This is the sort of thing that really bugs me. Rich Ord in Threadwatch Blocked By Yahoo's Russell Beattie? and Nick Wilson in Russell Beattie Bans Threadwatch seem to be to dragging Yahoo's name through the mud because of something that Russell may have done.

The fact that Russell works at Yahoo has absolutely nothing to do with this, but Rich felt it necessary to put it in the headline he used. In case you don't know, Russell was pretty damned popular all on his own before he was involved with Yahoo.

Rich, your headline seems to imply that Russell "belongs" to Yahoo that it it's somehow relevant.

Nick wasn't as bad but his post lead with:

..."A list" Yahoo! blogger Russell Beattie...

That's odd when you consider that Russell is known as a mobile blogger--that's his claim to fame and he knows his stuff. But Yahoo is what Nick focused on too.

Guys, if you've got an axe to grind with Yahoo, please come out and say it.

Posted by jzawodn at February 06, 2005 06:01 PM

Reader Comments
# Sascha Carlin said:

Well, regardless which company Russel works with, he has all rights to control who may pay his virtual home a visit and who must not.

on February 6, 2005 06:36 PM
# Joseph Scott said:

Yikes, folks need to get a grip. I don't know the story behind all of this (sounds like it might be rather long), but the bottom line is Russell can do what ever he wants on his own blog. Seems like the Yahoo bit was added out of ignorance or trying to attract attention.

Just proves my theory, nothing has changed since high school.

on February 6, 2005 09:07 PM
# Jeremy Zawodny said:

In high school, I had a 386 computer. At least that has changed. :-)

on February 6, 2005 09:25 PM
# Russ said:

Hey Jeremy,

Good job standing up for Yahoo. Wow, I'm not even officially an employee yet!

I want to confirm for you that I have indeed banned some of the SEO crowd out there. You know the only reason they started paying attention to me is because I joined Y! and they're now trying to drum up controversy and traffic to their sites. I fell for it about a month ago, realized what was happening and banned a few people from commenting, etc. Bye bye.

And of course, this is what they're doing again. Sorry you had to get involved... You've got such a relatively non-controversial blog over here, I hate when I mess that tranquility up. :-)


on February 6, 2005 10:39 PM
# Rimantas said:

Come on, Nick focuses on entirely different thing: "What do you do with comments that do not agree with your point?", not on Yahoo!.

While one indeed can do whatever he wants with his site/blog, the reason for actions may differ significantly. You may say it is OK to delete, do not let through moderation comments which do not agree with your opinion or just ban "offenders" IP (and I fully agree site owner has all rights to do this, but I retain my right to think, that one doing that has some issues), but going as far as insulting for just having different view is way too much.

And despite the fact that Russel is known as the mobile blogger there was enough fuss two days ago to associate him with Yahoo! now even without explicit mention.

on February 6, 2005 10:45 PM
# Jeremy Zawodny said:

"...going as far as insulting for just having different view is way too much."

Are you referring to me with that comment? If so, please explain what you're trying to say?

I wasn't attempting to insult anyone--merely get to the bottom of what Yahoo has to do with any of this.

on February 6, 2005 11:30 PM
# Rimantas said:

Jeremy, sorry for confusion, I've never seen you coming even close to insulting anyone.
I was talking about Russel and the way he treats those with opposing views.

on February 7, 2005 12:39 AM
# Yoki said:

I don't see what Yahoo has to do with this either - but I think for the sake of people knowing who Nick was talking about - Russell Beattie means little to most people but the fact that he works for Yahoo puts it in a bit of context.

As for banning people from commenting because their views are contrary to your own - that smacks of the playground...

on February 7, 2005 01:20 AM
# Brian said:

With regards to Threadwatch specifically, I don't see it as an issue of trying to attack Yahoo! - as much as that being part of a high-profile company becomes a part of a person's identity.

on February 7, 2005 01:31 AM
# Nick W said:

Ok, this has all got a little out of hand since i went to bed last night heh...

Well, first off jermemy, im dragging Yahoo nowhere. I've been following Russell's blog since around September last year i think which is quite a long time before he became involved with Yahoo. I still follow Russell's blog, only now i have had to create a new profile in Firefox that uses a proxy and does some other stealth stuff so that I can actually read it.

This is a great shame. Russell's blog remains one of my favorite destinations despite this sillines and it's a pain to have go Stealth in order to view the site.

Russell, you could actually just ask me not to comment, i'd respect your wishes. It does seem a shame though, i've been commenting on your blog for months and always put a lot of thought into my posts - they usually take quite a bit of my time but i've always thought adding a little value was worth the effort at your site and am hurt that you dont see it that way.

Please unblock my IP and i'll just refrain from participating if that's your wish.

Jeremy, Russell works for Yahoo. These small details are interesting to readers. You can hardly label my post as "dragging yahoo into it" when all i did was mention yahoo. Maybe your just pissed off so i'll afford you the dubious benefit of my doubt hehh.. but go take another look at my post, i've hardly made a scene about now have I?

How rich ord chooses to write is somewhat out of my hands - that's twice he's considered me news this weekend and i must say im a little overwhelmed by all the attention but as i've spoken to rich a few times and know him to be a nice fella, i'll leave it to you and russell to berate him for his crimes.

In summary.

Im happy not to comment on russells blog but i will continue reading it - you cannot stop me at the ip level unless you want to set traps for thousands of different proxies. This is silly.

I've always commented well on Russells site, and put a lot of thought and care into my remarks - i am mystified as to why I've now apparently become a leper - in the absense of any denial by russell im going to run with the theory that it's because i disagreed with him. This is silly.

I've not dragged yahoo into anything. You know that Jeremy. This is silly.

Russell could have emailed me or spoken to me in some fashion, im a nice, reasonable kinda chap that's not in the habbit of abusing websites i enjoy or deliberately pissing of it's owners. Banning at IP level with no thought or communication? This is silly.

As im still enjoying Russells site, despite efforts to keep me out (which is silly) im going to leave this and go have a cig and coffee as i've only just woken up and have spent far too much time messing with what essentially, is silly.

Russ, if you want to reach me, you can do it here, your blog, or your welcome to post on my blog of course - my email is if you'd prefer to talk in private - let's quit this silliness eh?

Catch you later guys....

on February 7, 2005 01:39 AM
# Rich Ord said:

Come on Jeremy ... I was just covering the news, not trying to drag Russell or Yahoo through the mud. I'm a big fan of Yahoo and I have no personal problems with Russell ... even if he blocked Nick/Threadwatch.

In my short article I noted specifically that I had no first hand knowledge of the facts ... I was simply covering the blog post... which was news in my opinion, because of the fact that he was recently noted in your blog as being a new Yahoo employee.

If he didn't work for Yahoo and hadn't been in the news because of that ... it wouldn't have been interesting enough for WebProNews to mention it.

No bashing intended!


on February 7, 2005 05:28 AM
# Pete Prodoehl said:

A 386? Sheesh, I was still using an Apple ][+ in high school. ;)

(Disclaimer: My employer may disagree with the above statement, I speak only for myself.)

on February 7, 2005 10:07 AM
# Anil Dash said:

I *hate* the precedent on this, because it becomes the reason that some of wouldn't want to keep blogging.

I'm lucky to work for a company where I can blog about whatever I want, but whenever someone says "Six Apart's Anil Dash says he doesn't like tofu!" (or whatever) I just cringe, knowing that it's another incentive for me to say screw it all, I'm moving to a passworded LiveJournal. Especially since the people who do that are frequently in the SEO community, for whatever reason.

At some basic level, I don't understand people who'd want to go to a party they weren't invited to. I have even less comprehension of people who want to crash a party they were specifically uninvited to. It's not going to be fun for the guests, the host, or the crasher.

on February 7, 2005 12:09 PM
# Joshua Allen said:

You got it backwards. The people mention Russ's workplace as a means to put pressure on Yahoo! and possibly cause Russ to have some uncomfortable conditions at work. It's the old tactic of "get back at a person by attacking his livelihood".

on February 7, 2005 12:48 PM
# Rich Ord said:

Re: Joshua Allen's post

WebProNews is a news organization. When did simply referencing where someone works become an attack?

Did you read my article?

We were not attacking Yahoo or Russell.

Also, I was just reporting what Nick said... a standard way to report on eBusiness stories.

Rich Ord

on February 7, 2005 01:52 PM
# wibblewobble said:

"At some basic level, I don't understand people who'd want to go to a party they weren't invited to. I have even less comprehension of people who want to crash a party they were specifically uninvited to. It's not going to be fun for the guests, the host, or the crasher."

I am a flawed analogy, hear me roar. Do your parties routinely invite the internet populace? Perhaps even your whole town/district/borough? I doubt it. Do something publically and people watch. Do something negative publically -- to someone else with a voice(!) -- and people respond. This is PR-101, and should perhaps be even more obvious to you web publishing folk, who routinely deal with discussions and news in a rapid time-frame. Responses happen.

(FYI, I had no idea who this Beattie fellow was. I don't care, either. But I appreciate being told why he is cropping up on a SEM site article. So I'm glad pertinent information was provided, as I'd expect -- nay, demand! -- from anyone trying to interest me in something I have no prior knowledge of.)

FWIW, I don't think it deserved to be front-page material on threadwatch, but its a small mistake.

Here endeth the acronyms.

on February 7, 2005 03:52 PM
# Brian said:

Anil Dash said:
"At some basic level, I don't understand people who'd want to go to a party they weren't invited to. I have even less comprehension of people who want to crash a party they were specifically uninvited to."

Party? No - just public publishing in a medium currently accessible to well over a billion people.

Overall, just another day on the internet, with too much being read into it.

on February 8, 2005 02:01 AM
# Aaron Brazell said:

There may or may not been any kind of malice or forethought involved toward Yahoo. I think we can all agree on that ambiguous, all-inclusive statement. However, it's a classic case of open mouth, insert foot because, intended or not, adding the Yahoo name to a comment that really does not need the Yahoo name to qualify it does implicate the company even if it is a guilt by association deal.

It's sorta like saying "The New York Times' investigative reporter so-and-so spoke at a Klan Rally yesterday". Now all the sudden the Times is a racist paper? Of course not.

My feeling is that when one says something publically, they should know what they are saying and the implicit "equal and opposite reaction" that will be involved. If they don't, they should maybe blog to themselves.

on February 8, 2005 03:22 AM
# Anjan said:

As just a reader of blogs, this exchange seems sophomoric and yet entertaining. To an outsider it seems that bloggers need to take themselves with a grain of salt. This is not a "private party" or a fellowship of the enlightened.

But I guess this looks like a perfect tool to feel self important. To my daughter watching what Ernie did on Sesame Street is mission critical. It would asinine of me to take that seriously or failing to realize that its a little song and dance routine with no implication on life in general.

Take it easy guys and stop acting like little girls :)

on February 8, 2005 08:39 AM
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone. My current, past, or previous employers are not responsible for what I write here, the comments left by others, or the photos I may share. If you have questions, please contact me. Also, I am not a journalist or reporter. Don't "pitch" me.


Privacy: I do not share or publish the email addresses or IP addresses of anyone posting a comment here without consent. However, I do reserve the right to remove comments that are spammy, off-topic, or otherwise unsuitable based on my comment policy. In a few cases, I may leave spammy comments but remove any URLs they contain.