", fucknugget. This is not what AxMe is for.
posted by hydatius at 2:18 PM on April 22, 2007

Nice of him to admit he was looking for publicity, though. The lighting-and-farm-implement crowd will be pleased.
posted by nebulawindphone at 2:34 PM on April 22, 2007

for what it's worth, i think the guy's just a weird kinda burned out ex-hippie type, most certainly not a CEO of a web startup. "viral marketer" just doesn't sound like this guy.
posted by sergeant sandwich at 3:53 PM on April 22, 2007

I guess ruthless self-promotion is so commonplace today that people get genuinely confused when they're called out for it.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:54 PM on April 22, 2007

From Sgt. Sandwich's link:

"Times sure have changed," says the 52-year-old Kurtagh. "Everyone is so into themselves and blind to anything beyond their immediate needs."
Not like the '70s when life was a trip, the world was cosmic and revolution and rebellion against anything that smacked of authority was celebrated.

I don't know, what with the ever-changing definition of the word, if this constitutes irony or not, but I think it's pretty funny, nonetheless.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:57 PM on April 22, 2007

Also, I do feel a bit guilty harshing a 50-something's buzz. But, dude, read the guidelines, man.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:58 PM on April 22, 2007

> What an asshole.
> do "go elsewhere in future", fucknugget

Oh settle down, for goodness sakes. Honestly, this kind of uncalled-for vitriol is as destructive to Metafilter as the dreaded self-linkers.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:55 PM on April 22, 2007

Self-Link
posted by blue_beetle at 6:34 PM on April 22, 2007

Can I self link to metafilter? I'm using material from a post for a presentation in public. Are there any reverse rules? Do I list all the commenters whose insights I might use? Is there an FAQ for MeFI citations? When do these questions stop?
posted by infini at 8:55 PM on April 22, 2007

this kind of uncalled-for vitriol is as destructive to Metafilter as the dreaded self-linkers.

more, actually.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:30 PM on April 22, 2007

this kind of uncalled-for vitriol is as destructive to Metafilter as the dreaded self-linkers.

Absolutely. It's tiresome as hell, too.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 12:50 AM on April 23, 2007

Well, I'm sympathetic to the distaste for vitriol, but I have to wonder if it's really 'bad for metafilter.' I have a sense that Lévi-Strauss was right. If you've got one rule, whether it's an incest prohibition, an impiety taboo, or an intolerance for self-linking, communal commitment to that rule is what binds the community together. It's going to get enforced quite rigorously, whatever it is. Here, people can be all sorts of rude, but if they self-link, they're shunned.

Isn't that what separates us from the barbarians? [NOT BARBARIST]
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:52 AM on April 23, 2007