Posted by: Guy Edwards on March 5th, 2012
Full Disclosure: Bigfoot Lunch Club is a contributor to Cryptomundo and we have the highest regard for skeptics. Skepticism, in our mind, requires discipline and rigor. We even have a few favorite skeptics we follow, Sharon Hill of Doubtful News and Brian Dunning of Skeptoid.com. These are two skeptics that are very good at articulating arguments and they do their research.
Then there are those who don’t do their homework. This brings me to Myron Getman of The Mad Skeptic and Bobby Nelson from The Bent Spoon Magazine. Recently, Myron created a truly funny post that could have been respected as satire, had it not ventured into unfounded assumptions. The gist of Myron’s argument is, “…Coleman and Craig Woolheater’s favorite tactics to generate traffic — SEO tactics and, more specifically, the use of keywords.” Myron bases this assumption on his previous experience as an SEO writer, a type of authority, we feel he is not qualified as.
To be fair, Bobby only accuses of Loren Coleman using a “Cheap Attempt to get Hits on 9/11” and that Coleman shamelessly plugs his book.
Speaking of shameless plugs, visit our post on Cliff’s Barackman’s 10 essentials of Bigfooting to get a Coupon for your REI purchases. REI, Gear up for the great outdoors ™
We know that there has already been an exchange between Myron, Bobby and Loren, but when we read Myron’s post today (3/2/12) we couldn’t help but offer our opinion.
Although this may seem like a Valentine to Cryptomundo, I am hoping I can make reasoned arguments that:
- Cryptomundo does not need gimmicks like bikini clad women and high-profile keywords to get traffic.
- The “tactics” Myron accuses Cryptomundo of using to drive traffic don’t work and he may not have a current understanding of how SEO works. (Keywords don’t work)
- If the first 2 arguments have merit, then there is another valid possibility for why Cryptomundo uses topical subjects and keywords. Occams Razor: They are being topical. Why the bikinis? Loren Coleman likes women.
ARGUMENT 1. Cryptomundo does not need gimmicks, Below is a graph from Alexa.com. The lower your rank number the higher your ranking (#1 is the highest ranking). Cryptomundo is ranked 100,461 out of approx. 16 Million websites. It is ranked in the very top percentile of all the websites Alexa tracks. It beats about 15.8 Million other websites. If you want to verify Cryptomundo’s high traffic you can click on these other reputable ranking/traffic websites (these links will take you directly to Cryptomundo’s stats), Quantcast.com and Compete.com.
Traffic rank for cryptomundo.com:
ARGUMENT 2 The “tactics” Myron accuses Cryptomundo of using, don’t work. Cryptomundo has many organic (non-manufactured) reasons why they already rank high on search engines and get plenty of traffic. These reasons are far more effective than keywords.
One of the strongest reasons is they have over 34,000 websites that link to them, we call them backlinks; very valuable for SEO. The next biggest crypto-site BFRO.net only has 8000 backlinks. Cryptomundo also has a high rate of loyal returning visitors. Bikinis and high-profile keyphrases can’t buy that kind of SEO gold.
We finish off the arguments at Bigfoot Lunch Club where we have already received a response from Bobby Nelson.
Hmmm…I was accused of not doing my homework then it was said I only accused Coleman of a cheap attempt to get hits on 9/11 (which it was) and shamelessly plugging his book (which he did). Please help me figure out where I didn’t do my homework. This is a common tactic used by you Colemanites, accusing people of not doing homework then when I ask what isn’t factual about my statement, none of you, Coleman included has a response.Bobby Nelson
Because of Bobby Nelson’s comment. I felt like, perhaps, of my argument was not clear. My post was not so much a defense of Cryptomundo, but a criticism of those that call themselves critical thinkers (a/k/a skeptics).
Bobby we do have a response, instead of telling you what is not factual about your statement we can tell you what is factual about your statement.
Your statement is subjective and contains assumed characterizations. It is an opinion.
Coleman could have leveraged 9/11 to plug his book without being cheap, or shameless. “Cheap” is a subjective value judgment and using the word “shameless” could imply or assume people who promote things should feel shame. Your statement is an opinion, not a fact.
I have high regard for self-described skeptics and the discipline required of critical thinking. Bobby, you have plenty of posts that showcase this. In this case I don’t see the discipline and rigor you have displayed in your other posts.Guy Edwards