“Scoble can’t be more wrong”

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.

115 thoughts on ““Scoble can’t be more wrong”

  1. # 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.

  2. Pingback: Trust Matters
  3. Thx for the link locations. I should know better than to post so quickly after a long trip. I think my brain & body were in 2 different time zones.

  4. Thx for the link locations. I should know better than to post so quickly after a long trip. I think my brain & body were in 2 different time zones.

  5. Robert,
    Nice to have you blogging again, but I’m not joining you at the hip on this particular one. If you feel online friendships are not real, then you must think online relationships are not real. In that case what the Hell is social media’s value?

  6. Robert,
    Nice to have you blogging again, but I’m not joining you at the hip on this particular one. If you feel online friendships are not real, then you must think online relationships are not real. In that case what the Hell is social media’s value?

  7. Seems like everyone that is bashing you is obsessed with the details. The core idea is very sound. Social graphs will be used to assign trust to many things including search results.
    Saying Google will fall is just too much for most people to handle. But hey you got all these people talking so: rock on!

  8. Seems like everyone that is bashing you is obsessed with the details. The core idea is very sound. Social graphs will be used to assign trust to many things including search results.
    Saying Google will fall is just too much for most people to handle. But hey you got all these people talking so: rock on!

  9. As a final point in this comedy of errors, the entire thing was so well put together that you drew the -worst- possible reactions out of the tech blogosphere. Which, as you certainly know, stratifies the community along two lines.

    The people who think you have gone insane (who didn’t like you much to begin with).

    And the people who think your detractors are just being big meanie heads (a -strong- new reader base).

    Once “Bashing Scoble” becomes a meme, you can’t make a counterpoint to the argument without seeming like you are just joining in on a public hanging.The more I look at this, the more I am amazed that no one saw it more quickly.

    Well played.

  10. As a final point in this comedy of errors, the entire thing was so well put together that you drew the -worst- possible reactions out of the tech blogosphere. Which, as you certainly know, stratifies the community along two lines.

    The people who think you have gone insane (who didn’t like you much to begin with).

    And the people who think your detractors are just being big meanie heads (a -strong- new reader base).

    Once “Bashing Scoble” becomes a meme, you can’t make a counterpoint to the argument without seeming like you are just joining in on a public hanging.The more I look at this, the more I am amazed that no one saw it more quickly.

    Well played.

  11. At first I was arguing the -point- of Robert’s somewhat misguided statements, but I think I lost the forest from the trees. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Google will be blitzed by “social” search systems. The argument seems to have been thrown together without even considering market forces beyond hype. The question I asked was, “Why would Robert do this? Shouldn’t he know better?”

    Then it came to me. This is the internet equivalent to yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater. Robert disappeared for a time, came back and wanted to draw a reaction. Since there was no Apple rumor out there to ride, he picked the next best thing. “Big Google is on the outs folks!”

    We bought it hook, line and sinker — as we usually do. Bravo for coming back with a bang Robert, I couldn’t have played it better. Bashing Robert isn’t helping anything folks, if you think he has ‘jumped the shark’ all you’re doing is making the ramp higher.

    Alright, I’ve decided to look at this debacle from a personal marketing perspective. When you do, you might go as far as calling Mr. Scoble a genius. I’m sure he has pulled in a lot of fresh readership from this little spectacle.

    In the blogosphere, all press is good press.

  12. At first I was arguing the -point- of Robert’s somewhat misguided statements, but I think I lost the forest from the trees. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Google will be blitzed by “social” search systems. The argument seems to have been thrown together without even considering market forces beyond hype. The question I asked was, “Why would Robert do this? Shouldn’t he know better?”

    Then it came to me. This is the internet equivalent to yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater. Robert disappeared for a time, came back and wanted to draw a reaction. Since there was no Apple rumor out there to ride, he picked the next best thing. “Big Google is on the outs folks!”

    We bought it hook, line and sinker — as we usually do. Bravo for coming back with a bang Robert, I couldn’t have played it better. Bashing Robert isn’t helping anything folks, if you think he has ‘jumped the shark’ all you’re doing is making the ramp higher.

    Alright, I’ve decided to look at this debacle from a personal marketing perspective. When you do, you might go as far as calling Mr. Scoble a genius. I’m sure he has pulled in a lot of fresh readership from this little spectacle.

    In the blogosphere, all press is good press.

  13. In the immortal words of Steve Gillmor: “It all about attention.”

    Steve also loudly proclaimed: “Microsoft is dead.”

    You got a lot of attention and made your case. You will therefore influence a lot of people with those points. Google will react and so will Microsoft.

    And so will young Jennie Chong (now about 8) who will invent the device that puts human conciousness on the net and enables the ultimate borg complex. The borg complex will invade Google and make it theirs. That will be the end of Google and the dawn of the new era. MS will also be irrelevant in that era since software is redefined to mean “bio-firm-ware” and we’re all programmers… just by thinking and sendng out ideas.

    Sending out ideas: you ARE programming Robert! We are borg. We need input.

  14. In the immortal words of Steve Gillmor: “It all about attention.”

    Steve also loudly proclaimed: “Microsoft is dead.”

    You got a lot of attention and made your case. You will therefore influence a lot of people with those points. Google will react and so will Microsoft.

    And so will young Jennie Chong (now about 8) who will invent the device that puts human conciousness on the net and enables the ultimate borg complex. The borg complex will invade Google and make it theirs. That will be the end of Google and the dawn of the new era. MS will also be irrelevant in that era since software is redefined to mean “bio-firm-ware” and we’re all programmers… just by thinking and sendng out ideas.

    Sending out ideas: you ARE programming Robert! We are borg. We need input.

  15. Someone needs to point out in a different path. It takes courage to swim against the flow. I do believe in Scoble and whatever they have to say must be respectable but not all gurus need to agree with you. Anyways, let’s see what happens after and only time will give you credit, ok. Keep it up!

  16. Someone needs to point out in a different path. It takes courage to swim against the flow. I do believe in Scoble and whatever they have to say must be respectable but not all gurus need to agree with you. Anyways, let’s see what happens after and only time will give you credit, ok. Keep it up!

  17. funny thing to me is, all the dissenters seem to be making fun of Scoble for merely suggesting that big bad Google might one day usurped by something else. The thought of it!

    Oh yeah, that internet thing will never take off either.

  18. funny thing to me is, all the dissenters seem to be making fun of Scoble for merely suggesting that big bad Google might one day usurped by something else. The thought of it!

    Oh yeah, that internet thing will never take off either.

  19. Martino is full of it.

    You can ALWAYS be more wrong. ;)

    The world of social media changes, utterly and forever, I think 3 or 4 times a week now. so I take all of this with a grain of salt.

  20. Martino is full of it.

    You can ALWAYS be more wrong. ;)

    The world of social media changes, utterly and forever, I think 3 or 4 times a week now. so I take all of this with a grain of salt.

  21. good heavens! The only one I like here is Dare. Of course the social graph can improve search. It’s the trust factor and the fact that emotional components enter into search. Life isn’t all alogrithms.

    I’m not a geek and I don’t know two things about the future of search, but I believe in the power of the intellect to advance mankind, and that’s why I liked the videos. They gave me something to think about, something to write about myself, and a framework –right or wrong –in which to consider social networks.

    GOOG will be dethroned. Most of the Fortune 500 of today are not the Fortune 500 of 50 years ago. In the broader scheme of things, something will build on or replace Google the way airplanes replaced railroads.

    But predictions on who and how they will be dethroned are far more difficult. Thanks just for raising the questions. I don’t expect you to have all the answers.

    And keep taking the criticism from the more black/white thinkers. There’s no such thing as black/white on most issues.

  22. good heavens! The only one I like here is Dare. Of course the social graph can improve search. It’s the trust factor and the fact that emotional components enter into search. Life isn’t all alogrithms.

    I’m not a geek and I don’t know two things about the future of search, but I believe in the power of the intellect to advance mankind, and that’s why I liked the videos. They gave me something to think about, something to write about myself, and a framework –right or wrong –in which to consider social networks.

    GOOG will be dethroned. Most of the Fortune 500 of today are not the Fortune 500 of 50 years ago. In the broader scheme of things, something will build on or replace Google the way airplanes replaced railroads.

    But predictions on who and how they will be dethroned are far more difficult. Thanks just for raising the questions. I don’t expect you to have all the answers.

    And keep taking the criticism from the more black/white thinkers. There’s no such thing as black/white on most issues.

  23. I think your dead-on. It’s Algs vs Folks, so to speak. What really struck me is that you correctly point out that because of SEOs and “sponsered links”, Google “can’t” change, it’s too beholden. The inabiliy to grow has been the end of every company, since mankind first started trading shiny rocks. But two questions:

    1. What about Google’s other services? Could it pull an AOL and abandon it’s original niche?

    2. What’s to stop Google from buying the services you mentioned in that four year time span? And even worse, what’s to stop them from “absorbing” them?

    Also, I think Jeff Jarvis would strongly disagree with your “watch Yahoo” finale, as he believes their time has come. Personally, I don’t see how one can look at YahooPipes and tell me this company ain’t the future.

  24. I think your dead-on. It’s Algs vs Folks, so to speak. What really struck me is that you correctly point out that because of SEOs and “sponsered links”, Google “can’t” change, it’s too beholden. The inabiliy to grow has been the end of every company, since mankind first started trading shiny rocks. But two questions:

    1. What about Google’s other services? Could it pull an AOL and abandon it’s original niche?

    2. What’s to stop Google from buying the services you mentioned in that four year time span? And even worse, what’s to stop them from “absorbing” them?

    Also, I think Jeff Jarvis would strongly disagree with your “watch Yahoo” finale, as he believes their time has come. Personally, I don’t see how one can look at YahooPipes and tell me this company ain’t the future.

  25. Robert,

    You have a knack for PR. It looks to me like most of the comments are all heated up about the way you phrased the issue–who will be the “winner” at some point in the future.

    That’s smart PR. It gets people reading. But you know, as do thoughtful readers, that you’re raising a very powerful issue–the balancing act between human-based networks, and the ability of technology to mimic them.

    It’s a debate we saw framed years ago with SEOs vs. Yahoo’s original “expert” categorization system of topics. It’s a variant of all AI arguments, going back to thought experiments about one’s ability to discern the difference between a computer and a person playing chess behind a wall.

    It’ll probably never get fully resolved–there will continue to be roles to be played by each approach to the world; a dynamic punctuated by occasional blips, as a new kind of technology, or a new form of communication, comes to the fore. But in the longer term, technology and personal relationships generally figure out how to work hand in hand.

  26. Robert,

    You have a knack for PR. It looks to me like most of the comments are all heated up about the way you phrased the issue–who will be the “winner” at some point in the future.

    That’s smart PR. It gets people reading. But you know, as do thoughtful readers, that you’re raising a very powerful issue–the balancing act between human-based networks, and the ability of technology to mimic them.

    It’s a debate we saw framed years ago with SEOs vs. Yahoo’s original “expert” categorization system of topics. It’s a variant of all AI arguments, going back to thought experiments about one’s ability to discern the difference between a computer and a person playing chess behind a wall.

    It’ll probably never get fully resolved–there will continue to be roles to be played by each approach to the world; a dynamic punctuated by occasional blips, as a new kind of technology, or a new form of communication, comes to the fore. But in the longer term, technology and personal relationships generally figure out how to work hand in hand.

  27. I must be the only one who doesn’t think RS is clueless – but for different reasons. I thought he was talking about search and the polluting effect of SEO bandits. The fact the SEO crowd are in a hissy fit only serves to reinforce the view I’ve had they’re selling magic fairy dust when in fact it’s ad-driven site pimping.

  28. I must be the only one who doesn’t think RS is clueless – but for different reasons. I thought he was talking about search and the polluting effect of SEO bandits. The fact the SEO crowd are in a hissy fit only serves to reinforce the view I’ve had they’re selling magic fairy dust when in fact it’s ad-driven site pimping.

  29. @scoble: yes, your position is a little naive, but even I think people are being a bit dickish toward you here. At least you’re excited about something and got off your butt and talked about it.

    As blowhards go, I’ll take an underinformed excited guy over a boring, well-read “expert” every time. Chances are they’re both wrong — and Cory Doctorow comes to mind as an example of the latter.

    I actually think Arrington summed it up best by politely reminding that Google isn’t going to just sit idle. Frankly there’s not much technology behind Facebook yet.

    Sidenote: almost all of the points raised by your detractors in very wordy, arrogant public blog posts today were foreshadowed by what your detractors said in (relatively) private, brief, polite blog comments when you first raised this issue a few days back.

  30. @scoble: yes, your position is a little naive, but even I think people are being a bit dickish toward you here. At least you’re excited about something and got off your butt and talked about it.

    As blowhards go, I’ll take an underinformed excited guy over a boring, well-read “expert” every time. Chances are they’re both wrong — and Cory Doctorow comes to mind as an example of the latter.

    I actually think Arrington summed it up best by politely reminding that Google isn’t going to just sit idle. Frankly there’s not much technology behind Facebook yet.

    Sidenote: almost all of the points raised by your detractors in very wordy, arrogant public blog posts today were foreshadowed by what your detractors said in (relatively) private, brief, polite blog comments when you first raised this issue a few days back.

  31. My reaction: He’s crazy, nuts, and stupid.

    However, I know from prior experience you’re far from stupid, and upon doing some thinking, I understand where you’re coming from, it’s just still pinging my gut reflex to automatically discredit it a little too much.

    I think you’ve gone too far, but read slowly, and taken with a grain of salt, you make some good points.

  32. My reaction: He’s crazy, nuts, and stupid.

    However, I know from prior experience you’re far from stupid, and upon doing some thinking, I understand where you’re coming from, it’s just still pinging my gut reflex to automatically discredit it a little too much.

    I think you’ve gone too far, but read slowly, and taken with a grain of salt, you make some good points.

  33. I know I have said it , but I will say it again, SEO is like the Emperors New Clothes. Anyone trying to explain that the Tailors ( the SEO crowd ) have sold the Emperor ( our Clients ) an imaginary cloak is greeted with fingers in ears and loud “Lah lah lahing”.

    Ive seen many clients spend thousands on SEO management only to discover that its the law of diminishing returns. The more they enter 1 category of success the less they are able to move their websites and alter their content without another round of heavy funds. It makes no sense.

    The only SEO company I could trust to give me accurate results on Google should be Google. They own their system so presumably they are better placed to offer assurances than other companies ?

    Anyway . You Said it well Robert and you may be pleased to know at least 1 client of mine watched your Show and “GOT IT” and is now reconsidering the value in SEO for their business. Thank you

    Nik

  34. Doesn’t the inbound and outbound links count as taking social significance for calculating relevance? Sites getting more links are more trustworthy than those being linked to less…. And the sites that are pointed to by these more trust worthy sites are more relevant than those pointed to by less trust worthy. Also, by the network graph analysis one can point out and minimize the effects of localized group of sites using numerous links to point to each other to boost ranking.

  35. Doesn’t the inbound and outbound links count as taking social significance for calculating relevance? Sites getting more links are more trustworthy than those being linked to less…. And the sites that are pointed to by these more trust worthy sites are more relevant than those pointed to by less trust worthy. Also, by the network graph analysis one can point out and minimize the effects of localized group of sites using numerous links to point to each other to boost ranking.

  36. I know I have said it , but I will say it again, SEO is like the Emperors New Clothes. Anyone trying to explain that the Tailors ( the SEO crowd ) have sold the Emperor ( our Clients ) an imaginary cloak is greeted with fingers in ears and loud “Lah lah lahing”.

    Ive seen many clients spend thousands on SEO management only to discover that its the law of diminishing returns. The more they enter 1 category of success the less they are able to move their websites and alter their content without another round of heavy funds. It makes no sense.

    The only SEO company I could trust to give me accurate results on Google should be Google. They own their system so presumably they are better placed to offer assurances than other companies ?

    Anyway . You Said it well Robert and you may be pleased to know at least 1 client of mine watched your Show and “GOT IT” and is now reconsidering the value in SEO for their business. Thank you

    Nik

  37. It’s funny how innovative ideas are at first rejected by the gatekeepers before being embrassed.
    I think the human mind is wired to reject anything new.

  38. It’s funny how innovative ideas are at first rejected by the gatekeepers before being embrassed.
    I think the human mind is wired to reject anything new.

  39. TechDumpster: well, I don’t read your blog and I didn’t see it in Google’s blog search today (I only had an hour to find everyone who said something interesting).

    But, I just went over and checked out your blog and I notice you started out “Robert Scoble once again demonstrates that he is a giant tool.”

    Ahh, yes, that really should have been linked in here next to Valleywag. Sorry I missed it!

  40. TechDumpster: well, I don’t read your blog and I didn’t see it in Google’s blog search today (I only had an hour to find everyone who said something interesting).

    But, I just went over and checked out your blog and I notice you started out “Robert Scoble once again demonstrates that he is a giant tool.”

    Ahh, yes, that really should have been linked in here next to Valleywag. Sorry I missed it!

Comments are closed.