Comments on: A Surefire Way to Spot Fluff Posts http://www.wardontheweb.com/a-surefire-way-to-spot-fluff-posts/ Valuable Insights for Better Websites Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:57:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Simon Owens http://www.wardontheweb.com/a-surefire-way-to-spot-fluff-posts/comment-page-1/#comment-171 Simon Owens Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:23:06 +0000 http://www.wardontheweb.com/?p=141#comment-171 Stephen, your post has inspired me: http://bloggasm.com/show-me-the-money :-P Stephen, your post has inspired me:

http://bloggasm.com/show-me-the-money

:-P

]]> By: Stephen Ward http://www.wardontheweb.com/a-surefire-way-to-spot-fluff-posts/comment-page-1/#comment-170 Stephen Ward Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:22:50 +0000 http://www.wardontheweb.com/?p=141#comment-170 I've never subscribed to Performancing, but I have to disagree about ProBlogger. Sure, Darren's got his "speedlinks," and much of what he posts has been covered at some point in the past (how could it not after he's been blogging for so long), but I think he goes to great lengths to inject original value into most of his posts. The trick is to approach the same topic from a different angle. Personally, I found last Thursday's post, <a href="http://www.problogger.net/archives/2008/08/22/is-writing-great-content-enough-to-build-a-successful-blog/" rel="nofollow">"Is Writing Great Content Enough to Build a Successful Blog?"</a> very valuable, and I've been reading ProBlogger for years. (Ironically, I was writing this sentence when notification came into my email of your second comment decrying the post.) I suppose there's an element of subjectivity here that I failed to touch on. Original value, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder. ;) I’ve never subscribed to Performancing, but I have to disagree about ProBlogger. Sure, Darren’s got his “speedlinks,” and much of what he posts has been covered at some point in the past (how could it not after he’s been blogging for so long), but I think he goes to great lengths to inject original value into most of his posts.

The trick is to approach the same topic from a different angle. Personally, I found last Thursday’s post, “Is Writing Great Content Enough to Build a Successful Blog?” very valuable, and I’ve been reading ProBlogger for years. (Ironically, I was writing this sentence when notification came into my email of your second comment decrying the post.)

I suppose there’s an element of subjectivity here that I failed to touch on. Original value, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder. ;)

]]> By: Simon Owens http://www.wardontheweb.com/a-surefire-way-to-spot-fluff-posts/comment-page-1/#comment-169 Simon Owens Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:16:51 +0000 http://www.wardontheweb.com/?p=141#comment-169 Speaking of Problogger, Darren Rowse is the king of writing 300 word posts that say absolutely nothing. I mean, look at this post about Yahoo Buzz. http://www.problogger.net/archives/2008/08/20/the-buzz-about-yahoo-buzz/ Or this post, which is just him recycling crap that he's been saying week in and week out for the past two years: http://www.problogger.net/archives/2008/08/22/is-writing-great-content-enough-to-build-a-successful-blog/ Nobody's worse than Performancing though. Speaking of Problogger, Darren Rowse is the king of writing 300 word posts that say absolutely nothing. I mean, look at this post about Yahoo Buzz.

http://www.problogger.net/archives/2008/08/20/the-buzz-about-yahoo-buzz/

Or this post, which is just him recycling crap that he’s been saying week in and week out for the past two years:

http://www.problogger.net/archives/2008/08/22/is-writing-great-content-enough-to-build-a-successful-blog/

Nobody’s worse than Performancing though.

]]> By: Simon Owens http://www.wardontheweb.com/a-surefire-way-to-spot-fluff-posts/comment-page-1/#comment-168 Simon Owens Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:12:30 +0000 http://www.wardontheweb.com/?p=141#comment-168 98% of posts at Problogger and Performancing are regurgitations of old posts, they're complete fluff. 98% of posts at Problogger and Performancing are regurgitations of old posts, they’re complete fluff.

]]>