Russell Beattie Bans Threadwatch

Maybe he had no comeback to your lengthy response and decided it was easier to just remove it.

I never remove comments from people that disagree with me. It's always good to get other peoples views on things, especially if it turns out they're right and your wrong. That's the only way to learn... and after all knowledge is power.

..you also take most criticism (if any) standing up, Nick. And I admire that a lot. Same with your tendency to give Russell (& others) the benefit of the doubt, and the opportunity to comment/react. Just for that, I won't ask you what your 45-minute-comment was - exactly :-)

It wasnt anything particularly exciting Wit, just some stuff about monetizing blogs - i talked a bit about some of the experiments we've done (and are going to do) here and generally just waffled a bit on a topic of interest heh..

After my little "debate" with him he banned me too

If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.

...as to what extactly I do. If they're beyond hope of reasoning, I pass them off with a noncommital comment like "Hey, you've brought a whole new level of diversity to my comments!" in reponse to someone who said Hitler was a hero. If they're making some kind of civil substantive argument, I respond in kind. Then there are the posts that just make me sharpen my teeth and jump in. Sadly, they usually leave after that.

But I never delete posts, nor do I ban people who disagree with me. That strikes me as a bit sad, really... as though the site owner doesn't have enough confidience in his own reasoning/writing/opinions to allow dissent.

The list:
- Comments that don't at all refer to the actual post, or the earlier replies ("Hey, anyone got a crack for Photoshop?")
- Spam (no examples necessary, I figure)
- Anything that significantly breaches my privacy or the privacy of others ("So, Adam, still living at [address]?")
- Libel ("I heard that [bloggername] is a registered sex offender")

But if someone wants to call me a fucking moron or blast my opinions or anything like that, they're certainly welcome to do so on my blog or my forum. Heck, I'd actually appreciate a bit of a debate on my ideas now and then, especially a thoughtful debate! :)

it's his blog, he can obviously do what he likes with it. knowledge of this and graywolf's experience does make you read it with your scepticism filters full up though. but then, they were already on for other reasons so no biggie.

Russell is known as a Mobile blogger. He's only recently become part of Yahoo.

Why are you trying to drag the Yahoo affiliation in?

Hey Jeremy,

I saw your similar comment on your blog, but I was a bit puzzled at the one-sidedness of your frustration. Why no comments about the actual allegation at issue... something like:

- "Hey, we don't really know for sure that Russell IP-blocked folks; let's hold judgement 'til we know the facts" OR
- "Hmm... that seems like unreasonable and unpleasant behavior to selectively ban commenters" OR
- "Damn, the guy has every right to ban twits from his blog, so go jump in a lake."

I can understand the annoyance you feel about having a company (your company) tarred with allegations about a specific person who does not represent your company... but to completely ignore the issue at hand seems a bit odd.

Until it's confirmed that TW is or is notblocked, I'm not sure what the issue is. Right now it's an accusation. I figured that was obvious.

In any case, it's Russell's blog, and he's free do what he wants with it. If that pisses some folks off, it wouldn't be the first time.

Yea let's ban everyone who doesn't agree with our opinion, then we can go down to the museum and rip down all the paintings we don't like, and after that lets swing by the library and burn all those books we find offensive.

Russell comments at Jeremy Zawodny's blog that he has banned some of the "seo crowd" because he thinks they are trying to "drum up controversy and traffic to their sites." He has also laid out his moderating policy - no more than whim and mood - at his own blog. I wasn't sure whether to link that, not sure if he's just trying to be controversial to drum up traffic...

That's quite a charm offensive Russell's on in his moderating policy. :)

Seems odd that someone would want to publish information relating to the industry they're in - and then try and ban industry commentators from actually accessing it.

But...as was said, it's his sandbox.

WoW

Just when you thought Russ couldn't get any cuddlier:

Now, i really wish i'd read that before i attempted to be cool about all this yet again at Jeremy's blog:

If i'd read Russell's rather er... foot stompish rant first i may have been inclined to be less civil.

Oh well, im kinda glad i didn't - i have my way of doing things and he clearly has his. Whatever, back to business....

Doesn't this just go back to the whole thing of the lack of trust of the "SEO Crowd".

Not to say you were doing what Russell has basically accused you of Nick, just that that's the general idea people seem to have. Blog spams a big problem isn't it. Some can get a bit over zealous about it :) Suddenly SEO's are spammers because they dare leave a comment in a blog with also has a link to their site.

Always going to be people who take it a bit too far, as I think Russell has here. At the end of the day though, it is his blog, he has absolute rights to delete/ban people if he wants. You know what forums are like Nick, they are the same at times :) (some more than others)

After he banned me a few weeks ago, for some things I said about him, now he's banned Threadwatch as well.

Probably best to just let it go. Russell recently had some wacko stalking him and that is enough to make anyone cautious. Nobody should have to be considered right in this or even have the last word and these things do tend to escalate out of control.

As NFFC says, words are very powerful things.

I've been told he's always been a child when it comes to getting his own way...

I've had to update this post, then that's it - i've tried and tried but im sick of whiney bloggers who want to be able to post publically and never have their company name mentioned - how fucked up can you get?

Lardy arsed prat.

... a replication from zawodny's weblog, because lord knows I was nearly too lazy to write it, I can't very well expect you people to read it, and I like the sound of my own virtual voice ;)

Mr Anil Dash said:

At some basic level, I don't understand people who'd want to go to a party they weren't invited to. I have even less comprehension of people who want to crash a party they were specifically uninvited to. It's not going to be fun for the guests, the host, or the crasher."

so I replied, in all my inelegant glory:
I am a flawed analogy, hear me roar. Do your parties routinely invite the internet populace? Perhaps even your whole town/district/borough? I doubt it. Do something publically and people watch. Do something negative publically -- to someone else with a voice(!) -- and people respond. This is PR-101, and should perhaps be even more obvious to you web publishing folk, who routinely deal with discussions and news in a rapid time-frame. Responses happen.

(FYI, I had no idea who this Beattie fellow was. I don't care, either. But I appreciate being told why he is cropping up on a SEM site article. So I'm glad pertinent information was provided, as I'd expect -- nay, demand! -- from anyone trying to interest me in something I have no prior knowledge of.)

FWIW, I don't think it deserved to be front-page material on threadwatch, but its a small mistake.

(markup added for clarity)

I think its great that a webmaster can choose to ban whomever he likes, I also think its great that someone can call him a lardy arsed prat for doing so.

I've said it before but...I love the www.

Spot on Paul - absolutely brilliant mind; if that was what his tactics were. -Drum up contoversy within the SEO community and everryone will pile in with lots of good on topic links. Sometimes it makes you wonder who the SEOs really are?

Right on, NFFC. Everyone has the right to his or her opinions, the right to censor others' opinions in their private spaces, and so on. Gotta love the Interweb indeed :)

But I'm gonna once again tweak Nick for making this a "whiny blogger" thing. Are there thin-skinned bloggers who throw hissy fits? Sure are. Same thing with newspaper editors, TV anchorpeople, and so on.

Please address the person, not the medium. Because -- at least in blogging -- for every Winer and Beattie out there, there's also a Scoble, a Parsons, and other bloggers who respect and listen to those with sharply (and occasionally harshly) contrasting opinions.

Just call me the resident TW BloggerDefender :D

Behind all that self congratualatory crud… He’s probably a really modest bloke; he couldn’t take the flattery of being regarded as A list…

Personally I would even put him on a sick list!