Incideous Blogging Techniques to Drive Readership

I want to make readers aware of a foul practice engaged in by some bloggers. I also want to assure readers of this blog that I won't engage in the practice.

This incideous technique is a play to drive readership, increase hits and ultimately to increase advertisement revenue. That it is engaged in by Catholic bloggers and Catholic publishers is a scandal. It goes something like this...

Joe Blogger regularly writes articles on a particular subject, which for the sake of this explanation, let's say is hunting. Joe posts an article about some aspect of hunting in the local wildlife management area which draws a few of Joe's regular regular who post replies. Then someone posts a reply accusing hunters of being sadistic murderers of furry woodland creatures who do so only because of their deep seated insecurity as men. Maybe the anti-hunter throws in a comment about SUV's or misappropriation of tax money or how this wouldn't be the case if a certain political party were in office.

 As expected, a firestorm ensues. Oh, the accusations fly!

Word speads abouit the anti-hunter's reply to Joe's article and every hunter on the internet emails their hunting buddies asking, "Did you hear what some guy posted over at Joe's blog!?" The hunting community gets all worked up and some of the responses are longer than Joe Blogger's original article!

An oddity is observed however... The anti-hunter who posted the reply which was so offensive to Joe's regualar readers, seemed confident enough to use what appeared to be his real name and maybe even posted the name of the city where he lives. But a Google search for this person's name yeilds nothing... nada... zip... zilch.

Ninety nine times out of one hundred, the name is a fake and the person doesn't really exist.

The technigue is a growth of what used to be called "Flame baiting", whereby a poster writes something controversial in order to get a cheap thrill out of starting an argument. This technique is more incideous than simple flame baiting in that the author or publisher of the original article is the one doing the baiting and in doing so, the goal is purely economic. 

My cycling club sponsored a charity bicycle ride which drew several hundred riders and the event was covered by a local paper. The paper put a nice article in the print edition and posted the same article on their website. After about four or five responses to the article, some guy posts a reply complete with his full name and the city he lives in. He volunteers a comment about cyclists intelligence with regards to riding bicycles in the street, an admission of how he frequently drives his pickup truck (and it's always a pickup truck, never a Mazda Miata or Toyota Camry) as close as he can to cyclists, and a prediction of how cyclists will all learn to get on the sidewalk as soon as one of us gets killed, which by the way will serve us right. The local cycling community flocked to the newspaper's website as word about the offensive post spread, arguments began and readership of the tabloid's website skyrocketed.

A smart bike rider tried to contact the guy. No such person was listed in the phone book. Google turned up nothing. A search of propertly ownership records for the county came up blank. Why? Becuase it was an inside job. The offensive response was written by the author of the article himself or architected by the organization who published the article in the fist place. Integrity is sacrificed on the altar of pay-per-click advertising revenue and the reader is an unwitting pawn. 

Here are some ways in which you can tell that you might be part of the revenue play.

If a google search of the offensive poster's name comes up blank, you might be part of the play. If "SUV" is mentioned in the controversial reply, you are likely being played. A sure sign that you are being played is the use of the name of any political party. And if you are reading a Catholic Blog and someone posts a reply using any of the following phrases, you are likely being played:

• Whore of Babylon
• Burn in Hell
• God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that whosoever believes in him might be saved.
• You can't get into heaven by your own works!
• Religion is not about being perfect.
• Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Mary...

I fear that some of the most popular Catholic blogges and some of the largest Catholic websites are using the technique - posting controversial repsonses to their own articles to cause commotion, drive readership and utilimately, to increase advertising revenue. If my hunch is right, then these authors and publishers need to examine themselves. Last time I checked, scandal and calumny are still sins.

At least National Catholic Reporter is honest about it - they put the controversy right in headline. Nothing drives readership as much as a headline containing the words "Abortion", "Catholic", "Democrat", "Republican" and "Racial." 

-Tim-