- Easy Access to US, UK Streaming Services From Anywhere - August 18, 2012
- 5 Fresh Android Games Released in 2012 - July 5, 2012
- Google Chrome Explodes On To iOS, Puts Desktop Experience In Your Pocket - June 30, 2012
What constitutes ethics in modern technology, specifically web-related? It’s a broad question, and one that is intensely debated in the realms of Privacy, Net Neutrality and Intellectual Property Rights. What about data manipulation, though? Where does that fit in to the ethical landscape? Classically, the public has railed against the manipulation of data — such as news sources and histories — for the benefit of companies and governments and the like, while at the same time accepting that such manipulation is likely both commonplace and and historical institution unto itself. Such acceptance is the reason things like conspiracy theories exist. Currently, these same viewpoints are often applied to common-use technology companies such as Microsoft, Apple and Google, all of whom have been accused of manipulating their technologies to further both their political agendas, their pocketbooks, and pretty much whatever else suits the search for a good story.
What about end-user manipulation of those same technologies? Is that acceptable? Web2Rule, a new service for internet marketers that allows for en masse manipulation of search and social media results, brings that question to the forefront.
What is Web2Rule?
Web2Rule is a service that connects internet marketers with one another and inspires them (via a points/credits, you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours system) to help push their content, and thus, their brands, to the forefront of web services such as Digg, Stumbleupon, Squidoo, and of course, Google and the other search engines. In their own words:
"Web2Rule is an online platform where hundreds of internet marketers of all types get together to manipulate web2.0 sites to their advantage. Gaining back links and focused traffic with minimal work, which means one thing…Money!"
How Does Web2Rule Work?
If someone wants to put their newest content item up and get to, say, the front page of Digg (which could net them 150,000 viewers in a few days, more via social sharing, as well as a push forward in Google rankings), they have simply to post a "job" on the Web2Rule boards. The job would state what they wish to accomplish, and would "pay" out a certain amount of points or credits. For less-work jobs, like the 20 seconds or less it takes to Digg something, the poster can pay out a minimal of one point, or more if they wish to capture the attention of the other users. The other users would then accept the job, do the job, and get the points. The points are a form of both credibility and currency, thereby inspiring continuous use and the need to help others so they will help you.
Bottom line: Where before you would have to do the sharing and digging yourself (or with the help of your staff or a few good friends), with results that would be limited by both time and numbers, you now have potentially hundreds (or even thousands, if it takes off) of people working to "thumb-up" your content, comment on your blog posts, share your blog posts on other services, vote your Answers on YahooAnswers as Best Answer, etc.
Is this a good thing?
How Is This Any Different than Normal SEO/SMO Practices?
My partner and I own Bluetoque Marketing, a budding internet marketing, SEO, social media design and web 2.0 design firm that’s focused on small business. As such, I am keenly aware that I just provided myself with a link back to my website, which may gain me both customers and search engine optimization ranking. I also share my blog posts here and wherever else I may write on various social networks like Twitter, Facebook, Digg, Stumbleupon, Posterous, Tumblr, and more. I sometimes make sure the post is mentioned to friends I know will be interested and will share them — and I encourage our clients to do the same. I also am familiar with SEO practices, from backend coding to optimizing content for organic growth. Essentially, when I choose to, I manipulate data so that data aggregators will take notice — so people will take notice. This, on many levels, is simply a marketing necessity to help a business or a person stand out in an immensely crowded space. Sounds logical, no?
My company and I focus on organic results only. We don’t subscribe to "Black Hat" SEO methods such as keyword stuffing, hidden keywords on a page, etc. We don’t even mess with PayPerClick or adWords overmuch as we believe that content is king. This is a philosophical thing for us — we realize we could make much more money if we went the other way, especially if we did it carefully.
It would have to be a careful road, too, because "Black Hat" techniques can get you and your clients banned from search engines. Google has made it very public that they don’t really like search engine optimizers. Why? Because they don’t want people manipulating the data gathered by their algorithms as it can hurt both their customer-base and their bottom line.
The question here then, is: "Is a service that is designed to bring together data manipulators en masse, for the sole purpose of establishing their own, individual agendas, appropriate and ethical?"
Is it no more than a new way to help the little guy stand out in the crowd of other little guys — and big guys who have near unlimited comparative resources? Or is it simply something that the big guys will also attach themselves to and do nothing to balance out the presentation of content across the web? Does it even matter, considering that it is all data manipulation anyway?
Would You Use It?
I suppose the real question has to be: "Would you use it?"
As a person, a blog owner, a business owner — would you use such a service to promote your content? Do you think it is "ok" to push yourself in front of others by merit of your work, or by merit of your network — and this is considering that, in this case, your network is working to promote you only to promote themselves, not because they find you or your work valuable to others.
What do you think? Where does the line lie — or is there even a line at all? — Let us know in the comments.
Evan Kline says:
As you could probably guess, I don’t like this idea at all. For one, it doesn’t pass the “smell test.” It just feels fake from a content creator’s perspective. From a user perspective, it makes me wonder how much we can trust data/rankings from other sites like Digg and Stumbleupon, if there are mass attempts to manipulate results. Even if somebody else was OK with it, I hope they’d realize that they’d lose all credibility with their readers/users if it were revealed that they were doing something like this.
February 10, 2010 — 10:18 am
Bobby Travis says:
You know, I am trying to play devil’s advocate and all that — and the marketer in me says people may have to embrace it, and things like it, if only to get noticed. I do agree though, that in principle it feels wrong. I mean, just the fact that the people sharing the content don’t actually care about it seems to be a fundamental disconnect for me. When you are trying to make a living with your content though…. I could see how people would sing a different tune.
February 10, 2010 — 2:19 pm
Kosmo @ The Casual Observer says:
Let’s say you’re browsing in a book store. You grab a book that has great blurbs from two of your favorite authors on the dust jacket. Awesome – this book (by an unknown author) must be solid gold. You hand over your plastic and buy $27.95 worth of hardcover glory.
You get home and find out that the book sucks.
Later, you find out that your authors never actually read the book. They were paid a hefty fee and the words were completely put into their mouth.
I prefer the reviews and recommendations be based on the reviewer actually liking the product.
On a tanent, I’ve received a few link request from sites that have absolutely nothing to do with my site (which is rather difficult, considering how electic The Casual Observer is). Huh? I would want to link to your site on day trading (and receive a reciprocal link) why, exactly? Sure, maybe it would help with search engine traffic, but our audiences have minimal overlap. I link to 16 blogs. I enjoy reading all of them, and only two of them suggested a link exchange (which I accepted after enjoying their content)
.-= Kosmo @ The Casual Observer´s last blog ..The Best Comics Ever =-.
February 11, 2010 — 11:08 am
Bobby Travis says:
I can’t say I disagree, Kosmo. I figure most marketing types may not have your moral standpoint, however, and will see it more as a means to an end.
February 11, 2010 — 3:02 pm
Jessie Jackson says:
Hi, I am the owner of Web2rule.com, and just had to chime in. First of all, great post that provokes a debate on a touchy subject. First of all, surprisingly I am on the side of most of the other comments here. The manipulation of social sites is not really in the best interest of quality content. Only an idiot can argue that.
But as some of the more balanced comments mentioned that if you are trying to earn a living online, you might think otherwise. The fact is that every seo service, back link outsourcing, paid content creation.. …all of it is about manipulating the appearance of popularity for one desired outcome or another. Small time marketers spend half their time trying to figure out how to tweak their site just to get a little love from the big G
One feature that I built into web2rule was a decline job button, If they see something that is absolutely garbage, they can opt out of promoting that site. What I have found is that the people, who join the site, have a strong tendency to Not promote totally worthless crap. Which I have to admit has been a big relief to me personally and it keeps policing the promoted sites down to a minimum. In the end a sites content and the handling of that content is everything. When somebody signs up to web2rule, they are sent to a video I produced that clearly states what I believe to be true almost without exception
You only need two things to make money online, quality original content and good rankings from Google. If you have good content, we bring in the results.
At the end of the day and we are just a powerful tool and short cut to help new/smaller marketers get a foot hold in their keywords. Quality always floats to the top regardless of the platform.
Thanks for the great post….Jess
March 4, 2010 — 8:07 pm
Bobby Travis says:
Thanks for the weigh-in Jess! Glad to hear about both your personal inclinations and your prominent use of the “Decline” button. I am sure both will go a long way to putting some folks’ minds at ease. The concept still brings up a questionmark for the average person on first visit (I’ve sent you out to my network, curious of their take) — but the service is not meant to service the average person, though it does -affect- the average person, so there is obvious disconnect there. I am curious as to what sort of stats in search and social media results the average user of your service tends to bring in for the average “job”.
And yes, as you say, good quality content does have a tendency to distinguish itself regardless, once it’s known — though it still has to wade through the… other stuff… that also tends to float to the top. :P
March 4, 2010 — 11:10 pm
VicDesotelle says:
I consider myself cut from the integrity cloth. I find it interesting how web related issues such as emarketing and data manipulation are constantly pulling on my ‘do the right thing’ chain. This article and comments raise some hairs for me.
I’m a small entrepreneur who hasn’t made his fortune yet .. not even close. For me creativity, not just ‘quality’ needs to be considered in a world that is being rocked by seemingly good (or ‘right’) solutions. And yet things are not getting better. Today official census statistics show that almost 50% of Americans are either in poverty or right on the brink. And 1% of us have more money than all the rest of us combined. What do you think ‘they’ are doing to market themselves? What are ‘they’ doing to make money? Do you think they are following strict ‘do the right thing’ high integrity standards? No.
Seems to make money, the system demands wrong doing. And so now web creationists (black, white, grey, whatever) are pushing into what was once sacred territory that only the elites and billion dollar companies could access in terms of market share. Tell me that they are always selling the best solution on the market.
Hec, just take Microsoft as an example. Do you really think MS Word has been the best solution for editing? No. But it takes money to make money. The more you make, the more you can woo markets into purchasing your stuff. Even if it’s done by selling a story that may not be so true. And by stifling (even killing) its competitors. Is that okay? Not in my book.
Since we all have decided that money is our primary god to pray to – the master that puts food on our tables, do we allow those making money to trample down our opportunities by accepting algorithms that do not in any way demonstrate quality or integrity?
Think about it. Algorithms most only use ‘quantity’ as the measure of good and right. Done so based on activity, and the number of likes and links. How is this ethically right? And where does ‘creativity’ (a uniqueness/quality thing) hold its flame in an overridden quantity-oriented snake-pit?
When I see more and more jobs being dismantled, along with an ever-rising population banging at a door that can not (or will not) hire us, where do I turn to have me and my products and services seen? How do I get moved up into view when, under a manmade program called capitalism, money-making can only sustain a few? Seems a few get to crawl from under the rock, while the rest of us get labeled as bad guys if we peek our heads out. But you can’t make money unless you’re on top of the rock.
So, if we need to make money to live, do we accept the rule of the day, which is now obvious to me only serves an elite few? Or do we join the big boys in their tactics of higher order manipulations. How else do we find the cracks of market-entry where we can sneak in?
And, what does all this have to do with web ethics and deciding whether or not to use web2rule? You tell me. I’d love to hear your views.
January 2, 2015 — 12:57 pm