The Reasons for Greensboro 101
Seven years ago, I started Greensboro 101. I was motivated by the fact that Greensboro had a dynamic corp of bloggers who were, in aggregate, a sort of new local media. However, one could not appreciate the full force of their research and commentary because they were dispersed across the internet with no local cohesion. Thus Greensboro 101's core purpose, to aggregate and present in an efficient manner the citizen voices of Greensboro.
Since its inception, there have been a few occasions where I have had to remove a blog's feed from Greensboro 101. Either it was not local, did not allow comments (as required since day one) or suffered some other defect that impeded the proper operation of the site. In all but one of those cases, each blog was restored as the deficiency was rectified or a technically incompatible post aged out of range. In every case, I never censored the blog itself, never removed it from the Internet, never altered its content or made it in any other way inaccessible—just temporarily removed its excerpts from my site.
Keeping it Working
Yesterday, I removed a blogger whose repeated posting of items that were intentionally incoherent made Greensboro 101 look inane. His posts had begun to intrude on the otherwise cogent content of other participants to such a detriment that I judged it to be no longer acceptable.
After some emails and conversations, the blogger and I worked it out. I think he understands the manner in which his posts became troublesome and I think he may even have come to understand that rectifying the problem stands to make him a more effective blogger. His blogs are back on Greensboro 101 and I look forward to the beer he graciously suggested we share.
Mendacious Whiners
The facts of this matter did not stop some other bloggers from slinging mud and impugning Greensboro 101 with false information. Ignoring the legitimacy of the actual reasons for my actions, blogger Joe Guarino made two posts on his blog accusing Greensboro 101 of "censorship." Ignoring the the fact that his and other blogs with points of view with
which I disagree have long remained on Greensboro 101, Guraino claimed I was trying to "silence" the other blogger because of his "political speech." Even Ed Cone chimed in, chastising me for "filtering content."
Again, to be perfectly clear and as is understood by the blogger in question, the issue was not content, but its presentation as an incoherent stream of gibberish. Just as important, my actions in no way debilitated the blogger's blog or interfered with his ability to publish whatever he wanted to to his blog.
I would have made these points at Joe Guarino's blog or Ed Cone's blog, but they both have blocked me from commenting. Censored me, one might say. Yet, Joe wrings his hands and worries about my actions that "this is crazy" and "really a shame." For Ed Cone, it's "a big problem."
Spare me the duplicitous histrionics.
Hypocritical Moochers
Guarino, Ed and all of the other bloggers on Greensboro 101 have enjoyed whatever benefits, meager or immense, they derive from their presence on it through my benevolence and at zero cost to them. It is my mind, my work and my money that made it and keep it operating. Yes, Greensboro 101 would not have a purpose without bloggers; they write their blogs and are perfectly free to do so—no doubt would do so—independent of Greensboro 101, but their inclusion on Greensboro 101 provides some benefit to them at no cost.
I keep Greensboro 101 going for two reasons. The hope that someone with the resources to grow it into something bigger and better will buy it and because, for those people who tune in, I think it serves a useful purpose—makes people smarter and our community a little better. All I ask in return is that those who feed their content through it not muck it up and very, very rarely is that a problem.
No, I ask one other thing: If you rail against moochers on your blog while demanding that I provide my labor and resources to you at no charge as my "civic duty;" if you make misrepresentations to demean Greensboro 101 while benefiting from it; if you impugn its operator by screaming censorship while blocking me from commenting on the blog where you make those allegations, do me a favor and stand up and claim the mantle of hypocrite. Just go ahead and put it on your blog banner: "Joe Guarino, Moocher and Hypocrite."
Thanks.
21 comments:
Your IP address was blocked at my blog because it was being used to post comments that seemed to me to violate the guidelines I had posted.
It has been unblocked since yesterday afternoon, about 10 seconds after I explained my reasons at another site.
Well spoke.
Roch, as usual, I'm late to the party. I understand what you're saying technically about George's style of writing and the havoc it was creating at 101. It's too bad that bloggers can't seem to understand the complex PHP backbone of the aggregator and now that George does, you'd think all was well.
But typical of the GSO bloggers and a reason I left (although may return corporately), trashing is easier than fact-finding (like "hits" and pr0n) and if I've learned anything, it's that facts just don't matter (see: Andrew Brod at Guarino's). So... ignore it. You owe no blogger anything. Being "fair" is your choice as site owner. You asked a user to change something and he apparently agreed and it's NO more than that. But of course, it is. It's Greensboro.
Just a thought -- Joe is one of your content providers, and probably one of the reasons people come to GSO101.
So calling him a moocher for availing himself of a free service seems a little off to me.
"Joe is one of your content providers, and probably one of the reasons people come to GSO101." Ed
And this benefits me how?
As is often the case, Fec apparently thinks my comment unsuitable to publish so I'll post it here.
"Back in 2008, Roch censored a blog I used to post to. I knew it wasn’t in compliance with the TOS of Greensboro101 but I was getting paid to blog and when the person paying me learned of Greensboro101 he demanded I list it there.
Roch did me a favor in removing that blog as doing so allowed me to convince the boss he was pushing me in the wrong direction and hurting his business with the spam he wanted me to publish to Roch’s aggregator and the rest of the web. Roch’s actions helped me to turn a dying business into a positive direction.
I no longer work there full time but I do some consulting and web work on a very limited part time basis. The boss no longer questions my judgement in things Internet related.
I have several blogs I’ve never listed with Greensboro101 because I think doing so would not be in the best interest of Greensboro. Besides, no one wants to read Billy Jones all the time and no one wants to read any one blogger all the time.
I like George. I like what George is trying to do. I like his commitment. I even agree with George on most things. But George needs to rethink the way he writes and publishes his blog as style over content is hurting his efforts."
PS. My apologies, the previous comment by Stolen is in-fact, me, Billy Jones
Billy,
That one may have slipped my memory. Greensboro 101 does not allow commercial blogs, but I cannot recall removing one with which you were involved.
You were right in deleting it and I put up no fuss so forgetting would be easy. And you might not have known it was me. Anyway, you did me a favor and I think your recent actions with George is doing George and the rest of Greensboro a favor.
How does it benefit you to have free content provided by others driving traffic to your site?
Easy -- if people aren't listing their blogs at your blog directory, than your blog directory doesn't have much value.
I wouldn't suggest that you are mooching off Joe, because you are adding real value on your end, but surely the relationship between 101 and his blog is much more of a two-way street than your original post suggests. He's using your free service for visibility, you're using his free service for content.
You didn't answer the question, Ed. How does that benefit me?
A blog aggregator depends on bloggers for the content that gives it relevance and a reason to exist.
People come to 101 to see what's new on local blogs.
So that's the benefit to you, as the proprietor of a blog aggregator -- without bloggers, you have an empty site to which nobody comes.
Now, maybe you're asking a trick question, and you feel after all these years that the continued existence of the site is of no great benefit to you -- but as long as you are asking as the proprietor of a going concern, the benefit to you of having bloggers produce content that brings people to the site is the continued relevance and existence of the site.
Ed, you are too smart to be this dense unintentionally, nonetheless, I will try a final time. I have not asked how the presence of bloggers on Greensboro 101 benefits the people who want to see what's on local blogs. I have asked, and you are refusing to answer, how does that benefit me? Not readers; not the relevance of the site; me.
Your answer will begin with something like, the benefit to you is...
Roch, I'm not refusing to respond to you, I'm trying to respond to you.
There was even a sentence in my previous comment that began, "So that's the benefit to you..."
I made it clear that I was addressing you "as the proprietor of a blog aggregator," and left open the possibility that your question might involve other concerns or interests.
I can't really address those, should they exist, as you have not made them clear. Your latest comment does draw a distinction between benefits to the site (and thus to you as its proprietor) and benefits to you in some other capacities, but it doesn't enumerate or even hint at the areas where these two "yous" disconnect.
I'd be happy to talk about that, but only you can truly know and define the personal benefits to you of being the proprietor of a blog aggregator; meanwhile, the benefits to you in that specific role are clear.
You used to be a straight shooter. What happened?
Your equivocation and subsequent excuses are tiresome. You took a position based on an unfounded presumption and now are pretending not to understand the plain meaning of "benefit to me" to avoid confronting the weakness of your opinion.
You are wasting my time.
I tried repeatedly and in good faith to engage here.
No clue what I'm missing, and you seem to have no interest in really discussing it with me, so I'll move on.
I'm sorry. I did not realize that this discussion had honestly gone over your head. Here, I'll try again, because you are operating on good faith.
I said Joe Guarino was a moocher because he derives benefit from my mind, labor and financial expenditures. You refuted that by saying the situation is mutually beneficial. For that to be true, then I would need to be, in reality, reaping some benefit. You acknowledged my contributions to Joe, but went abstract and hypothetical when asked to describe the benefits to me. That's apparently where we lost you.
By saying things like the readers of Greensboro 101 benefit or that the "site" benefits you ignored who we are talking about. Me. Not me in a role or as an abstraction, but me, Roch, the person; The plain meaning of "me." How does Joe's content benefit me?
What benefit is it that you perceive me to derive from Joe's content that has you thinking I am properly compensated for the expenditures of my mind, labor and money that I provide to benefit Joe?
Here's a thought exercise that might keep you on track. If I were to shut down Greensboro 101, what would I lose? Joe thinks he'd lose a lot, enough that he considers it my civic duty to keep bloggers exposed on Greensboro 10. But me, what do I lose? I'd benefit with more time, less frustration and more money. What benefit would I lose, Ed?
Damn! Reality sets in!
Yeah, for sure, Billy. No one's gonna get rich doing this, but it becomes almost masochistic when a whiny fascist bigots launches hysterical lies to publicly impugn me personally in a twisted effort to try to obligate me to my "civic duty;" and I can't call him out for his mooching hypocrisy without encountering an equivocating defense on his behalf from one of Greensboro's brightest who insists on swerving around the facts. Not much joy or satisfaction.
On second thought, I don't think it was fair to describe Guarino as fascist. Theocratic is the word I should have used.
I understand your frustration.
Post a Comment