There's a fine line between blogspam and self-submission 2 August, 2007 — 5 comments — Stuart Brown
Nobody reading your crappy blog? Spam Digg and Reddit with it constantly!
Blogspam is bad. It must be; it has 'spam' in it. But what on earth is blogspam?
Let me give you some context. On the social media sites, such as Reddit and Digg, self-submission of your own work is generally seen as OK - implicitly on Digg, assuming it's worthwhile content, and explicitly on Reddit.
Daniel Miessler came out strongly in favour of self-submission - under the premise that more submissions from new writers, new content sources will allow the best of those to break through where they might not have done before.
Great. So I can submit anything I churn out then? And I can be rewarded with a metric boatload of traffic if folk think it's good?
Yes. Well, sort of. Submitting everything is probably a bit much. Not every blog post is worth reading. Some lack context. Some are just a links to other blog posts. Some are just badly written.
So if I submit everything I write, is that 'blogspam'?
I suppose it could be classed as that, particularly if the reason you're doing it is solely to get traffic. Submitting everything you write, regardless of quality or suitability, will reduce the signal to noise ratio, and thus make it harder to find good content.
Another thing to bear in mind is the thorny issue of original content. Whilst it's fine to quote other blog posts or news sources verbatim, if that's the whole of your post then you should consider submitting the original link, rather than your own insubstantial blog post.
But what about the ad revenue? The traffic? The glory!?
Spoken like a true blogspammer. But at least you're not posting pictures of cats.