The Comment Club

Audio Version here

As you all know, unlike everybody else in the recruitosphere, I am not a thought leader. And I am not a visionary.

But nevertheless, late last week I created the very first portable group blog in world history. Here's what I mean.

A bunch of my friends and I agreed to work together as team of roving commenters.

When we see a blog posting that's just begging to be criticized we send a message (like ants) to the other members of the team.

And they all descend on it at the same time and start discussing it back and forth until all of the errors are exposed and corrected.

Now please tell me, what's wrong with that?

I think it's a marvellous idea because not many people leave comments on recruiting blogs so a blogger is free to say any kind of nonsense at all and never get called on it.

You get guys like the great Shally, who complain that there's too much noise in the recruitosphere but do they ever come up with a plan to do anything about it? No.

But did the Recruiting Animal come up with a solution to the problem? Yes he did. And it's a fun solution too. But do you think anyone is patting me on the back for it. No. No they're not.

Instead I'm starting to hear the same old story: Why do you have criticize everybody. I don't think that's nice.

Yeah. Well look at Lifehacker. That's a software blog. They recommend software. And when they do they get a bunch of comments from people telling you what the shortcomings of that software are

So tell me, would it be better if the people who know something and are trying to help you just shut their mouths because the guy who made the recommendation isn't humble enough to handle anybody else's opinion? I don't think so.

And the same rule applies to us. If you tell me is that your company's great and you don't offer any evidence, I'm going to say you better prove it, Bub.

And if you tell me that when a Gen Y person gets laid off she won't have any trouble writing a great resume, activating her network and getting a new job in just a few weeks. I'm going to say you better prove it.

Because that's the difference between blogging and propaganda. And that's the difference between being boring and being a part of a dialogue. And people who write political blogs, they get that -- but, recruiters they don't. They don't get it.

Now, remember when Obama said that today is the day the oceans stop rising? Well I'm telling you that today is the day that the noise starts dying down.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by lisa rokusek on March 19, 2009 at 12:10pm

Yes, yes he was. But he still teaches us, which is pretty darn cool.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Recruiting Animal on March 19, 2009 at 12:40pm

Let me see if I understand the great Craig Silverman.

(Did I ever give him a name? Yeah, but not a good one).

1. People don't like looking for jobs. So there's no new generation of gung-ho job hunters who are eager to do so. But there are people who will look for jobs when there's no one else to do it for them.

2. You can't criticize job hunters of the past for not using tools that weren't available then.

3. Some bloggers stink and some aren't your cup of tea - but suppression of expression is not the American way.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JobsforKarma on March 20, 2009 at 12:52am

With unemployment at 8.1% a recruiter may find a very qualified potential employee even before posting the job on the careers section of their webpage. Remember how hard it was to hire a top notch recruiter a year ago.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Nuroo on March 20, 2009 at 9:14am

Does that mean there is 91.9% Employment?

JobsforKarma said:

With unemployment at 8.1% a recruiter may find a very qualified potential employee even before posting the job on the careers section of their webpage. Remember how hard it was to hire a top notch recruiter a year ago.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on March 20, 2009 at 10:06am

Animal, what you're describing already exists and has for years now:

"When we see a blog posting that's just begging to be criticized we send a message (like ants) to the other members of the team.
And they all descend on it at the same time and start discussing it back and forth until all of the errors are exposed and corrected."

Personally, this is gang speak. When you have a close grip group of individuals who bond together to 'descend' on others, you're describing a gang. Off the web, it's easy to identify gangs - most where some form of attire to distinguish themselves as part of a given sect, such as a red bandana, an L.A. Kings jersey, or in some cases, tattoos or burns. There is also a strict hierarchy - a Boss, Lieutenants ("Field Generals"), tons and tons of foot soldiers (this supply is endless as more and more individuals fight to get in the good graces of the gang), etc.

What I will say is that your notion of blog "errors" are actually in the eye of the beholder, or in this case, a given gang. My observation is that what you describe as "errors" are nothing more than differences in opinion . . . and/or perceptions that the gang's money stream is being threatened. Threaten a gang's commerce and you won't be around much longer to speak about it. Real talk. The truth about gangs is that most individuals who hide behind them are too weak individually to take you on one-on-one. I can't tell you the amount of times I've seen people who couldn't blog-debate themselves out of a paper bag, but because of all the noise and supporting commentary of their gang (or "ants"), the original blogger of a new idea or contrarian concept is left asking where to begin in terms of answering the comment laundry list.

Ultimately, I believe your home-grown "solution" threatens the generation of new blogs and, undoubtedly, individuals who would like to bring new ideas or different paradigms to the table. Typically, they can't get off the ground when a gang descends upon them for saying something different than the status quo. What's comical here is that the name of this site is 'RecruitingBlogs', yet we're speaking about constructing a gang designed to 'expose' or 'correct' blog statements considered to be 'errors'. Think about it.

I say stand on your own two feet. Yes, gangs are powerful and extremely intimidating . . . but over the long haul, they kill each other off or start 'ratting' on one another to move each individual's agenda forward. Sooner or later, a group of Scorpions slowly and methodically begin to kill each other off . . . and those left standing are the people that hold their ground and stand for what's right.

P.S. If you disagree with a particular blogger or thinker, I would prefer (as a reader) to see you and the original blogger debate it out . . . as opposed to a list of ant-comments geared to intimidate the original blogger from responding.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amitai Givertz on March 20, 2009 at 10:18am

I cannot speak for the Animal. I suspect he would say you are right.

Sometimes good ideas translate into bad practice. I think that's what happened here.

Joshua Letourneau said:

Animal, what you're describing already exists and has for years now:
"When we see a blog posting that's just begging to be criticized we send a message (like ants) to the other members of the team. And they all descend on it at the same time and start discussing it back and forth until all of the errors are exposed and corrected."
Personally, this is gang speak.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on March 20, 2009 at 10:18am

P.S. A friend of mine sent me a George Carlin video this morning after reading this thread - his stance is to not post this himself because he doesn't need the drama or the potential disparaging of his personal brand . . . so I'll toss this out there for him. That's the real threat here - the mud you might be dragged through by the ants, which is then public for the world to see. It's this threat of cyber-brand-terrorism that is the real issue with what you're describing.

In my friend's words, "George C is describing how we're supposed to think in our space - like sheep. And if you say anything different, the "big club" (or 'ants') will "descend" upon you. Nothing has changed and I've learned over my 15 years in this space that nothing will."

P.S.S. Don't watch the video editing - just listen to what George is saying (the pure audio).

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry Albright on March 20, 2009 at 10:35am

I think you guys are all over reacting. This thing has pretty much come full circle.

Where's the fork?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lisa rokusek on March 20, 2009 at 10:42am

I am out of forks, Jerry. But I do have a teacup. Cool, looks like a storm is brewing inside it. Here, its yours.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Recruiting Animal on March 20, 2009 at 10:54am

Oh Josh, Ami is wrong; I don't agree with you.

You see, you're making it seem like I'm the puppet master of a disciplined group of social media attack dogs. But do you guys really think I have that kind of power?

Look who the members are! Lisa Rokusek. Sandra McCartt, Maureen Sharib, Steve Levy! These people are a bunch of loose cannons. And if you think I can control them, you're nuts.

They're fantically independent, just like Ami G.

But here's what they have in common. They think debating stuff is fun. And they like to kid around.

I know that's true of Josh too - because I have it on tape!

Now, I agree with Josh that some people are here to polish their brands. So they don't want anyone challenging what they say. And they're not here for fun. So they don't like us. But should I worry about that? No.

If you want to show off how smart you are, do it on your website. But if you post on a discussion group, you ought to expect some feedback.

Now, Josh, you take issue with the word "error". You say it's in the eye of the beholder. I agree with that. And once the word goes out, there is no guarantee that any member of the group is going to agree with the original spotter that the author of the posting is wrong.

And not only that. Josh, do you know how hard it is to get a group of people to do something together on a consistent basis? Any voluntary joint effort is almost certainly doomed. People are busy with other things. They're not going to drop everything to comment on a posting that the Recruiting Animal thinks contains errors.

And, please note, I didn't pick either of the two postings we've commented on so far. I saw that one mild-mannered member of our group was posting comments on both so I followed that lead.

Listen, I know you think there's nothing wrong with forming a discussion group. You've simply made an error and interpreted what I've said to mean that the discussion group is a gang. That's understandable, considering the dramatic style of the Recruiting Animal Show - but it's wrong all the same.

PS: When I said, you're nuts, I meant it in a nice way. Joshua Letourneau is my online friend.

Joshua Letourneau said:

[1.] When you have a close grip group of individuals who bond together to 'descend' on others, you're describing a gang.... There is also a strict hierarchy - a Boss, Lieutenants ("Field Generals"), tons and tons of foot soldiers
.... [2.] your notion of blog "errors" are actually in the eye of the beholder....what you describe as "errors" are nothing more than differences in opinion . . .
....
[3.] I believe your home-grown "solution" threatens the generation of new blogs and, undoubtedly, individuals who would like to bring new ideas or different paradigms to the table.
....
[4. If you disagree with a particular blogger or thinker, I would prefer (as a reader) to see you and the original blogger debate it out . . . as opposed to a list of ant-comments geared to intimidate the original blogger from responding.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lisa rokusek on March 20, 2009 at 11:14am

PS.

I am neither a cyber-bully, nor a terrorist. But this is a great example of the echochamber at work. There is a case study here, somewhere. Oh, might be in the teacup.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on March 20, 2009 at 11:30am

I hear you, Animal - and I like you. I always enjoy touching base with you -in fact, you're one of my favorite people to speak with in our space.

When I first read your post, I took it that you were describing a Shiite Death Squad aimed at crushing alternative viewpoints on blogs. I didn't know that you meant a discussion group.

What I worry about personally is avoiding getting stuck in an ant farm . . . or at that, being sucked into one. There are lots of great ideas out there, but they're not below the surface of our mini-communities. Like the picture below, they're not below the ground (in the ant farm), but rather, above the surface in the grass, in the windmill, on the bridge, and in the air. :)