About these ads

Tag Archive: nadya


A collection of social bookmarks

Some social bookmarks

The short answer is that you never know who might be interested in your post, or when. But when they share it, it’s like hitting a little promo jackpot that’d definitely be worth your while to social bookmark enable your posts. Give them the chance to do what they want to do. Give your post the chance to be spread among a wider audience when the goodwill someone is willing to give you is available.

If you can buy into that, you don’t need to read the rest of this post. Go forth to social bookmark enable your posts if you blog and haven’t already. I happened to have provided instructions for enabling social bookmarks on  WordPress.com yesterday so that might be of help if you were on WordPress.com. Today, I’m following up on why it’s worth your while.

Let’s start with some basics for those who might not know what I’m talking about or only have a vague idea, though I promise not to get too geeky.

Social bookmarking helps Internet users share, store, organize, search and manage bookmarks of web pages via icons that do those tasks within a click or two. If you recognize some of the icons in the batch above, then you know what social bookmarking is, if you weren’t already familiar with the term.

Enabling your post with social bookmarks means giving your readers the ability to click on something you set up to social bookmark via any number of platforms. Otherwise, they might have to copy and paste your URL in some cumbersome process which would stop a lot of people from doing so when they would have loved to share your work with others.

Enabling your post with social bookmarks may or may not be a simple process pending the platform on which you blog and your computer proficiency. The method I shared yesterday is an example. It could be routine with a little practice, but it’s not something that’s all clicks, and you do have to touch code!

But is it worth it?

You will ultimately have to consider that, of course, but consider a few facts I’ve found and stories from my personal experience. Here’s a Facebook point of view.

The average Facebook user has 12o friends (Primates on Facebook, The Economist Feb 26 2009). Dang! That’s a fascinating article I’ll have to blog tomorrow as I’m stuck with this one today. Anyway, for every person who shares it, a notification gets sent out to an average of 120 other users. Hard to say how many would view your article and how many would propogate the chain, but that’s 120 plugs you otherwise would not have had. Then, at a measly 1% success rate of having those notified propogate it further, one other person who might share it would keep that first sharing effort “alive” to another 120 friends, give or take some common friends.

The real success rate might be much lower than 1% as not 120 of the original Facebook friends would view the shared link, but don’t forget whoever shared it probably has a lot in common with at least one Facebook friend that this other friend might share it as well. It’s a bit like love. You don’t have to be a match to everybody. You just need to find the one to help you propagate… although having more than one to propagate with  is not generally considered a bad thing. ;-)

The StumbleUpon method works in a different way in that those receiving what is shared is at least looking for stuff on that topic. That boost the chance they’d “stumble it” further, and this could go on for quite a long time. I’ve had posts from my Envirostats blog that’s had a few thousand views, practically all from “stumbles”, and they are still coming a year and a half later! I can’t say Facebook sharing tend to last that long, although I don’t have the metrics in the WordPress.com dashboard to really track that with absolute precision. But I’d bet a lot on it.

There are also other means that work in different styles, from personal preference to share to user votes making it more prominent. I’m not going to describe them but I think you get the idea.

Now who might be interested?

You really never know, nor when it might occur. A post from my Envirostats blog about the impact of farts on carbon emissions has never been “stumbled” to my knowledge, nor shared because I never knew how to social bookmark enable it back when I posted it. However, it’s had huge views because everyday, about a half a dozen people find that post from Googling some combination of “average number farts day”, with “farts” being the operative word. They also find info on sheep and cow fart impact on CO2 emissions and end up looking at both posts. :-)

I’m going back to stick some social bookmarks on them, now that I think about the potential still out there as people aren’t farting any differently now than a year and a half ago! :-)

Then last week, a week old post I wrote suddenly became hugely popular. It was on how people should consider creating a media stir for cash as a mean of child support, citing the 13 year old father Alfie (supposedly) and the Octomom Nadya Suleman. It was “old news” by then, but the 1,200+ views I got for it in two days, and still coming, after 60 views in a week, was from what looks to me to be a French war video game site, Factornews.com

Inspecteur Clouseau

Inspecteur Clouseau

Um… quoi???

Tabernacle!!!

Oh, no. Wait. Sorry. That’s not how they swear in France. That’s fake Quebecois swearing as they’d like to say in France. Take your pick of what you consider the worst from this youswear.com (French) list, do your best Inspecteur Clouseau impression and that’s what I’m saying!

What’s a bunch of French virtual war mongers* wanting to read and share a verbose English story that’s “old news” about a 13 year old English boy father?
[ * meant in sarcastic humour so please don't send me hate mail ]

But are those stories convincing enough for you?

They are convincing enough for me. If you have similar stories, please do share so we can all be convinced!

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Reading Level: 7.1

Share/Save/Bookmark

About these ads
Dad at 13 cover story

Dad at 13 cover story

Last week, a huge story broke in Britain about a 13 year old boy named Alfie Patten being the father of a baby girl named Maisie Roxanne born to 15 year old Chantelle Steadman. The story was huge because of the boy’s far younger than 13 year old looks, not because it was a new record. A 12 year old in Britain fathered a baby in 1998 [Yahoo! - um, the news source, not reaction to the story], though Alfie would have been 12 had he fathered Maisie.

Now comes news it might all be a scam [Sydney Morning Herald], because supposedly, the girl’s mother knew it would make a better story if Alfie instead of some other boy being the father, of which two have claimed to be. Trainee chef Richard Goodsell, 16, said he had sex with Chantelle multiple times around the time the baby was conceived. Richard’s Mom thinks the baby has his eyes! Meanwhile, 14 year old schoolboy Tyler Barker said he took her virginity, with Chantelle’s mom Nicola knowing and asking him the next morning “Did you have a good night”? Possibly up to six other boys are claiming to be the father [UK Daily Telegraph]. Of course, Alfie and the family are saying Alfie was the father. How did the family know Alfie was the father to claim this unless they were a little closer to the action than what we would think??? Anyway, basically, it was a case of the outcome of the mess either being a 13 year old boy father versus another teen age pregnancy statistic, and you know which gets more news and money! Brilliantly conniving, if you ask me, in British expression lingo, but conniving in the worst sense of the word.

Furthermore, there is speculation that perhaps both families were in on this [UK Mirror], knowing they could stand to gain a lot of money with media deals. Makes sense if there were cooperation on the other side or else, and I’m weighing in to buy the story as true. Otherwise, it’d be just a denial and a “he says / she says” sort of tabloid junk story not worth much and dying out. Despite claiming they are so sure Alfie’s the father, the families are still going to do the paternity test, possibly paid for by government’s Department of Social Services [UK Times Online]! How cheap are these families!!! Regardless, I’ll bet this is not for the proof as much as exclusive first rights to results for another huge windfall, not to mention interviews after, no matter who turns out to be the father. See the headlines, vindication or heart shattering outcome. It’ll be interesting to see if the families share any money with the father if it turned out not to be Alfie. I don’t want to know what they’d do, but might have to hear about it, and would not wish to have such in-laws, as all I’m going to say. You should be thankful you don’t have in-laws like that!

But wait, there’s even more! Somebody should be a novel writer for having conjured all this up! Better in a novel than ruining people’s lives over it. The story’s so interesting nobody has stopped to call Chantal a slut or any such names. Thank goodness, too, for the sake of equality not to be blaming this on the girl since it takes two to conceive and it’s usually the male that pressures.

The source of the news this might all be a scam were “pals” with Chantelle’s family! We have betrayal going on here! Or are they doing this to get a piece of the action for themselves and up the ante for the Steadmans? The truth should be interesting. But for now, Clive Sim, an engineer from Lancing who is a close friend of Chantelle’s parents, is giving details how the parents of both kids were manipulating the kids to say this and that. Clive claims Chantelle told her 17 year old half sister Jodie O’Neill that Chantelle’s mom made Chantelle to she lost her virginity to Alfie so the other boys would not get any money! But to support his claims of the dual family collusion, Clive said Jodie and Chantelle were half-sisters through their father, Steve Steadman! Jodie, supposedly, often stayed over, and so the circle is closed and tightly knit and thus, his source in Jodie is reliable despite being from “outside” the immediate Steadman family.

However, Clive dropped another bombshell in saying that Chantelle told Jodie when giving birth that Chantelle thought the baby was not Alfie’s, but Alfie’s 16 year old older brother Joe’s!!!

Oh, Anna Nicole Smith, you ain’t got nothing on this girl!

Then comes news today a judge has ordered a media blackout on all of this [Canberra Times]. A little late, I think, and very ineffective in the blogosphere and even papers outside of Britain.

Case and point, I’m blogging about it in Canada. :-P

It’s a problem seen every day with all kinds of stories all over the world. Traditional media and justice systems just can’t keep up or extend far enough to have any real impact any more. However, it’s not completely useless. I suspect media deals outside of Britain won’t be nearly as lucrative as those in Britain. It’ll at least stop the families from getting some large central sources of cash they might otherwise have gotten until all this boils over with the whole truth coming out for at least who is the father. Unfortunately, I also only think it’s bandage solution because there will be aftermath interviews and such worth some money, which, at least will help the family have some money to deal with the situation. It’s too bad I also don’t think they’ll put any of it to the children and baby if they’ve gone through these lengths to pull this scam. It’s the same strategy Nadya Suleman, mother of those octuplets, is using to get money to raise her 14 kids. So, so pathetic!!! Don’t even get me started on her!!! Use the insanity argument on her and take those damn kids away!!!

Quick, who’s got a name for this kind of media strategy to get funds to raise kids?

Mediaternity pay? Mobternity pay?

Worse, who’ll be next and how? Do we want to know?

Octomom Nadya Suleman

Octomom Nadya Suleman

Oh, in Googling for a spelling on Nadya’s proper name, there was a report on how Nadya Suleman might be homeless now [Australia Herald Sun]. Nadya’s Mom had not made mortgage payments in 10 months and that “the bank filed a default notice on February 6 after Ms Suleman’s mother failed to pay the $2358 monthly repayment due since April 2008″. Can you blame the bank, though? Good for them. That’ll help give reason to take those babies away!

Hey, why are all these Australian papers appearing at the top of my Google Search results for stories in Britain and the United States, anyway???

So there you go, lots of babies being supported by the media… and us folks in the blogosphere will get away free and have a good ole time writing about it.

My sincere apologies to recent readers who probably didn’t expect this sort of scum to appear on a more intellectual blog. But really, it’s about the media watch and ban battle between traditional and new social media I was just interested in! ;-)

I just got carried away with the story details cause I know nobody cares about traditional and new social media impacts when it comes to stuff like this. I’m not that dumb, you know! ;-)

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Reading Level: 8.4

Share/Save/Bookmark

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 348 other followers

%d bloggers like this: