Skeptic Assumes Too Much in Cryptomundo Attack
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:
| Traffic Rank | Change | ||
| 1 month | 90,539 | -14,641 |  |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 month | 100,461 | -35,643 | |
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
About Guy Edwards
Psychology reduces to biology, all biology to chemistry, chemistry to physics, and finally physics to mathematical logic.
Guy Edwards is host of the Portland, OR event HopsSquatch.com.
While I can readily admit to being frustrated with folks like Myron, Bobby, and less so Sharon, I hopefully will never allow myself to call them some of the names I’ve been called. For example, in reaction to my factual explanation (and link to cryptid felids) of the name “Nittany Lions” during the Penn State scandal, this is what Myron Getman wrote on Nov. 12, 2011: “Loren Coleman, at it again. Using the sex scandal at Penn State to generate traffic to his site. The man is a fucking scumbag.”
Matt Crowley got involved then too when he wrote a column that he ended by replying to my part of this exchange, by saying: “No Loren, it’s not the skeptics that are insensitive, it is you and Craig Woolheater who continue to capitalize on human tragedy for the sake of profit and attention.”
I responded: “November 23rd, 2011 at 1:39 pm
“Once again, I am criticized for having multiple interests, an intrigue with the flow of current affairs interacting with various topics of concern to me, and a sincere desire to not be silent on some issues. I am a MSW, of course, and it is natural for me to be a writer on all matters that make me curious. It boggles my mind that ‘Skeptics’ don’t understand this, and keep wrongfully (and mythically) stating that I ‘capitalize on human tragedy for the sake of profit and attention.’
“Blogs are expressions of one’s interests and more. I do not make any ‘profit’ off of Cryptomundo. Damn it, as I’ve said before, I don’t get any advantage if there are hits there or not. I am not a director, owner, or administrator at Cryptomundo. From what I’ve been told by the owner, Craig Woolheater, he is barely breaking even with what it costs him to maintain the servers, but that is of no concern to me. I am a blogger there, nothing more. I don’t need that site for attention. And, to say it again, get no profit from there, whether people read my stuff or not.
“But, Matt, thank you for creating an intriguing title [“Loren Ipsum“] for your blog posting, which appears to demonstrate a misread of me. I shall hold your discovery and exposure of the ‘dermal ridges’ as drying patterns in high regard, nevertheless. I mention it often when adding a bit of critical thinking to the discussion of such artifacts of plaster track casts.”
It does seem that several “Skeptics'” blog postings are centered on me, and I guess I should be honored that Sharon, Myron, Bobby, and even Matt find me worthy of their continued attention. What is most amusing is this focus on some imagined fantasy of theirs that I am interested in “traffic” and “hits” and such.
Even after Guy’s reasoned (but totally unnecessary) arguments above were posted first at Bigfoot Lunch Club a few days ago, Myron decided to write, in rebuttal (“A Strawman for Loren,” March 2, 2012): “Coleman appears ignorant to the diminished value of keywords and continues to write as though the practice was important. The end result is articles in which he tries to use the 9-11 aniversary to get traffic to sell one of his books or he compares Osama bin Laden’s height to that of Bigfoot or has to explain the Nittany Lions in light of the Penn State sex scandal. It’s a regular pattern and anyone motivated enough can go view Cryptomundo for verification. The test is simple. Find a significant news event (like the 9-11 anniversary, the death of bin Laden, the Penn State sex scandal, or the recent school shooting in Ohio). Go to Cryptomundo around that date and read the titles. I’m certain he doesn’t work like clockwork but it is a running joke that Coleman will try to associate some big news event with cryptozoology.”
The reality and truth is something a lot more simple. Although they find it hard to “believe,” there is, indeed, an Occam’s Razor reason for why I write what I write. I decided long ago, if I was going to write to share my thoughts so often, I would post what I was thinking about and what I was reacting to, daily. I do not live in a vacuum. I have a family, love baseball, and keep a link to the child abuse/special needs adoption/suicide prevention/mental health/school violence prevention work & consultations I’ve done for 40+ years. Additionally, I daily talk to lots of people who are not interested in Bigfoot or cryptozoology.
The simple truth is that I write about what’s happening in the world, and, yes, it often relates to items in my life, mind, and experiences that are Fortean or cryptozoological. No covert motives to get hits on my part. Hits don’t do me any good. I am not the owner of Cryptomundo, as I have said scores of times. I was given the license to write about whatever I wanted to and I have. I don’t follow rankings, ratings, numbers of hits, and to do so would distract me from what I want to write about.
Furthermore, I do not apologize for putting links to my books, museum, or such in my postings. It is a way for people to read more about what I have to say, or come see an educational part of what I want to share. The museum is a nonprofit, and even when it wasn’t, it was not-for-profit. My life and income is relatively not-for-profit, so book sales are a non-factor. I have a mortgage, debt, run behind a month in my bills, and take out my trash just like most people.
Most of my writings are a mixture of entertainment of the mind, critical thinking challenges, attempts to upset with new data, and straight reporting. I am interested in a wide universe of subject, from falls of frogs to who is running for Senate in Maine, from vegan human diets to Bigfoot diets, from conscientious objection (like I was during the Vietnam Era) to not shooting Sasquatch, from sightings of Nessie to not polluting the ocean with plastic. If a major event happens on the news that strikes me, I may or may not relate it to another intellectual puzzle I am thinking about. I make no apologizes for this. But I do disrespect people who think I am writing something about 9/11 or sexual abuse of children out of some kind of warped need to get people to read my writings.
I write to share, challenge, push thinking, but whether a skeptic or a cryptozoologist, please don’t slander me with your own psychological projections of why you might write something. I am not you.
Those of us who have been familiar with your (Loren’s) work over time–in my case, about 30 years now–pretty much know the generous and wide-ranging spirit with which you write about things, whether that involve cryptids or current events. The mean-spirited nature of comments by (pseudo)skeptics like Bobby and Myron says far more about their characters than it does about Loren and his work.
Loren,
For what its worth, I initially came here years ago with a passing interest in Cryptozoology, and an intense interest in Bigfoot. I was only a few years into browsing this site off and on that I came across your other Fortean stuff, and your writings regarding current events.
I never considered any of it to be cheap, and I very much appreciated the Selma Hayek image. I was a bit surprised by it, because I think it is far from the norm, but it was relevant and extrinsically interesting, anyway.
Such is the world of blogs, I guess. Keep up the good work, you and the other contributors here. I enjoy it very much, and I recognize your real authority and knowledge on the matter although I certainly don’t follow any Cult of Loren and I don’t need a snarky skeptic to explain to me where you stand on subjective issues nor do I need anyone to ‘save’ me from your traffic-driving gimmicks. He also misued the term Colemanites – those are actually a group of either fortunate lower-class or lower-middle class that inhabit national parks and forests at regular intervals in the summertime, living in pop-up Coleman campers.
Anyway, keep up the good work, I always enjoy your posts here and elsewhere.
I remember a survey that was put out a while ago (I think over a year) where Loren asked what we wanted to see on the site to try to make it more relevant to those reading his blog. I also remember distinctly replying back that one of the things I would like to see is crypto events that are related to the recent news stories. News story about political campaign in Florida, tell me some things about what the local indigenous people believed. Huge construction project in Texas? Tell me about sightings of Thunderbirds or whatever is relevant. One of the reasons I come to this site is Loren’s ability to give well thought out and researched information about history and news at the same time.
Loren,
Though it comes at your expense, it is truly amusing to see how the minds of the intellectually impaired work. Let me see if I understand some of their criticism. Supposedly, by running a storying comparing Osama Bin Laden to a bigfoot on the anniversary of 9/11 you were somehow improperly capitalizing on that date. Putting aside the appropriately derogatory nature of that comparison, I fail to see how you were drawing attention to your website. Are we supposed to believe that on the anniversary of 9/11 millions of people doing google searches came up with hits to cryptomundo.com and not wiki, or CNN or Fox News? An obviously similar argument can be made about your running your historical piece on the Nittany Lion.
It seems that certain individuals need to buy the book “The Internet for Dummies.” On the other hand the efficacy of that course of action assumes a level of literacy that in light of their prior comments may be a bit of a stretch for them.
Waiting eagerly for the “Skeptic’s Guide to Blog Etiquette.” I’m sure it will be as hefty as the yellow pages –perhaps even of the same color 😉
For some years now (5? how time flies!) I’ve been a regular visitor of Cryptomundo. By and by there are things I don’t like about the site –the clogging of ads for one thing is something of an eye sore. I understand Craig wants to find the right formula to keep the site if not profitable, at least in the black, but there must be a way to do it tastefully.
But, as I understand it, a blog ≠ magazine article. It invokes more freedom and less editorial guidelines, provided you already possess a certain degree of manners and common sense; something Loren and all the contributors to Cryptomundo have proven throughout the site’s lifespan.
And the most wonderful thing about blogs? if you don’t like it, there are TONS more out there that you can try. And they are all free! 🙂
Loren plugged a book? So what, writers have to eat, too. Sometimes if you don’t shake your own laurels no one else will. I say thanks, Loren, for occasionally letting me know what you have out there to offer. Nothing wrong with that.
With so much to ‘info’ for a skeptic to tear into with Finding Bigfoot on the TV, I find it hard to believe they found the time to focus any energy on this site. I’m sure if Loren Coleman wanted to go out of his way to drive people to this site, the use of naked cheerleaders or the Kardashians would have been a more transparent choice.
Loren–It is almost laughable, almost. It appears some people feel the need to write about things which they know nothing about. Apparently, they do not know Loren Coleman, the man. They “think” they know him and rush to judgement. Unfortunately, that judgement is way off the mark, not objective, and just a completely subjective opinion.
I do know Loren! What Loren explained is absolutely correct! He could care less about hits, numbers, rankings, etc. There is something called passion. Loren is passionate about Cryptozoology. That’s it in a nutshell.
So, yes, things he writes about, do revolve around happenings in the Crypto world. Those happenings take place every day. He is trying to keep things current and relevant at this site. Get it, Mr. Skeptic? Everyone else does!
It seems to me almost every day in the calender year falls on one anniversary or another or one holiday or another. I bet Hallmark has a card for almost any day in a calender year.
Geesh, you think some people would understand how the world works, how journalism works, how the internet works, etc. One poster brought up a very valid point. That was that if one does a simple Google search for 911, Cryptomundo is not going to appear anywhere near the top of returned websites. So could that skeptic please explain to us all, how Loren is drawing people to this website by a generic search like that. Brother, Loren, the trivial things you must endure to post simple matters of cryptozoology! My heart goes out to you.
You know what, objectively speaking, I think someone is either jealous of you and your success or that they have a “man-crush” on you. Why would someone keep directing that kind of attention to you unless they wanted to be noticed. I mean, it would be one thing if anything these skeptics said made logical sense. However, by their own standards of objectivity, their arguments for the alleged promotion of this site, fall short!
Keep on keeping on Mr. Coleman!
People who presume to know the heart and motives of others (especially people they don’t even know) really rile me. I mean honestly, if someone has the temerity to make these kinds of unfounded accusations then perhaps their dogma supersedes their logical mind. It’s better to ignore people who make ad hominid attacks! (get it?!?)
Oh crap I just made a connection to bigfoot! I guess I’m just trying to get hits. 🙁
sounds like jealousy to me.
I for one certainly enjoy posts that include girls in bikinis! Never have I seen a photo here that I wouldn’t want my kids to see either.
To paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt: “It’s not the critic that counts,it’s brave men that try and do that matters”
Loren and Craig, this guy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. What he doesn’t get is people LIKE cryptozoology. They like both of you, you’re interesting and decent people, who respectfully create opportunities for intellectual discussion. Perhaps, this chap has a problem with intelligent people discussing rationally, something he doesn’t believe in and that makes him a little more than envious. People want to be believed, they want to feel like they belong and the fact that people can discuss something they don’t fancy, with rational thinking on all three sides of the fence(believer, skeptic, fence sitter) makes him feel like he has to find something to rationalize it away. Certainly it couldn’t be discussion on cryptids, it has to be some kind of trick or lure to make folks have interest in this field.
I honestly feeling he just doesn’t get it. NOR does he want to GET it. Nor does he have a sense of humor, which Loren and Craig do, which is why Cryptomundo is so popular. Folks an laugh at things in the field as well as discuss them.
LOL Though I rather fancied the Guys in Crypid post myself 🙂 But I don’t log in because I can get a chance of seeing hot dudes in the field. I log in because I can discuss what people are doing in the field.
Craig, I want to think you for keeping the site going even if you are not getting much cash for it. I know it can’t be easy with the economy today, but it is appreciated by the folks here. And Loren, if it means anything I appreciate your posts, and your ideas. Ryk and I hope to take the mob to the International Museum of Cryptozoology some time as well. It sounds so awesome!
In the most basic form of thought ~ I believe the timing and wording associated in Loren Coleman’s articles and blogs are exactly as most of us think and relate. How many folks do recall, research or retell a memory once a story has been heard? How many of us can and do note personal associations to certain headlines? Common sense, if possessed would only have one interested in and speaking of the “water cooler” story of the day.
What is next? Will one or more of Loren Coleman’s critics now allude to the possibility that Myron Getman and Bobby Nelson are clandestine Crytomundo supporters enlisted by Coleman as puppets used only to create even more of those highly desired “hits’ Loren Coleman does not need?
BTW, IMO, The International Cryptozoology Museum deserves much, much more attention and support from the Cryptozoology community.
I believe that these guys are jealous of the attention that Loren receives. The Alexa numbers prove it. If they were half as interesting as Loren then they would not need to mindlessly put out comments or articles trying to discredit Mr. Coleman and instead write something that is interesting that others may want to read.
Being an SEO specialist and a blogger I see nothing wrong with having a title that stands out and attracts peoples attention. If you are not doing that then you are not doing your job as a blogger to draw readers in.
As far as keywords are concerned you may get a slight temporary bump in search engine rankings for specific trending keywords but unless you are actively doing real promotion for that specific keyword/phrase by going out and bringing in relevant backlinks with those keywords as anchor text you are not actively promoting it.
I can guarantee anyone searching for 911 related keywords are not going to be finding cryptomundo.com near the top unless of course all of the controversy this guy created is bringing in enough of a buzz that Google see’s it as relevant.
First off: stop the bikini girls and I don’t come here anymore. Simple as that.
Second: you’d think skeptics would find better stuff to do. Like, for example, examine the evidence. (And no, it’s not on Finding Bigfoot.)
Boy, this is a great place.
Illegitimi non carborundum.
DWA
“you’d think skeptics would find better stuff to do. Like, for example, examine the evidence.”
They would have to be at least a little open minded in order to do that, and they would have to read.
Oh well…