Social Marketing – Be Careful Who You Take Advice From

The Internet is a dangerous place and not all advice about social marketing is correct, no matter what the source.

I am in a great mood and apparently I feel like taking on a SEO bigwig who has jumped the gun and published a slanted article that is not correct. Many will hate on me for this but here goes.

I also want to point out that Michael Grey is a SEO professional and he is much more knowledgeable than I am when it comes to SEO. However he is in my backyard now, social bookmarking.

Michael Grey, whom I have all the respect for has produced this theory.

Here’s a screen shot from Sunday afternoon where according to the Google SERP’s Paul Newman died in a plane crash … way to go big G …


Here is what Chris Lang thinks

First off social media is NOT based on organic SEO, there are many other things going on here that most do not understand.

What you have done is produce a theory from unfounded information. You do not understand what has happened here and you did not look into it enough either.

It’s OK I have done this too. But if I can, let me point out your mistakes in thinking this through.

#1 Since the post is from 10-12-2007 it has accrued PageRank over time, hence it will outrank other pages.

The Digg post is a PageRank 0 page, all the others are news items, since they are only a day or so old they have a greyed out page rank.

#2 Next, you mention it has only 7 links. At the time you published your blog post the news articles were only hours old so they had NO links.

7 links is more than 0 links.

You also have to take into account the quality of the links, not all links are created equal.

#3 The news articles are few hours old and may have 100s of links but none of those pages have any incoming links or any PageRank either since no one has linked to them.

It is also important to note that PageRank has nothing to do with the rankings you will receive in Google results. It is however a visual indicator of a documents quality, it’s incoming link’s quality and it’s power to rank well in the search engines.

#4 You are comparing apples to oranges here, you are in Websearch, if you want news, go to Blogsearch. It is ranked there at #2 as well, but you can’t win ’em all. It should not be ranked in Blogsearch due to the age of the post, I will agree with that.

News articles will jump from Blogsearch to Websearch, sometimes very quickly, but if they don’t get any incoming links they will not show up in Websearch. The fact of the matter here is the term was already indexed due to a hoax, hence the Digg item was already indexed long before the other.

If it had not already been indexed under the term, it may not have had a chance of showing up here.

Michael, why would you think a brand new article should out rank an article with incoming links in Websearch under a term already populated by a much more linked to article? The keywords here are Websearch and Blogsearch.

#5 In social media terms, every one of the people who Dugg the article are incoming links too. The article has 15 comments. In social media terms that is a link too. So if we add all this up then the article really has 29 links from social media. Some of those who Dugg this are my friends on Digg and have powerful profiles. One in fact, has a PR4 profile and can pass on lots of link juice.

I know you SEO guys are going to tell me I am full of crap. Do so if it makes you feel better, then go buy some current information because this has been the case for years. Don’t think so? Call Charles Heflin, Arnie Kuenn, Jennifer Horowitz or Jeff Smith, they will vouch for me and my information.

#6 Google is doing weird things with Digg lately. I don’t even have the data to make decent guesses here so I will not expand on what is not even decent data at this point. Let’s just say if you have been following my theories for a while now, you can figure out what I think is going on.

Hope this clarifies why this link is here. Search engine results are not always fair.

If they were you and I would always be top ten under every keyword.

If you want to know what is really going on in social bookmarking and SEO my brand new book “Wickedly Evil Social Marketing Tactics” is on sale right now for $67 before I move it up to $87 after me loyal subscribers have a chance to take advantage of the lesser price in the next few days. It also comes with an instant bonus on the page just for taking a look at the offer.

Cheers – Chris Lang


  1. Posted September 30, 2008 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    Some of you may have missed my point, the fact is that this Digg item has every reason to be in Websearch, it has no reason to be in Blogsearch.

  2. Posted September 30, 2008 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    Well laid out article with supporting facts on why the article in digg ranks highly in websearch. And the difference between google’s various search results.

  3. Posted September 30, 2008 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    Chris knows his stuff and you should definitely pay attention to what he has to say.

  4. Posted September 30, 2008 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Jennifer, you opinion has always meant alot to me.

  5. Posted September 30, 2008 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

    His main problem is that he mistakened Google for a truth engine and not a search engine.

    The whole internet is full of misinformation, misrepresentation, lies, untruths, and things impossible to verify. Nothing is 100% reliable fact.

    If Google filtered it all and only presented results that they can verify as 100% factual, you would be looking at a blank page for every search, because there wouldn’t be any results to show. How the hell would Google know what is or isn’t true?

    And things believed to be true today could be regarded as false tomorrow. At one time, people treated the idea of the world being flat as fact, and not that long ago, considered Pluto a planet.

    Plus that would disqualify most sites from ever being listed, since most of the internet is opinions and trivial matters that do not revolve around facts, or that list things that can’t be verified, unless they invade everyone’s offline privacy with spy cameras and humans to watch over every single thing you do, recording everything for later use, in case anyone writes something referring to it.

    If I posted an entry in my blog listing everything I did offline today, what I ate, what I watched on tv, who I talked to on the phone, what was the topic of the latest argument with my husband, how could Google verify any of what I say as being true or false? If I also called my husband an idiot in my post, how could Google verify my opinion as being factual? And if I stated how something made me feel, who is Google to say if I actually felt that way or not?

    And how would they handle parody, humor, and sarcasm?

    Google can’t and shouldn’t do these things, nor do they claim that they do or would ever consider it, because that is not the job of a search engine…so Michael Grey’s point is totally moot.

  6. Posted October 1, 2008 at 12:15 am | Permalink

    Thanks for your great take on this app! It seems that this article means something different to each reader. Michael was just throwing his off the cuff take on what he observed.

    Since I was in a very serious mood and my coffee was just having effect I took it totally different than he probably meant it.

    Mostly my position was from a social SEO / bookmarking point of view. Most SEO guys do not get the effect that social bookmarking has on Google. That is why I have added three new chapters to my Wickedly Evil book explaining more about how Google sees links in social media.

    The Digg top 100, how your social profile can carry heavy PageRank and how Google really sees links in social media. All brand new and information no one else has.

    Now if Google would just roll out Friend Connect on Blogger.

    Thank you app, you always bring a point of view to my blog that I may at times overlook. Your best and most valuable one was when you pointed out that I had overlooked the human aspect of things. For that I will always thank you and always be indebted to you.

    A pleasure to hear from you as always! – Chris