Lists (and being on them)
A few weeks ago, with one post Anil Dash pretty much cleaned out every corner of the the whole linkbaiting-personalities-on-a-list debate. Granted, it’s a matter of passing significance for 99.99% of people out there, especially as it tends to concern the top 100 power-blogger / tech-influencer / web personality / blahblah set (whom I’ve found to be far more like regular people and far less “influential” than most list-makers would probably like to let on). But the man definitely had final word about these lists (and being on them):
“Organizations… create these lists to solidify their power and influence, and to promote their own authority. [Nailed it!] This generally works, with the most exceptional examples like Time’s Person of the Year actually acting to amplify the publication’s own profile. …
For less-known organizations, like NowPublic, having a list like this acts as a phenomenal engine of promotion. … On the web, we call this link-baiting, but offline, it’s simply called flattery.
The rest is here. It was originally written in reference to two separate lists cataloguing web personalities. (And hey, guess what, I happen to make appearances on both, but the linkbait’s only taken on my about page.)
TechCult’s list FAIL since they put Tila and Perez above Sergey Brin and Guy Kawasaki.
You have huge influence Ryan, I just don’t know how to objectively measure it. Your written opinions on devices and tech services have been like 99.9999% correct when I personally evaluate those devices and services for purchase.
Comment by Todd — Monday, August 11, 2008 @ 6:53 am
Perhaps, but I think the concept there was more about “celebrities” in a strict sense — people who are likely to be recognized on the street (in which case I REALLY shouldn’t be on it!).
Comment by Ryan Block — Monday, August 11, 2008 @ 8:48 am
Dvorak, having sat around the table at the meetings where such lists are created, says they are utter BS. It is just folks throwing out names and someone writing them down, then people thinking how they can spice up the list with unexpected additions or ordering, etc.
Yes, it allows the compiler of the list to attract attention and become power brokers themselves, but it also can be an attempt to show off their own “insideness” by listing folks that no one has heard of but whose true influence THEY, the true insider, can grasp.
Comment by Vance — Monday, August 11, 2008 @ 9:00 am
Need to point out that the last sentence of my post above was meant to be sarcastic, but I don’t know how to do an eye-rolling emoticon.
But Ryan, you seem to fall into that middle ground of folks who DO, because of your public stage, wield influence (dare I say the words “Apple stock”?), and are a household name among a very select type of household, but can walk the streets of San Francisco unmolested (unless you venture into certain neighborhoods, possibly).
Comment by Vance — Monday, August 11, 2008 @ 9:04 am
List in general just piss me off. Everyone seems to want to compile everything into neat little lists of “top ten this” or “top 100 that”. Usually they’re full of bullshit. Especially unnerving for me are movie and music lists. Most of those clowns haven’t an effing clue.
Comment by Dale — Monday, August 18, 2008 @ 3:52 am