Chris Lang vs Dave Rosenthal

Dave Rosenthal calls Chris Lang out? Challenge accepted!

Dave, this deserves a blog post, not a comment.

Dave says

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the email about this latest step in your exploration. I’m not seeing my last comment around here, so I wished I saved a copy so people would know I had already addressed this issue. But you say “Find out if Chris Lang was right or wrong!” Well Dave Rosenthal (that’s me, but hey we’re using 3rd person now) says it’s a very specific function.

Again if a guy has a site about ceiling fans, and writes the KIND of piece that is going to get dugg like some crap about the latest iphone, some crap about digg users, or some picture of a guy falling off his skateboard onto his nuts. It may show up on page 1 of Google, but I assure you I can write a piece and have it show up in Google on the first page in the number 1 position 5 minutes later. But it has to be a very specific wording, AND it might not stay there AND it may or may not have anything to do with the rest of my site AND that post is not going to raise the rest of my site to page one position 1 for whatever my site is about.

So I think your method has a very specific use. I’m not sure yet if a) it’s going to generate relevant traffic that will b) turn into revenue for anything more than a few digg-skewed industries (and I use the word “industries” loosely). Don’t mean to get all Missouri on you (especially since I don’t live there!), but I need to see a stronger correlation of digg/google/RELEVANT traffic/money.

Chris Lang says


Good points, but that is not what my eBook is about. It is not about relevant traffic from Digg, that is up to you. If you do not target friends that post about your relevant niche, then, YES, you are going to get crap traffic. I tell my readers both in the eBook and on public posts that if you do not participate then you are a Digg spammer, or on any social site.


As far as search engine traffic that is up to you too. If you target search engine terms that convert and then use my social bookmarking tactics to get to the top of the results, then YES, it will convert into sales.

Relevance on Digg or any social site is up to who you friend. I have said this many times, social site traffic does not convert. UNLESS you target social site friends that are about what you sell. I sell search engine rankings. I don’t sell Diggs, I don’t sell social networking how to’s. I don’t sell how to make friends and influence people. That is not Chris Lang.

True, how to do this is very detailed in the eBook. There are things that no one else has suggested you do but me. I have specific strategies that apply to each social bookmarking site independently.

Chris Lang sells search engine rankings thru social bookmarking. No more, no less. I have proved that you can get any blog post ranked well in Google for a lightly searched term that converts to sales.

I sold 7 eBooks before noon due to my last post. Why? Because I proved that I can bring rankings and traffic that is targeted and converts.

Now lets think about what you said and there are many factors that you have not considered. Does the site convert targeted traffic to begin with? Does the site convert visitors to newsletter subscribers? Does the site convert subscribers to RSS subscribers?

How can you say that Digg traffic is crap when there are so many factors that cannot be considered?

If the answers are NO to any on these they need to address these issues before they do any traffic building.

As far as blog posts coming and going, that is how blogs are, they diminish with age. I have a little secret strategy that will keep your blog post in the SERPs forever.

Just Google “how to get more diggs

My blog post has been there for 4 MONTHS. It will not go down. You cannot out rank me. I own that term.

The problem with blogs is that as the post ages, it diminishes in rank and relevance in Google’s eye. I have solved that and can stay ranked under any term I want.

You can say that you can get ranked in a day under any term. PROVE IT! I will take on all comers. Lets both go start a new blog on Blogger. You pick the day. You pick the term. I GUARANTEE I can outrank you in 48 hours.

BTW, no having other bloggers help you. I can find every blog that links to you, that won’t work.

I cannot be beat and if you do you got some major *%#$!

The thing is that major terms are hard to get into. I teach that you should be going after niche terms that are fairly plunderable and convert. “how to get more diggs” converts for me. How to put up a ceiling fan and not get electrocuted at the same time may convert for your light fixture guy that you talked about.

But look at it this way, “how to get more diggs” has traffic. Not allot but the term converts. It converted into $280 in sales for me today. If you think you can get a brand new blog to outrank my brand new blog in 48 hours, let’s do a test. I am all about testing.

AND I LOVE COMPETITION! Chris Lang is the most overly competitive bastard in the whole world.

Also if you beat me, I will figure out how and add it to my eBook. That is marketing! I love you Dave, and I expect you to keep up the devils advocate stance. It makes me a better marketer!!!


  1. Posted June 13, 2008 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

    Thanks you guys. This is how people like me learn. Keep the topics lively and interesting. This is awesome content. All publicity is good publicity. Now I know who Chris Lang is, and I have seen Dave R’s name on the net in a variety of places, but it definitely sparked more interest in who Dave R is and what does he does.
    The long hot summer is off to a great and interesting start. Keep the challenges running.

  2. Posted June 13, 2008 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    Let me edit my comment!!! LOL…what does he does…I love it.

  3. Posted June 13, 2008 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    I love comments like Dave made, Chris, because whether Dave misunderstood the purpose of your comments or not – he did have the presence of mind to question and comment for further clarification.

  4. Posted June 13, 2008 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    -That first “us” should be “is”
    -Also I see my original comments ARE here, I was so busy reading your part…