Reputation

I’ve said before that reputation is everything in the blogosphere. We not have another example. As one seems more want to do as one moves further left, another post has slipped down the memory hole. Q&O notes a post about a little on-line fraud scheme:

Most people who use Google’s free search engine have probably never bothered to read the Google Ad Word fine print. If they had, they’d know that every time they click on one of those “sponsored link” ads in the right side of the page, it costs the advertiser a set “cost per click” fee, that ranges from US$0.05 – US$100.

Connect the dots with me here.

Let’s say, I have a great urge to look up information about the Jerry Kilgore campaign. Let’s say I look up his campaign website on Google. And let’s say I forget to bookmark that site. But I want to know all about Virginia politics, so I keep searching for Kilgore’s site every day on Google, and each time I hit that sponsored ad link on the right. That means, every day, all by myself, I can cost the Kilgore campaign between 5 cents and 100 dollars. In one month, I could cost the Kilgore campaign between $1.50 and $3000. Between now and Nov 2, my daily visits could cost the Kilgore campaign up to almost $21,000. If just 4 other Democrats visited the Kilgore campaign via Google with me every day, we could cost up to $100,000 by election day. If 50 Democrats made a daily visit to the Kilgore campaign site, that could be $1,000,000 by election day.

One million dollars.

One million dollars drained out of the Kilgore campaign account, that wouldn’t go to attack ads, that wouldn’t go to fund downballot Republican candidates, that wouldn’t go to campaigns to supress the vote or disenfranchise voters.

Q&O responds:

Well, Shaula, maybe you should’ve given this just a teensy little bit more thought. I mean, let’s forget the fact that this kind of click abuse is a little something the industry calls “click fraud”. And while we’re at it, let’s also forget the fact that, every time you click on a link, Google records your IP address, and if the same IP address appears too many times, Google just ignores that IP address for revenue purposes, since it’s a sign of click abuse. Which means you won’t actually be costing the Kilgore campaign as much money as you think.

Forget all that. Let’s just concentrate on your suggestion. As you note, both Kilgore and Kaine ads show up when you do the suggested search. Indeed, if you do a search for Tim Kaine, both Kilgore and Kaine ads show up, too. Your suggestion is just as useful to Kilgore supporters as it is to Kaine supporters. And VA is more heavily Republican than it is Democratic. So, essentially, by simply making the suggestion publicly, you’ve alerted Republicans about the possibility to sabotage Kaine’s campaign just as easily as Democrats can sabotage Kilgore.

(Read the rest. It gets better.)

So how does she respond? She tosses the whole mess down the memory hole.

I roll out this story for your edification because, as fellow bloggers and blog readers, you will have all experienced that strange phenomenon of “troll-nip”–a post or topic that pulls trolls out of the woodwork.

The original iteration of this post was sheer troll nip. Verging on troll-cocaine, actually, from the housekeeping I’ve had to do here.

Well, I’m in the middle of moving, as stated above. I have no patience for trolls, and a heavy delete key, but right now, I just don’t have the resources to smack their little trolly bottoms.

So, you if you have followed a link from elsewhere to this post, you are getting a little story about roach nip instead of the advertised fare.

Don’t bother reading the rest. It appears to be simple masturbation rationalization. Shaula is, by all appearances, a pure chicken-shit. She’s “too busy” to address the fact that she called for a fraudulent scheme to cause millions of dollars in damages to a campaign she didn’t like (and in fact suggested a theory that would work even better against her candidate, if not for the problem that the Republican supporters are much more reluctant to engage in criminal activity to support a candidate.) Of course, she isn’t too busy to write another 1900 words since then (not counting the 335 words she replaced it with.)

Someone who disagrees with you is not a troll. If someone comes to your site, and disagrees with a post in the comments, that isn’t trolling. That is the blogosphere. Calling them a troll doesn’t make it true; it just makes you a chickenshit. Taking down the post they disagree with doesn’t make the problem go away; it just acknowledges that they were right and you did indeed fuck up. It is really starting to look like progressive thought (what an oxymoron) can’t handle a meritocracy.

And just to show that I’m willing to entertain, she gets 50 hits a day. To borrow a phrase from Russ Martin, that’s cute. And she has a pagerank under Q&O, so it is likely that pretty soon you’ll get Q&O’s post when you google her.

7 Comments

  1. Mexigogue says:

    What does disenfranchised mean?

    They don’t get a McDonalds??

  2. guy in the UNLV Jacket says:

    Fucking trolls. Did I ever tell you guys about this one time I came to a bridge and there was this troll living under it?

  3. Mexigogue says:

    Dude, that’s. . like, the only story you ever tell. Stop it. We’re tired of it!

  4. R says:

    I wish I got 50 hits a day. You assholes aren’t visiting me as much as you should and definitely aren’t telling all your friends either.

    Fucking trolls.

  5. Phelps says:

    You don’t have an RSS feed. I just now realized that you have an RSS feed. Joo need a orange button, main. Steal the code from my page if you want to do it all in CSS.

  6. Phelps says:

    Oh, and your blog is cute too.

  7. Mexigogue says:

    (tweaking R’s blog’s cheeks) cute!!