<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Online Journalism Blog &#187; googlebomb</title>
	<atom:link href="http://onlinejournalismblog.com/tag/googlebomb/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://onlinejournalismblog.com</link>
	<description>A conversation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 08:39:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
<cloud domain='onlinejournalismblog.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />
		<item>
		<title>Reasons not to ignore comments #2: The Daily Mail and Julie Moult</title>
		<link>http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/09/04/reasons-not-to-ignore-comments-2-the-daily-mail-and-julie-moult/</link>
		<comments>http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/09/04/reasons-not-to-ignore-comments-2-the-daily-mail-and-julie-moult/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 07:49:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul Bradshaw</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[newspapers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bloggerheads]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[daily mail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[googlebomb]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[julie moult]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[julie moult is an idiot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[manic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[martin clarke]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlinejournalismblog.com/?p=1440</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[UPDATE: A response from the Daily Mail&#8217;s Martin Clarke: &#8220;comments on the article in question were not published, because the story was already a few days old &#8230; If you want to complain about a story some days after it&#8217;s published you have to take a more traditional view of things and write to the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;">
			<a href="http://api.tweetmeme.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinejournalismblog.com%2F2008%2F09%2F04%2Freasons-not-to-ignore-comments-2-the-daily-mail-and-julie-moult%2F" onclick="urchinTracker('/outgoing/api.tweetmeme.com/share?url=http_3A_2F_2Fonlinejournalismblog.com_2F2008_2F09_2F04_2Freasons-not-to-ignore-comments-2-the-daily-mail-and-julie-moult_2F&amp;referer=');"><br />
				<img src="http://api.tweetmeme.com/imagebutton.gif?url=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinejournalismblog.com%2F2008%2F09%2F04%2Freasons-not-to-ignore-comments-2-the-daily-mail-and-julie-moult%2F&amp;style=normal&amp;b=2" height="61" width="50" /><br />
			</a>
		</div>
<p><a href="http://www.bloggerheads.com/images/julie_moult.jpg" onclick="urchinTracker('/outgoing/www.bloggerheads.com/images/julie_moult.jpg?referer=');"><img class="alignnone" src="http://www.bloggerheads.com/images/julie_moult.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></a></p>
<p><strong>UPDATE</strong>: <a href="http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/532310.php" onclick="urchinTracker('/outgoing/www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/532310.php?referer=');">A response from the Daily Mail&#8217;s Martin Clarke</a>: &#8220;comments on the article in question were not published, because the story was already a few days old &#8230; If you want to complain about a story some days after it&#8217;s published you have to take a more traditional view of things and write to the editor&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve <a href="http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/08/15/youtube-and-the-first-casualty-of-war/">blogged before about the problem with ignoring comments</a>. But recently &#8220;marketing man gone native&#8221; blog <a href="http://www.bloggerheads.com/" onclick="urchinTracker('/outgoing/www.bloggerheads.com/?referer=');">Bloggerheads </a>has been providing a rather stronger case.</p>
<p>Julie Moult is a journalist who wrote a particularly <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1048296/Blears-falls-prey-Google-bomb-Attack-Of-The-50-inch-Woman.html" onclick="urchinTracker('/outgoing/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1048296/Blears-falls-prey-Google-bomb-Attack-Of-The-50-inch-Woman.html?referer=');">poorly informed non-story for the Daily Mail about UK MP Hazel Blears being Googlebombed</a> (in short, Blears wasn&#8217;t <a href="http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/01/quick-word-about-googlebombs.html" onclick="urchinTracker('/outgoing/googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/01/quick-word-about-googlebombs.html?referer=');">Googlebombed </a>at all: the top result for her name just happened to be a humorous image).<span id="more-1440"></span></p>
<p>The Bloggerheads blogger (&#8216;Manic&#8217;), frustrated by its inaccuracies, posted a comment on the story correcting it. Because that&#8217;s what comments are for, right?</p>
<p>Apparently not.</p>
<p>The comment was not published. So Manic took things up a notch.</p>
<p>He posted a lengthy &#8211; and <em>search engine optimised</em> &#8211; blog entry &#8211; <a href="http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2008/08/julie_moult.asp" onclick="urchinTracker('/outgoing/www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2008/08/julie_moult.asp?referer=');">Julie Moult is an idiot</a> &#8211; to demonstrate his points:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;I think with a quiet word to my readers and a few other web users, I could easily have the entire front page for &#8216;julie moult&#8217; in Google Images filled with images telling the world that Julie Moult is an idiot&#8230; and if she thinks really, really hard about it, she might just begin to understand that what enables/powers the eventual result isn&#8217;t magic or trickery, but instead Google detecting a genuine public response to my appeal and her own damn articles&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Just over an hour after publishing, his post was the top result on Google for <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=julie+moult&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&amp;client=firefox-a" onclick="urchinTracker('/outgoing/www.google.co.uk/search?q=julie+moult_amp_ie=utf-8_amp_oe=utf-8_amp_aq=t_amp_rls=org.mozilla_en-GB_official_amp_client=firefox-a&amp;referer=');">the search &#8216;Julie Moult&#8217;</a>. Now, as predicted, the whole page of results is also filled with similar entries.</p>
<p>Yesterday he <a href="http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2008/09/the_daily_mail.asp" onclick="urchinTracker('/outgoing/www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2008/09/the_daily_mail.asp?referer=');">published an update</a> taking things up another notch &#8211; this time targeting the Daily Mail itself.</p>
<p>The problem? Despite the fact that &#8220;tens of thousands&#8221; of readers had seen Manic&#8217;s post (including &#8220;people at 36 different workstations at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Newspapers" onclick="urchinTracker('/outgoing/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Newspapers?referer=');">Associated Newspapers</a>,&#8221;) the article has not been updated &#8211; <strong>and not a single comment has been published</strong>.</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;After thousands and thousands of visitors that have dropped by knowing that there is something wrong with <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1048296/Blears-falls-prey-Google-bomb-Attack-Of-The-50-inch-Woman.html" onclick="urchinTracker('/outgoing/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1048296/Blears-falls-prey-Google-bomb-Attack-Of-The-50-inch-Woman.html?referer=');">this article</a>, not one comment has been published about it and not one change has been made.</p>
<p>&#8220;And if that&#8217;s not bad enough, The Daily Mail then go on to lie about it:</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8221;No comments have so far been submitted&#8221;&#8230;?</p>
<p>&#8220;What a pack of lying bastards.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>He&#8217;s now inviting readers to help document  &#8220;the lies and falsehoods of the Daily Mail (focusing on a subject, speciality or columnist of your choosing)&#8221; and get <a href="http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/" onclick="urchinTracker('/outgoing/www.mailwatch.co.uk/?referer=');">Daily Mail Watch</a> to the top of the Google search for Daily Mail.</p>
<p>They&#8217;re hitting the Daily Mail where it hurts &#8211; on search engines &#8211; and who can blame them? It is incredibly frustrating for any reader to put the effort into posting a useful comment on a news website only to see it disappear into oblivion. I know &#8211; it happened to me <a href="http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2007/02/28/let-the-daily-mail-know-you-care-about-comment-integrity/">when I also published a comment correcting a Daily Mail article last February</a> (worse, <a href="http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2007/02/now_the_daily_mail_is_twisting.php" onclick="urchinTracker('/outgoing/www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2007/02/now_the_daily_mail_is_twisting.php?referer=');">Martin Belam&#8217;s comment was edited to remove criticism</a>*).</p>
<p>The lesson behind all this is best left to Manic himself:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Just so you&#8217;re aware that <a href="http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2007/02/now_the_daily_mail_is_twisting.php" onclick="urchinTracker('/outgoing/www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2007/02/now_the_daily_mail_is_twisting.php?referer=');">your notoriously self-serving comment moderation policy</a> does have its hidden costs; normally you lot wouldn&#8217;t be worth the time and effort, but <a href="http://www.b3ta.com/board/8685651#post8685735" onclick="urchinTracker('/outgoing/www.b3ta.com/board/8685651_post8685735?referer=');">your ignoring/deleting my quite reasonable comment response to your article</a> annoyed me just long enough for this idea to take shape. There, now aren&#8217;t you glad that you censored a polite comment pointing out an obvious flaw?&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>*UPDATE: It seems <a href="http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2008/09/daily_mail_comment_dishonesty.php" onclick="urchinTracker('/outgoing/www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2008/09/daily_mail_comment_dishonesty.php?referer=');">Belam&#8217;s full comment was eventually reinstated, lower down the comments and with a timestamp <em>the day after </em>Belam blogged about it</a>.</p>
<iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinejournalismblog.com%2F2008%2F09%2F04%2Freasons-not-to-ignore-comments-2-the-daily-mail-and-julie-moult%2F&amp;layout=standard&amp;show_faces=true&amp;width=450&amp;action=like&amp;colorscheme=light&amp;height=80" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border:none; overflow:hidden; width:450px; height:80px;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe><div align="center"><a href="http://twitter.com/paulbradshaw" target="_blank" onclick="urchinTracker('/outgoing/twitter.com/paulbradshaw?referer=');"><img src="http://onlinejournalismblog.com/wp-content/plugins/igit-follow-me-after-post-button-new/twitter8.png" /></a><div style="font-size:8px;"><a href="http://php-freelancer.in/" style="color:#D2D2D2" title="PHP Freelancer , PHP Freelancer India , Hire PHP Freelancer" title="PHP Freelancer , PHP Freelancer India , Hire PHP Freelancer"  onclick="urchinTracker('/outgoing/php-freelancer.in/?referer=');">PHP Freelancer</a></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/09/04/reasons-not-to-ignore-comments-2-the-daily-mail-and-julie-moult/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

