Comments on: Narcissism, Honesty and the Technorati Top 100

By: Tweets that mention Narcissism, Honesty and the Technorati Top 100 | Newsome.Org -- Topsy.com

Sat, 19 Feb 2011 15:10:12 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kent Newsome, fury. fury said: Twitter: Narcissism, Honesty and the Technorati Top 100 | Newsome.Org: Blast from the Past: Narcissism, Honesty … http://bit.ly/g7uwJj [...]

By: Dave - Lifekludger

Dave - Lifekludger — Thu, 10 May 2007 04:35:00 +0000

I’m sure he’s as much a courteous person as the next guy (no pun intended).But Hugh of course Guy’s gonna be ‘nothing but a sweetheart’ to you. You’re gold to him. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re one of his 22.As Kent says, it’s about philosophy and sense of fairness (not wanting to get back into a debate of Clay Shirkey’s equality, fairness, opportunity) more than any idea that someone is “obliged” to be part of the community they expect to support them.You know a tree by it’s fruit.

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Wed, 09 May 2007 12:32:00 +0000

Well, Guy has been nothing but a sweetheart to me, in my private dealings with him. As far as the math goes, I don’t concur with Kent. Would I like to have a million readers a day? Sure. Would I like to be in the T’rati Top Ten? Sure. Would either morally obligate me to spend more time reading other people’s blogs, even if there were better uses of my time? Of course not.

By: Kent

Kent — Wed, 09 May 2007 01:17:00 +0000

Hugh, I hear you.But I still think that there are a lot of people who make a lot of money, have a high profile and do interesting things who aren’t as blatantly egocentric as Guy seems to be. Scoble is one example. Doc. Stowe. Fred Wilson. You.I also think there are a lot of people who do all those things outside of the tech area who still find time to participate in the blogosphere.I’d be very surprised if Guy keeps more balls in the air than I do- just not in the tech arena. And I’m no different than most people.I think it really comes down to the definition of blog. For Guy, it seems to be more magazine or newspaper-like. For others, including me, there is an element of collaboration and back and forth.

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Tue, 08 May 2007 23:39:00 +0000

I think part of the conflict lies in the fact that that Guy makes a lot of money, has a high public profile and is very busy doing interesting things. People without all those three often forget, or even deliberately overlook, is how hard it is top keep all those balls in the air.It would be interesting to see his detractors actually try doing it themselves for more than five minutes, and see how far they get.

By: Walter

Walter — Sun, 06 May 2007 06:30:00 +0000

The blogosphere is usually thought of as a conversation. I interpret Guy’s attitude as equivalent to that of a person who goes to a party and expounds at length in order to demonstrate his brilliance/wit to everyone within earshot, but who has no interest in hearing what anyone else has to say. And he’s not subtle about it — he just flat out says that he has better things to do with his time than listen to (i.e., read) other people.There’s a word for people like that…

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 03 May 2007 10:44:00 +0000

To me Guy’s into publishing not blogging. And he just sees the blogging community as another population to ‘publish to’. The ‘gold’ he saw in blogging that got him motivated to ‘touch’ it was the group of people gathering that make up the blogging community. His evangelists congregation. That’s why he waited to ‘join’ (cough), well, start blogging, he never really joined. He just waited to see if blogging would gain critical mass, or at least enough ‘eye balls’ before he’d come peddle his wares.It’s a way of ‘using’ people to push something…not necessarily with intention of being part of the community. It’s take, no give (Except of course he’d probably say he’s giving to us by imparting his opinions). The underlying uneasy feeling I get from this is that of being used and no-one likes being used.Dave

By: Jim Turner

Jim Turner — Wed, 02 May 2007 23:41:00 +0000

Kent I had the same gut reaction when I first saw the video Jeremiah posted. I found it very interesting that he craves links to make it to the top 10, but yet doesn’t read blogs to be a part of that community. Make me top 10 because I’m that good is what I took out of it. He says he doesnt touch anything that isn’t already gold so I guess he knew of the gold in this mine before he ever started digging. I wonder if his reaction or statement would be the same if we all decided that his blog wasn’t good enough for us to read? I’ll be watching this unfold to see if there is any backlash from those that feel a little slighted by his statement and unlink him. I think even Jeremiah was a little shocked at the statement which is why he included it in the first place. I would like to get his take.

By: Kent

Kent — Wed, 02 May 2007 14:12:00 +0000

I never said you were a bad person. I said you came off as a little self-centered, but that I didn’t think you were as self-centered as you came across.My point is that it’s odd to want to be in the top 10, which requires that you have a lot of readers, and at the same time say you don’t read anyone else.You’ve obviously done a lot right by getting to where you are.But the I want to be read but I don’t read thing is inconsistent with my personal view of blogging.It’s not about good or bad. It’s more about philosophy and fairness.

By: Guy

Guy — Wed, 02 May 2007 05:14:00 +0000

Let me get this straight: Because I’d rather be with my family, blog, answer email, start a new site, and play hockey than read feeds, I’m a bad person?By the way, I was not accurate in my feed count. I just counted, and I only have 22 feeds. So I plead guilty. And I’m proud of it. Guy