How did this story begin?

Everything started when David Naylor published a Twitter backlink tip on his blog. That same day, Matt Cutts — yes, you read it right — sent an email and a twit to Twitter’s co-founder Evan Williams, regarding Naylor’s post.

Now can you see the origin of this controversy?

Many people believe that Cutt’s email was interpreted by Twitter’s staff as a warning or something like that, hence the decision to give no link juice at all to any Twitter users.

What are people saying about this change on Twitter?

• As usual, many have been using the (old, unoriginal) classical argument: both Twitter and Google are entitled to run their business as they see fit; if you aren’t happy, choose other services or start your own.
• Several have pointed out that at the stage Twitter is, it shouldn’t be afraid of Google, since it doesn’t depend solely on Google traffic to succeed.
• Many Twitter users agree that, being a microblogging service, Twitter should let links pass juice, like any other blog service (e. g. Blogger/Blogspot, which is owned by Google). After all, since Twitter relies on user-generated content, it would be only fair to reward members for making Twitter so powerful and famous.
• Some have suggested that instead of punishing all members by automatically adding the nofollow tags to all links, Twitter should find a way to distinguish good, honest users from ill-intentioned ones and treat both types accordingly. Therefore, Twitter should adjust its technology so that nofollow is removed from the links posted by non-spamming members.
• It has been noted by several people that it is Google who should fix its flawed algorithm, instead of expecting that site owners do all the spam fighting.
• Those who support Google and Twitter often claim that the change on the microblogging service only affects a small part of its users, i. e., those familiar with SEO. Other Twitter members simply wouldn’t care at all. However, it’s been argued that just because someone isn’t aware of a benefit, doesn’t mean said benefit should be denied to them.

What do Twitter’s staff and Matt Cutts have to say?

I’ve read the official Twitter Blog and couldn’t find anything on this subject over there. They do write regularly about their fight against spam. Still, no mention to the nofollow controversy. Same goes for their most recent newsletter, which I received two days ago: not a single word about nofollow and the such.

It’s possible that this topic has been discussed by their staff via Twitter itself. Since I don’t follow any of their employees, founders etc., I may have missed something. In case you have spotted this “something” that I’ve supposedly missed, please share the link(s) in the comment form.

As for Matt Cutts, since his name is directly involved in this controversy, I hoped he would blog about it (which was the main reason why I didn’t write this post earlier). Fortunately for me, he eventually did it. Nonetheless, I must say that Danny Sullivan’s comments are by far the very best pieces you will find on that page.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

However, its popularity ultimately brought Twitter down, literally. Its servers suffered from multiple downtimes over the weeks, making it too unreliable for some people. A portion of them began considering other options, and one of the most talked about right now is FriendFeed. Some pundits are so enthusiastic about it that they call it the next big thing after Google. Of course, I want to take that with a grain of salt.

If you haven’t heard about them before, here’s what’s written in the site about page:

FriendFeed enables you to keep up-to-date on the web pages, photos, videos and music that your friends and family are sharing. It offers a unique way to discover and discuss information among friends. Sign up for FriendFeed, invite some friends, and get a customized feed made up of the content that your friends shared — from news articles to family photos to interesting links and videos. FriendFeed automatically imports shared stuff from sites across the web, so if your friend favorites a video on YouTube, you get a link and a thumbnail of the video in your feed. And if your friend likes a news story on Digg, you get a link in your feed. FriendFeed makes all the sites you already use a little more social.

One of the great things about FriendFeed is that it enables “social contextual search”. Using their advanced search feature, enter a keyword and you can filter the results to only the relevant sites shared by your friends – that is, people you trust. This has a huge potential for highly targeted advertising. In order to be useful, you’d need to have a substantial number of friends who actively share sites, but that may not be much of problem for long.

As for marketing and promotion, it’s a great tool. Tim Bauer gives an example:

FriendFeed is interesting in this conversation as it enables the evangelist to efficiently share out their research. An article on google reader at 8:30 a.m. A few relevant images from Flickr at 9:00 a.m. Twitter blathering from (9:30 to 10:30). A good quote from a book at 11. Some relevant blog posts on XYZ reader at 1. A webcast you recorded on QIK at 3. All tidbits leading to something (or nothing) in the form of a more formal statement (your blog?). Your power consumers will love the access you can provide them.

Already several high profile bloggers like Robert Scoble, Michael Arrington, and Steve Rubel have been singing praises for FriendFeed. The question is, will it catch on with the mainstream? Time will tell.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites