We all make mistakes, we can all learn from them too.

~Li

Okay, I think we’re all tired of this and want closure. I think something that would help put this whole mess behind us would be to put a note at the beginning of Marty’s new version of the article that states this was a re-write and links back to the original comments. They are part of the history of the article so there should be an easy way to connect them.

Then let’s all move on with our lives…it’s summer and a weekend. Time for everyone to quit biting at each other. Get away from the computer for a while and let’s all go have some fun.

Christine

Then late yesterday you put the article back out there, without the original comments (100+) that were first on that posting.

I’m sorry, but it just really says to a lot of people, “drama gets the site links, and traffic and I guess that trumps everything”, including us here at KeyRelevance.

It’s pretty disappointing if that’s what you think our intent was.

The techniques Marty and others have advocated are amusing and have great entertainment value at conferences. While these techniques might work in the short run, I’d place these methods in the same category as invisible text, cloaking, etc…they are short cuts that might work in the near term but carry risk that they may damage the reputation and image of the client. They aren’t worth it. I cannot advocate such techniques for REAL clients…nor are they necessary. If you have good products and services you don’t have to fabricate avatars and the rest. Real live customers love giving reviews and testimonials.

Honesty and integrity may be old fashioned, but they are still the right way to do things….apparently I’m not alone in my thinking on this as we’ve received a number of emails of support. I was also touched by a post by Andrew Goodman with whom I share sentiments.

Yesterday, Marty submitted the post, Rebecca skimmed (not carefully) and published to the main blog. Not her best move, but she assumed that someone like Marty, who we know personally and have spent plenty of time with wouldn’t make any big errors of judgment.

Last night around 10:30pm, I read the post, didn’t like what I saw, and commented about it. I also emailed Rebecca & Sarah. I’m not in the habit of second-guessing anyone’s work here at SEOmoz, particularly in public. I think a great company needs to respect the work its employees do, so I certainly wasn’t go to pull down the post or override Rebecca’s decision until I conferred with her. I also emailed with some others who had been offended by the post (I’m sorry that I didn’t shoot you an email as well).

This morning, Rebecca, Sarah and Marty chatted and decided to make some edits and pull it back down to YOUmoz (rather than the main blog). I was happy they’d sorted it out. I know it took longer than was optimal, but I want you to know that there was no ill will or malice intended. I know Marty in person could have made these remarks and been understood with his sense of humor and sarcasm, but I agree that online, in writing, they don’t come across as well. I apologize that our blog system was the source of the content, and certainly you can expect we’ll be extra vigilant going forward. We made a mistake in relaxing our editing standards and oversight, but I’m sure Rebecca’s Eagle eye will make a rousing comeback

I hope no offense was taken, and I’m sorry for the part that my company’s content-distribution/social-media/ugc-blog-platform played in it. Please do give Marty a second chance as well, I think his intentions are much more benign that the message that came across.