There’s a TON of reaction to my videos yesterday, but here’s the reactions that stood out in my searches this afternoon.
SEOmoz (in a post where he ripped almost every opinion I had to shreds): “I used to respect Robert Scoble’s opinions.”
Ethan Stock, CEO of ZVents, points out how fast Google found my post.
Dave Winer on Twitter: “@scobleizer made me jealous. I want some of the drugs he’s taking!” He had a much longer response on his blog this morning.
Uncov: “Robert Scoble Actually Makes You Dumber.”
Danny Sullivan, search engine guru (in a lengthy post where he rips many of my opinions): “For such hype about his video, I was pretty much left with a “is that it” response?”
Dare Obasanjo (in a lengthy reply which focused on the real trouble he sees Google having): “I’m not sure I’d predict the demise of Google but I do agree that the social graph can be used to improve search and other aspects of the Internet experience, in fact I agree so much that was the topic of my second ThinkWeek paper which I submitted earlier this year.”
Karl Martino: “Scoble can’t be more wrong.”
Paul Glaszowski: “How ridiculous it is would be for anyone – anyone with a decent supply of sense, anyhow – to think Google will be divested of its crown by entities like Facebook and Mahalo simply due to a lack of the human intervention or “supplication” in its search process.”
Valleywag: “he’s just revealing what he has always been: a confused evangelist who doesn’t understand the underlying technology, doesn’t have his facts straight, and can’t keep his story consistent. But, boy, is he enthusiastic about it!”
I’ll sleep on these responses and come back to it in the morning. Whew, what a Monday! There’s still more than 500 people watching the videos as we speak, so more reactions will come soon, I’m sure.
# sarcasm on
Robert: I can’t believe you think aliens have taken over Google and Techmeme is going to expose them all. Where do you get these crazy ideas?
# sarcasm off
Sure, but what if he’s right.
[...] and Uncov took all the wind out of our sails by explaining the pain that your recent attempt at self-flagellation has caused the [...]
You can add WIRED to that list Scobes:
http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/08/trend-debunking.html
You can add WIRED to that list Scobes:
http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/08/trend-debunking.html
[...] Now, I’ve met Scoble in person and corresponded with him by e-mail, and he’s never been anything but super-nice to me. He comes across as super-nice in his videos. But he sure knows how to stir the pot, as his own follow-up post reveals: “Scoble can’t be more wrong” [...]
[...] more years. The response has been unexpectedly vitriolic (to his great credit, the Scobelizer has posted some of the tastier ones). First, I have to say that, disregarding his numbers for a second, the [...]
You know, when that many people jump on your case that quickly and that hard it always means you’ve not only got a point but a strong point.
Sort of like what happened to George Bush last week when he took another long hard look at what happened when we left Vietnam.
You know, when that many people jump on your case that quickly and that hard it always means you’ve not only got a point but a strong point.
Sort of like what happened to George Bush last week when he took another long hard look at what happened when we left Vietnam.
You probably don’t realize it, Robert, but it’s almost painful to hear or read a sentence in which number, tense, and direction are so jumbled. When such a sentence opens an article or blog entry, many of us just won’t read any further.
You write: “There’s a TON of reaction to my videos yesterday, but here’s the reactions that stood out in my searches this afternoon.”
1. Even though “ton” looks like a singular noun, in American English we treat it as a plural noun in this type of construction.
2. Just as we wouldn’t say “a ton of book,” it makes no sense to say “a ton of reaction.”
3. When we speak of the something in the past (“yesterday”), we use the past tense of the verb.
4. We don’t say “here is the reactions,” because “reactions” is a plural noun and therefore requires a plural verb.
5. We use the conjunction “but” to indicate opposition or contradiction, not connection, between two components of a sentence.
Therefore, your opening should read, “There were a TON of reactions to my videos yesterday. Here are the reactions that stood out in my searches this afternoon.”
Please proofread and edit your future posts more carefully, or let a good proofreader/copy editor help you. Thanks much!
You probably don’t realize it, Robert, but it’s almost painful to hear or read a sentence in which number, tense, and direction are so jumbled. When such a sentence opens an article or blog entry, many of us just won’t read any further.
You write: “There’s a TON of reaction to my videos yesterday, but here’s the reactions that stood out in my searches this afternoon.”
1. Even though “ton” looks like a singular noun, in American English we treat it as a plural noun in this type of construction.
2. Just as we wouldn’t say “a ton of book,” it makes no sense to say “a ton of reaction.”
3. When we speak of the something in the past (“yesterday”), we use the past tense of the verb.
4. We don’t say “here is the reactions,” because “reactions” is a plural noun and therefore requires a plural verb.
5. We use the conjunction “but” to indicate opposition or contradiction, not connection, between two components of a sentence.
Therefore, your opening should read, “There were a TON of reactions to my videos yesterday. Here are the reactions that stood out in my searches this afternoon.”
Please proofread and edit your future posts more carefully, or let a good proofreader/copy editor help you. Thanks much!
[...] all the comments are in, Calacanis will decide whether to play Czar Alexander to Scoble’s [...]
[...] 27, 2007 – Scoble acknowledges the backlash he is receiving in a flippant sort of [...]
You’re a guy who takes chances, voices them out loud and does it with enthiusiasm. That does not make anyone an idiot. The real challenge is in how one responds, and I think you are often open, to a fault, which is commendable … but also makes you vulnerable.
I appreciate the rawness, and like the blogworld, people can go and check things out, mash togeher the support and the rebuttals, and come up with their own view of things.
Everyone who cares to participate has a role in that, and you just do it with your own inimitable style. You being you. I’m sorry for you that people find that an invitation to ad hominem, while no doubt serious and measured rebuttal to explorations voiced out loud will always be welcome. It’s what makes up conversations that lead somewhere.
You’re a guy who takes chances, voices them out loud and does it with enthiusiasm. That does not make anyone an idiot. The real challenge is in how one responds, and I think you are often open, to a fault, which is commendable … but also makes you vulnerable.
I appreciate the rawness, and like the blogworld, people can go and check things out, mash togeher the support and the rebuttals, and come up with their own view of things.
Everyone who cares to participate has a role in that, and you just do it with your own inimitable style. You being you. I’m sorry for you that people find that an invitation to ad hominem, while no doubt serious and measured rebuttal to explorations voiced out loud will always be welcome. It’s what makes up conversations that lead somewhere.
[...] The fallout from Scoble’s video. [...]