The Lego Wars

SaltyDroid ... +10 stamina

Card fighting is a popular way for nerds to resolve their differences :: it’s much like the traditional Alexander Hamilton style pistol dueling … except that nobody dies and you are still free/encouraged to eat lots of fucking Cheetos.

Aaron Wall {AWOL} had some Internet personalities {term used loosely} converted into lego cards for his SEOBook … because that’s exactly what the robot gods wanted to happen for sure. This could have been my idea :: and for the record … I resent other people for having ideas I wish I had had. If I was Stalin :: AWOL would be in danger of getting the purge right now {aka pointless death and a mass gave} :: but I’m not Stalin … or else I prolly wouldn’t have featured in the Magic the Internets™ card pack {now 100% free of Stalinists}.

Status updates and foreshadowing via card fights?

Yes please!

Danny Sullivan’s initial reaction to The Verge’s Scamworld article was not something that I could get behind :: knowing the stakes like I know the stakes … and knowing how important are the overweighted voices in the power law distribution that is the web’s marketplace of ideas. But Danny heard out my complaints … and responded in a reasoned fashion that I think is bound to make the situation better than if he’d never said anything at all.

Danny Sullivan vs. Salty Droid == canceled.

Brian Clark got his own card :: I guess because it’s not fun to have a pack of cards without horrible evil bastards who should fuck right off and never return :: whose sins were intentional :: and fucking unforgivable … etc … he’s the worst.

The worst.

I made a few edits to his card in the name of fair and balanced justice …

Salty Droid vs. Brian Clark == forever.

Matt Cutts :: head of spam and bullshit detection at Google :: had this to say the morning The Verge’s Scamworld piece revealed to the wider world the depths of despair behind the millions and millions of clicks that Google has sold to blatant laugh out loud obvious scammers …

Oh my: “Internet Marketer — a 21st century snake oil salesman.” Painting with a broad brush here:

Oh my I’m sorry :: I guess I was so upset about all the old ladies getting their hearts fucked out that I forgot to think about how the semantics of the situation might adversely affect Google’s revenue streams.

Wait no :: I’m not sorry … and I’m not fucking happy.

Salty Droid vs. Matt Cutts == forthcoming.

>> bleep bloop

95 thoughts on “The Lego Wars”

  1. Google has clearly dropped the “Don’t” from “don’t be evil” – just look at what Aaron’s shown with the verticals where the organic search results have been pushed completely off the first page of results in favor of Google properties, Google shopping networks and Google affiliate links.

    Ps. – Copyblogger on your mind today, Droid? You’ve spelled his name Brain again and I don’t think you meant to here either.

    1. @Melkor, Especially with facebook’s disasterous ipo (dropped 18% today alone) google will be looking for any way to ramp themselves up to outshine FB.

      With the 100billion valuation they got (which is 33 times their current revenue) they’re gonna have to increase revenue by 41% each year for the next 5 years to reach that.

      Sorry retail investors.

      Unicorns: 1 – You: 0

      Look up behavioral economics and call your broker in the morning. If he picks up the phone.

      1. @…Ooohhh…, Yeah, I haven’t got much of any clue about investment banking and IPO’s beyond knowing that investment banks are fucking evil and “Too big to fail” should also mean “too big to exist”, but I did come across an interesting article on the FailIPO of Facebook where the analyst pegged Facebook’s real valuation at about $30 billion with potentially a bonus of another $30 billion for being the current technology leader in the social space whatever the hell that means. Anyway, while the IPO opened at $38, he argued that Facebook should be trading at about $18-25.

        Whether that’s true I couldn’t even begin to guess, but if enough people say it, well it will come true. How’s that for a fairy tale ending?

        1. @Melkor, I’m no expert on it either, but I do know it’s all just a game of appearances. Like, on a scale Frank Kern and his boys can only dream of (cause you know, they suck). Oh and Speculation and lies are the game. Most brokers, like boiler rooms, capitalize on the venerable (you know, cause it’s easy). The White House likes money. Innovation! Unicorns! See a later suckers!

          Here’s a good synopsis.

          Try not to have nightmares.

          1. @…Ooohhh…,

            Most brokers, like boiler rooms, capitalize on the venerable (you know, cause it’s easy)

            Yeah, there’s definitely a lot of inherent scammyness in stock brokering. That was the problem I had watching the movie “Pursuit of Happyness”. It was a great movie, but the ending is a little crappy. [SPOILER WARNING] He made a life for himself by getting a job as a stock broker. … greaaat

            Furry cows moo and decompress.

        2. @Melkor, Oh and I disagree that investment banks are inherently evil.

          Being a resource pool and middle man who fills a need in a marketplace to give start ups a chance they never could have otherwise is a beautiful thing.

          To take something as noble and necessary as investing in others while -hopefully- ensuring the perpetuation of your hard earned dollars and financial security AND THEN corrupt it into a vile husk worn as a victory shawl on the shoulders of cronyism as it decays… Well… that IS evil.

          What we need are true investments. Investments on a local, handshake and a look in the eye kind of investments. Investments into mom and pops and bedroom entrepreneurs who have ideas and inventions WORTH a shot. NOT filling a room full of vulnerable people and selling them on the idea that they can become an expert overnight an the world is just DYING to buy their info product, once they tap into hidden streams of traffic from the ‘hidden Internet’ THEY don’t want you knowing about… All for only $27… But Hurry! I’ve only got 117, no wait 47, no wait only 5 copies left of this auto-traffic syphoning robot crack software that’s totally legal (cause I stole it from a rich IM jerk who wanted to keep it for himself) and he might hack my site at any moment! Buy now! And I’ll even throw in an amaz):&.)201{¥\=173!Aahh!! Aahh!


          I’m sorry for that folks… I’m a recovering Internet Marketing Expert.

            1. @HTNMMO,

              Generally speaking, I would agree–things like investment banks aren’t inherently evil… as such.

              However, it seems to me large corporations of any kind are another one of those groups that’s basically incentivized to be evil. Or that could just be my liberal bias talking.

              Furry cows moo and decompress.

            2. @Wyrd,

              Don’t get me wrong I think a lot of them are evil. I just think it’s more of a choice.

              John Reed, former CEO of Travelers that was involved in the merger with Citi was on Moyers & Co not too long ago saying how he regrets the merger and generally criticizing the lack of regulation on large financial institutions. Regulations he helped remove.

              One thing he said that caught my attention was that the concept of maximizing shareholder value is a fairly recent and is a cause of a lot of problems. It used to be companies were more concerned about the value they delivered to their customers. If they did right by their customers the company would and therefor shareholders would do well. If you focus on maximizing shareholder value it’s easy for the customer to lose value.

  2. It’s a nice update from Danny, but I still don’t like from when he told me about banning my blog-comment friends SearsCard and MP3 player.

    1. @Jack,

      I think your interactions with Danny Sullivan should be the basis for your next blog post. As Searscard and Discount Ugg Boots how it makes them feel when he says you should ban them.

    2. @Jack, Danny probably does not see the inner cerebral complexity of Discount Ugg boots like you do. I am with Lanna, in that I’d like read a rebuttal/summary post from you on the whole exchange. SearsCard is depending on you.

      I give Sullivan a lot of credit too – he said something stupid, but was willing to be shown why it was stupid, read more about the subject when prompted and man enough to take steps to rectify it once he saw (thru additional reading) his own mistake. In a week where Danny Sullivan was saying some really silly things about this and negative SEO, this response of his showed me why he is still worth listening to, even when you don’t agree with him.
      And like SD said, I think the resulting buzz of this whole thing (and especially Danny’s response to it) is really good for the multi-site, mainstream exposure it (the Scamworld situation) demands. Sullivan paved the way for other places (like that fawning, puke-inducing Tribune article on Morrison or Miranda Miller’s SearchEngineWatch “I want to be Danny Sullivan” article) to recant and rescind erroneously offered support.

  3. Good to see Matt Cutts getting his day in the spotlight. He is, absolutely, one of the biggest scam enablers out there. Always hiding behind the “we are just reflecting the wider web” argument whilst destroying the chances of real businesses (you know, the ones that actually DO things or MAKE things) by dropping them down the listings, making sure that the scammers and liars (Ed Dale, Dan Raine and all of their affiliates) still get traffic.

    Without Google, scammers like Dale wouldn’t have air to breath. And then he would be dead. And then everyone would be happy.

    Yes, that’s right, I just wished Ed Dale and Dan Raine and all their affiliates dead – every last fucking one of them. If you’ve EVER promoted or said good things about Ed Dale, Dan Raine, the immediate edge, the edge, 30 day challenge (or whatever it’s fucking called this week) I hope you rot in fucking hell.

    1. @Ed Dale Scam, Jesus, you’re as big an idiot as ever. You seriously think that Google is dropping the real businesses so the scammers can succeed???

      You seriously need to get some help.

      1. @Rockstar, read what I wrote, dumbass. And then google Ed Dale and see how long it takes before you find anything negative about him.

        Everyone knows he’s a lying, cheating, scammer who uses his children to drive traffic to his website. Everyone knows (including Matt Cutts and the rest of the retards at Google) that Ed Dale sells spamming tools (anyone remember Dan Raine’s RSS silo wordpress plugging that scraped content and reposted on other blogs?) and advocates gaming search engines (read this – – and follow the links and try not to puke).

        So why aren’t Ed Dale’s sites canned or penalised by google so called spam hunter Matt “I’ll turn a blind eye to Ed Dale and his pals all the time it suits me” Cutts?

        1. @Ed Dale Scam,

          There’s also probably a lot of “do as I say, not as I do” going on there. Ed Dale can sell spamming tools but only use white-hat methods for his own sites. Or no methods. None of his sites he linked to from his glamor shot include even the most basic SEO fields.

        2. @Ed Dale Scam, I stand corrected. You’re actually becoming a bigger idiot every time you open your mouth.

          So now Google is conspiring with Ed Dale et al and they’re also a bunch of retards. I’ll be watching for your Google-killing search engine any day now, since you’re obviously much smarter than those Google retards.

          I suspect your search engine might swing things the other way though – every Ed Dale search will show your shitty “takedown” site that you update so frequently, with real hard-hitting evidence of all the bad things he did to you and all those other people.

          Oh wait, you’re still building up your ammunition, aren’t you?

          You’re a fuckstick, mate.

          1. @Rockstar ::

            So you think Ed Dale is not a scammer then?

            Or you’re just pointing out that Google couldn’t give two craps about Ed Dale? That’s obviously true … but pointing it out doesn’t seem too useful to me because it’s obviously true.

            1. @SD, I’ve never actually had anything to do with Ed Dale personally, so I don’t know. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen anything specifically about him here, have I? Mostly just peripheral mention in Syndicate stuff.

              I’m just pointing out that it’s extremely doubtful Google is “helping” these guys. I’d be surprised if Google on the whole even knows who they are. Sure, Matt Cutts and a few others might, but in general, I doubt it.

              And mainly I enjoy yanking Ed Dale Scam’s chain because he’s kind of an assclown.

  4. Matt Cutts and Google have a lot to answer for… it was getting a real life, actual Google rep to speak that gave a lot of the IM seminars an air of legitimacy and contributed to a lot of people of people sucked in who wouldn’t otherwise have been.

      1. @Ed Dale Scam, @MadMax

        2 words: “Plausible Deniability” (not sure “deniability is actually a word, but you get my drift)

        “I can’t be pro-scammer; look how high “The Salty Droid” comes in the search results. I don’t always agree with how he goes about things, but he’s providing real value”

        (yada yada yada blah blah blah)

  5. Warrior forum with the older marketingland article?

    So, if someone were to post a link to Danny Sullivan’s new article “The Verge’s “Scamworld” Profiles “Internet Marketing” Schemes You Should Avoid” over in warrior forum of course that’d be an auto-fail. It mentions Verge in the name, so it’d probably be deleted immediately.

    But if someone were to post a link to Danny’s original article over there (and that original article has been Post Scripted and links back to the new article), I wonder if that link would stay up long enough for it to do some good.

    See the name (of the original) is: ““Internet Marketing” Isn’t A Scam; Fix It, Please, The Verge” but the link just reads:

    So maybe if it were inserted just so, it might stay up for a bit as people click on it for justification that they’re not in a pyramid. … Then hopefully they click on the follow up.

    Furry cows moo and decompress.

    1. @Wyrd, Which brings up another question — will Warror Forum nuts ever be dissuaded from their delusions on that site anyway? Not saying it’s not worth trying, but you mentioned maybe something staying up long enough to “do some good” and it made me wonder how much good it would do if, an hour later, it’s gone again. They don’t seem to be raising hell about stuff being removed, blocking them from seeing it. I don’t think they want to know, to be honest.

      I wonder what would happen if someone were to put together a WSO, pay the fee, and actually launch it on Warror Forum and, the course, the “training” their buying, is “Save THOUSANDS and NEVER Buy Another IM Product Again — EVERYTHING You Need to Know About Making Easy Money With IM in ONE Package” and the package is a collection of Salty’s articles on why IM money-making crap doesn’t work.

      1. @Head Honcho, That would certainly be the most productive “WSO” ever in the history of that conniving, deceptive, cesspool forum.

  6. Danny Sullivan answers Traffic Geyser comment:

    It’s in comments of new article:
    Steve Dale:

    “2.5 years ago i purchased the traffic geyser package at $3400, it changed my life. I’ve gone on to learn so much about internet marketing and earn a very nice living. It changed the way I operate my own business.”

    Danny responds:

    “I looked up that program just now. The pitch for that doesn’t seem to be that you’ll make money out of the blue but that increase visibility for an existing business. That’s one of the warning signs I was talking about. If someone doesn’t have an existing business, and they hit some program suggesting they don’t really need one, that’s a concern.

    So probably we can assume mr. Koenigs is the good IM person then.

    1. @Jack,

      Everything good Danny Sullivan said in the article, Danny Sullivan negated in the comments on the article.

      1. @Lanna,

        It seems kinda that way. It’s very confusing. Danny Sullivan: potential schizophrenic?

        Furry cows moo and decompress.

  7. Copyflogger’s Brian Clark has never looked better. But I could tell that image of Clark was enhanced though. The giveaway was the omission of horns and a pitchfork, and the lack of surrounding demons, unless maybe you count inner demons.

    Also, his ego was omitted. There’s no way you could have an image that small of Brian Clark and have space enough to include his ego. That would take a massive billboard, and be a blight on the lanscape. On the other hand, there is probably still plenty of space left to add in his penis, actual size.

    1. @SD,

      That should be awesome.

      It would also be awesome if The Verge could do a follow-up: Scamworld2: Blogworld. But I think that’s about as likely as a continuation of the Firefly franchise.

      And… I still don’t see how blogs could ever be a money making venture unto themselves (I know, I know they always never or almost always never were or are.)

      I’m just sayin’–those other scammers, they can pull the magic trick of smoke and mirrors–make vague claims of unspecified bizopp and then it isn’t until after they have all your monies that you figure it out.

      But Chris (correct me if I’m wrong) is trying to sell people more specifically on the notion that you can have just a blog and make good money with it.

      I never got the part where that was supposed to make sense. Adsense isn’t gonna bring in big cash.

      Oh wait–I remember now–it’s that power law thing you were talking about, @SD. Ok, so Chris’s magic trick is glossing over the power law so people won’t think too hard how that math/popularity thing works.

      I know about it because when podcasting was brand new, every other blogger was a wanna be* writer. I learned that most of the authors, even published authors, can’t earn a living from their books. It’s only those at the very top like the Stephen Kings that can make it work. It follows that the same would hold true for blogging.

      * [ I use this term here without meaning to imply anything negative about it. ]

      Furry cows moo and decompress.

      1. @Wyrd,

        “And… I still don’t see how blogs could ever be a money making venture unto themselves (I know, I know they always never or almost always never were or are.)”

        Some blogs can and do make money on their own but it can take a lot of work to make a lot of money. I looked at a few of the more popular blogs and analyzed different aspects of them such as number of posts, posting frequency, etc in my Blogging Is Not A Get Rich Quick Scheme post.

        One of the similarities was the large number of posts. Since people want to get rich blogging and not have to work for it many people tried to create blogs without having to write everything themselves so they would copy posts from other sources, sometimes using article spinners so the post looks original.

        To get a good ranking on the sites even more articles were spun and posted on other sites and Google’s search results became so useless I actually switched to Bing for a time.

        Or you could be like Ariana Huffington and create a blog so popular people will be more than happy to volunteer to write blog posts for you.

        But you’re right, most blogs don’t make real money on their own. There are legitimate businesses that do use blogs to help drive traffic to their main business. They’re not all scams.

        Other people are happy to post to their little blog and get a anything out of it. They’d probably spend the same time writing the same stuff on a forum or a comment on someone else’s blog anyway and get nothing in return.

        1. @HTNMMO ::

          The slight problem that I have with your article is that by looking only at a couple of the top blogs you ignore about 99% of the data. Very close to zero blogs are popular blogs.

          Sure the most popular blogs will tend to have lots of articles {and usually lots of authors} … but many many very unpopular blogs also have lots of quality articles and authors.

          Almost all blogs make zero money … no matter how hard you work on them … no matter how great you are … no matter how much more you deserve the attention than some hollowed out reality star with nothing useful to contribute or some lame ass mainstream journalist who refuses to do anything even vaguely resembling journalism.

          Life’s not fair … and that is a fact.

          1. @SD,

            But our great president keeps telling me life should be fair … I am confused :) [/end sarcasm]

          2. @SD,

            That was the point of my article and why I specifically chose to look at blogs that were at the bottom of the top 100 blog list.

            I figured people are thinking “well I don’t expect to be the next Huffington Post I just want to make an extra $20k a year without doing any work” :)

            So I chose sites that set the bar low. If there was a top 1000 blog list I would have gone lower.

            The conclusion I came to was that it takes a lot of work over a long period of time and even if you do make it into that top 1% of blogs, you’ve just barely broken into the six-figure range. You can’t pay someone thousands of dollars for a system to change that and that’s the message I try to express on my site.

            If people set realistic goals and do things right they can make a little something out of it. Some might even get lucky and do fairly well.

            For example one of my personal blogs is about a hobby I have. The time I spend posting to it is time I would have spent posting in forums. By using legitimate affiliates I make enough from it to pay for the hobby and then some.

            I don’t lose any sleep over my affiliate income because I’m not helping to promote crap.

            Unfortunately some of the things I say are the same things scammers say.

            1. @HTNMMO ::

              Cool … can you point us to that blog then?

              And of course you mean it “pays for itself” after you discount the time it takes to create and maintain it down to zero? Because if you count your time … and you’re skilled enough to write something that is successful enough that more than 100 people per day view it … then your time is probably pretty valuable and should be accounted for.

              With that sort of accounting … this blog would lose money no matter which of the non-guilt inducing affiliate/ad options that I might chose.

              The conclusion I came to was that it takes a lot of work over a long period of time and even if you do make it into that top 1% of blogs, you’ve just barely broken into the six-figure range.

              But that’s wrong. Does this look like “a lot of work over a long period” …


              … but it led to a book deal.

              “Working hard” is not the determinative factor in a “star creating” social system like this one.

              You can’t make money online … the lottery is a better play if you’re into unicorns.

            2. @SD Well, I’m on a webinar now with someone who claims to have found a solution (Insomnia, lots of time on my hands and an odd sense of humor- sue me.) It’s one of Paul Ponna’s products now known as “Traffic Monster Bot”, a rebranded versions of “Traffic Monarch” for spamming youtube users with offers for renting a link in their video description. Seen it before, it’s had a couple names this quarter. Gets rebranded every so often when the chargebacks makes the credit card companies threaten shutdown.

              Earlier I was on a webinar with Roxanne Monette-Thompson selling a system for manually spamming facebook fan pages.

              Neither of them admit that what they’re doing is spamming of course, and Paul Ponna is also charging about $1,000 for a piece of software that’s a) for sale on Clickbank for 47 B) doesn’t actually work most of the time, and c) when it works causes spam complaints that get the user of the software banned from Google.

              Ponna and Roxanne Monette-Thompson are making good moniez online selling people a method or two for spamming – their students getting kicked off youtube and Facebook are obviously not around to complain.

            3. @SD,

              “Cool … can you point us to that blog then?”

              I’d rather not. There’s some personal stuff on it. I consider the time I spend on it a wash because like I said, I would have been spending that time posting the same stuff online somewhere else. It doesn’t make a ton of money but what money it does make goes to me not to HubPages, Facebook or some random forum.

              It’s not at all popular and I got lucky that it brings in as much as it does (which isn’t a whole lot but enough I meet the affiliate payout monthly) and I only post to it a few times a year.

              I didn’t spend a penny on it and I think most people that do spend money on their blogs are misinformed.

              Luck is a big part of success in any arena. I’ve had blogs that didn’t make any money but I don’t consider the time I spent on them wasted because that time would have been already been wasted in a way where I didn’t have any potential to make money.

              To be honest I thought the blogging bubble would have burst by now. Usually when everyone is trying to teach you how to make money at something, it’s too late.


              How can you read this blog and even waste your time?

            4. @HTNMMO, That would be because I’m on disability for various mental issues already and watching scams is kind of a hobby of mine. Got nothing better to do this time of night.

              Besides, maybe this time Salty will take an interest in Paul Ponna and his little syndicate of affiliates pushing his $1000 piece of crap sold through (digital river), teaching people how to spam youtube video uploaders, and how to plagiarize by downloading popular youtube videos and uploading them to competing video services.

            5. @HTNMMO,

              “Cool … can you point us to that blog then?”

              I’d rather not.

              Well, in the immortal words of a huckster dude I used to pay attention to, “that’s not good enough.”

              You come here. You speak of hobbies. You say that it’s possible, albeit difficult, to find a niche, write a blog, and maybe make some income.

              But you also throw in mentions of six figure yearly incomes, and act like that’s normal.

              And then when it all comes down to is, as is so often the case, you are unwilling to produce the evidence.

              It’s like this: we here, at this blog, are generally of the opinion that what you are claiming to be doing is very, very hard–even harder than you say it is. In other words, from our point of view, you are making an extraordinary claim.

              And… “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” But you’ve not seen fit to produce that evidence, so I would ask that you please leave now.

              Go back to your theoretical kinda-profitable, affiliate linked hobby blog-castle in the Internet cloud-sky.

              Furry cows moo and decompress.

            6. @Wyrd,

              “But you also throw in mentions of six figure yearly incomes, and act like that’s normal.”

              Where exactly did I act like it was normal? I pointed out out a handful of blogs that were on the bottom of the top 100 blog list on technorati. I forget the numbers but I don’t think all of them made 6 figures. I think on average they might have.

              I stated there are 100’s of millions of blogs out there. So do the math. Even if there are only 100mil blogs the top 100 represent only 0.0001% of all blogs. How is stating that such a small percentage of the most popular blogs are barely making six figures make it normal? We’re not even talking about getting in the top 1%

              I thought my message was clear based on the numbers but that’s obviously not the case. I added some more info and another chart to my post so that there’s no ambiguity if you care to re-read it. The reason blogging isn’t a get rich quick scheme is because you’re not going to get rich. That was the message.

              And blogging isn’t the problem. Blogging to make some money isn’t even the problem. The problem is the lies people are told and the money people are conned out of thinking they’re going to make a fortune.

              I gave an example of a blog anyone can make. It’s about something they enjoy so they’d likely enjoy blogging about it and chances are already spend time online taking about it.

              Take this blog for example. There are no ads, no affiliate links, no obvious revenue streams that I can find yet someone felt compelled to write hundreds of posts on it and people took the time to leave probably thousands of comments. People like to write stuff online and they don’t do it because of any financial rewards.

              What I suggested doesn’t cost any money to setup and I don’t get anything out of it. Go to create a free blog, go to and create an affiliate account and if you ever mention any products make them affiliate links. Only mention products you’ve used and feel good endorsing. You could have done it in the time it took to write your last reply.

              No cost, no boiler rooms, no pyramids, no scams.

              ” you are making an extraordinary claim. And then when it all comes down to is, as is so often the case, you are unwilling to produce the evidence.”

              The only claims I really made where that the blogs that had just enough authority on technorati to squeak into the top 100 list ( < .0001% of blogs) have been in the works for years, took a lot of work to get to this point and are likely just breaking the six figure barrier.

              I presented lots of evidence to that.

              I made no extraordinary claims about that one blog of mine. I gave it as an example of what an ordinary person can do that wouldn't feel like it was much work and could make some money. It's not like I said my hobby was collecting fighter jets or anything.

              You like to fish? Start a blog about fishing. People who like to fish like to think about fishing even when they can't so this is a good way to think about fishing when it's say snowing outside. When you fish you need equipment. Talk about the equipment you use and put amazon links in your posts. Maybe each year you make enough to buy some new gear. Maybe you make enough to pay for a weekend trip? Maybe you get really lucky and make a significant amount.

              If you don't like blogging anymore, stop. It doesn't cost you anything to quit either.

              Leaving comments on here doesn't earn you anything. If you earn a dime on your blog you're doing better than posting here.

              I don't see what's so extraordinary about any of this?

            7. I know of a mommyblogger who raked in (can’t call it earning) at least $148K last year, but that’s not what she reported to the trustee in her bankruptcy. (She reported $55,000.) In fact, the trustee just asked the bankruptcy court to deny her discharge of her bankruptcy and also wants damages because of her deception.

              Lots more information here:

              I’m not giving the link to this mommyblogger because she gets money off the clicks. Here’s a Feedburner link to her blog:

              So, how did Jennifer Howe Sauls McKinney (soon to be Sauls again) end up in this position?

              Well, first of all, she exploited the health condition of one of her five kids. She’s the kind of person who would take a picture of the docs working on her son and then upload it to her website, you know, for the clicks. Then there was the plagiarism, which got her tossed from the blog advertising aggregator BlogHer. She supposedly puts keywords on pics of her kids which are alleged (ALLEGED, mind you) to cater to the more prurient interests of some people. Then there’s the discovery that even though she was pulling down some rather spectacular amounts of cash, she couldn’t pay bills for anyone and everyone–stiffing everyone everywhere all the time–and needed to declare bankruptcy. Oh, and right now, she’s pushing MLM diet pills and apparently quite successful at this as well. And McKMama isn’t Dooce, queen of the mommybloggers, either.

              Anyway, you CAN make money online, but to do it, you have to basically be a grifter at heart and willing to pimp yourself and your kids and their lives out. We don’t know how the kids (either Dooce’s or McKMama) feel about having their lives splashed all over the Internet; perhaps they’ll tell us in a decade or so.

              There are some funny mommybloggers out there, but they are the ones who don’t have a problem with swearing in their posts, unlike the pious ones. I’ll just mention the Bloggess and Beyonce the Metal Chicken ( and the [SNORT] Files, by one of the commenters on MWOP: (and some of what [SNORT] does is in direct mockery of McKMama). There are others.

            8. @mirele,

              “Anyway, you CAN make money online, but to do it, you have to basically be a grifter at heart and willing to pimp yourself and your kids and their lives out.”

              It makes me sad that you think this, it makes me even sadder that there are plenty of those types of people online who make you believe that.

              But just because there are some people like that doesn’t mean everyone is like that. Just like how when I posted a half dozen blogs that are potentially making decent money, it doesn’t mean all blogs will.

              There are unethical people online. There are unethical people in your church. There are unethical people everywhere.

              When I started my blog on making money online I knew there were a lot of internet scams out there and I had originally thought I would try to debunk them. Instead I decided to not give any more attention to them and just share things I thought would be helpful to people that are looking for info on the topic.

              Part of the reason I started was to test how much money a blog on that subject could make. Not all that much. If I tried to sell some of the crappy ebooks and products others are pushing that promise great riches, maybe I could do better. I don’t believe in those products so I don’t promote them. So the blog is just someplace I go to share some of my thoughts on the subject.

              I think it’s great when people expose people doing bad things but that’s not for me. I’ve had sites that focused on things I hated and it made me miserable even though I know some good came out of it.

            9. @HTNMMO,

              You didn’t say a six figure income was normal. In fact, you said the opposite–that it’s very rare.

              Yet you still felt compelled to bring up the six figure income in the first place.

              The evidence requested was a link to your blog. But you declined to give it on the grounds that there’s some personal info up there. Yet, for whatever reason you seemed not to be so concerned about privacy when you put that info on your blog in the first place.

              That you are unwilling to reveal your blog makes your motives seem dubious indeed.

              You seem hell-bent on spreading a specific flavor of a meme that I don’t think you should be.

              Of course I’m not actually stopping you–that’d be wrong. But neither am I going to allow you to spread that meme here without me repeatedly vociferously giving my objection.

              For a person that just has some hobby blog with not a lot of posts that also somehow pays for itself and a little bit extra–you sure do sound an awful lot like a niche Internet Marketer to me.

              Furry cows moo and decompress.

            10. @Wyrd,

              The Verge article had “get rich quick” in the title, so now scam enablers like Brogan and HTNMMO are trying to distance themselves by saying, “I’m not rich,” and “I didn’t achieve my present income quickly.” It’s Third Tribe claptrap all over again.

            11. @Wyrd,

              “You didn’t say a six figure income was normal. In fact, you said the opposite–that it’s very rare.”

              but previously you said:

              “But you also throw in mentions of six figure yearly incomes, and act like that’s normal.”

              There was apparently some miscommunication here because first you say I said something and then you said I said the opposite of it.

              When I chose my domain name I thought it would be obvious that it was meant to be a parody of the many make money online sites I kept seeing everywhere.

              I am very deliberate in the choice of words I use in my titles and in my posts. In that specific post about blogging and six figure incomes. My hope is that if someone is doing a search for something like how to make six figures a year blogging they wind up on my page instead of the page of someone trying to sell them something they don’t need and won’t be of any value to them. (wink wink see what I did?) :)

              Part of the reason I did it is because these marketers started using tactics like creating web pages titled “Is XXX a scam?” and they would say no it’s not and they would use their army of backlinking sites to try and drown out the people that are expressing their true beliefs that XXX is indeed a scam.

              I don’t blame you for being skeptical. I’m very skeptical myself and always account for a 10-20% chance that anything I heard, read or see is not what it seems. In fact there’s maybe 15% of me that thinks this whole site isn’t what it appears. That would be a huge bummer.

              Maybe I wholly underestimated the critical thinking skills of readers and their ability to not just see what they want to see? I’ll make it a point to try and do better.

              I’m guessing a lot of the readers here might even be victims of these scams and are turned off to the whole notion.

              I have a lot of experience with the internet. I created my first webpage before many people knew what the internet was. I got my first job developing websites before most people who are reading this blog even had home internet access. I have a lot of technical skill when it comes to things that are computer and internet related. I have been approached multiple times by friends and family about how to make some of the money they hear others are making online. These people do not have the same technical knowledge I do so I’ve given a lot of thought to how some of them can do things to make some extra money online. Blogging has the lowest barrier of entry and is something any person that can string a few coherent sentences together can do.

              You can choose to believe me or not believe me. It doesn’t change my life one way or another.

              What should be obvious is… If you take that example about creating a hobby blog you do have a chance of making some money. It does not cost you a dime to do it. I in know way financially benefit from you doing so. There is no commission for me for you signing up with blogger (it’s free) and the amazon affiliate program does not have a tiered structure where I would make a portion of your earnings.

              In my blog I try and post information that would help others and I do so knowing the blog won’t make any significant money. I enjoy doing it and I feel good about leading people in the right direction that won’t cause them harm.

              I do not believe the average person has a good shot of making significant money online. Definitely not the sums some are promising. I do believe however that a lot of people have the potential to make some money online.

              Like I said, I’m not promising vast riches but I truly believe if you’re spending time posting online in one way or another there are ways that you can spend that time in a way that benefits you more directly.

            12. Sorry for going on and on offtopic. That wasn’t what I meant to do.

              I’m very excited to have recently found this site. From now on more reading less writing :)

            13. @HTNMMO,

              “You didn’t say a six figure income was normal. In fact, you said the opposite–that it’s very rare.”

              but previously you said:

              “But you also throw in mentions of six figure yearly incomes, and act like that’s normal.”

              Well, in my defense, your writing style is very confusing. You frequently make a claim, then make a qualified, limited version of the opposite of that claim. It might help you in search engines (or it might not–I don’t know), but that statement – counter-statement structure combined with the extreme length of your posts make it damn difficult to figure out where you stand or what you’re trying to say.

              Here’s an example from your site’s banner graphic thingie:

              “Making money online is easy, just not THAT easy!”

              Uh, ok. So… which one is it? Easy? Or “not THAT easy?” Wait, isn’t the opposite of easy hard?

              I’m getting confused. (not really)

              On a site like, this kind of industrial strength waffling back-and-forth, trying to cover every single possible catch-phrase is interpreted as intentional prevarication.

              Regarding the post where you originally used the phrase “six figure income”, here’s what happened: I tried to read it, but was paralyzed by the density of the words. So much like Chris Brogan regarding scamworld, I skimmed.

              On a simple scan/skim it really did (and still does) look like you’re tossing out an off-hand reference to “six figure incomes” so as to make those appear achievable and normal. When I read it more carefully, it doesn’t look like that’s your argument. It looks like you’re saying they’re rare and almost impossible.

              But then my question on that was “why even mention them”? And I believe your response has to do with wanting to use certain catch phrases to get people’s (or a search engine’s) attention. Well–the attention getting aspect does work. But it totally kills the readability.

              Furry cows moo and decompress.

        2. @HTNMMO,

          You ramble worse than me… and I ramble pretty bad.

          The update to your post does clarify your position. However, it clarifies to the point of kind of exactly echoing what @SD already said. And you even included a power law graph. That’s cool. ‘cept sometimes, you know, they say “a picture is worth a thousand words.” Well this is one of those times. So it might’ve been better just to lead with the graph originally. You could delete many unnecessary paragraphs that way.

          Furry cows moo and decompress.

          1. @Wyrd,

            The first step in learning how to NOT make money is acknowledging that you don’t know how to NOT split your infinitives in the title of your blog.

            Not splitting your infinitives is easy, just not THAT easy. And I know a lot of people with six figure incomes who don’t split there’s.*

            *Incomes of non infinitive splitters are by no means a guarantee that you will make a six figure income just by learning English fucking grammar.

            And on the testimoanial page:

            “Since learning how not to split my infinitives, I finally got laid!”

            -Ross Jeffries.

            1. @Peter,

              That last comment was meant towards HNTMMO, not you Wyrd. I couldn’t hit reply to HNTMMO I guess. Or something.

          2. @Wyrd,

            Dude you admitted you didn’t even read my post so don’t tell me what it does and does not say.

            You spent over 1000 words trying to argue against what you thought I said before you even read the 1,000 words I wrote and even though you admit I didn’t say what you thought I said you’re still trying to defend your position.

            The people online that are buying into scams are taking the time to read.

            Have you seen a page like this?

            That’s called a long sales letter. It’s a common page format that these people use to sell these garbage products that get people hooked into spending money to make money.

            And considering I got blasted for linking my webpage in my comments via the comment form…. I found that link by following a link from right inside a post on this site that SD wrote. And it wasn’t one of those “this is a scam” link. It was here. Read this good article. And the site that was linked had that page as one of it’s featured products.

    2. @SD,

      Well, one thing from TFA where I actually agree with Chris Brogan:

      Trust Is So Fragile

      yep. It sure is. Hey, Chris–how come when I search for “copyblogger” I get 13 hits? Soft serve ice cream is still ice cream. Soft serve scam is still scam.

      Furry cows moo and decompress.

      1. @Wyrd,

        ack. Ok, my bad–I’m getting Chris Brogan confused with Brian Clark because they both seem so very, very bland. Sorry about that.

        1. @Wyrd, Here’s a tip for you. In memory improvement books, they say it’s easier to remember someone when you create a mental association connecting them to something memorable.

          The reverse is also true. So, for example, you would probably never want to mentally associate anyone else with Brian Clark, because then you’d never remember them.

          But, if for some unfathomable reason a person did want to remember Brian Clark, they might choose to mentally associate him with say, a giant talking asshole. Then they would remember him.

          That said, your (or anyone else’s) not being able to remember Brian Clark is perfectly normal, and none too surprising.

          1. @Dr. Venkman,

            But, if for some unfathomable reason a person did want to remember Brian Clark, they might choose to mentally associate him with say, a giant talking asshole. Then they would remember him.

            Ok–but how would that distinguish him from Chris Brogan?

            Furry cows moo and decompress.

      2. @Wyrd,

        Actually. That’s an easy mistake to make.

        In fact they may be related. Brothers in crime.

      1. @Eric G., Well, if you just happen to be the one promoting the idea behind those badges in the first place, you do. Funny how that works.

  8. Dear Droid.

    I appreciate your work exposing scammers like Frank Kern, Filsaime, John Reese etc.

    Just curious… When are you gonna get one of the biggest scammers in the “make money” niche: Robert Kiyosaki?

    There are already some controversial videos about him:

    Thanks again for your work Salty, take care.

    Tonces the cat.

    1. @Tonces the cat, OUCH! How smart could he be, hiring a training company he knows nothing about to teach what he’s not sure they’re teaching in a way he’s not really aware of?

      It always saddens me to see someone who is already massively successful with his books, like Robert Kiyosaki, go completely mental greedy needing more more more and taking it to this level to get it.

      Thanks, CBC and Tonces for the share.

    2. @Tonces the cat, Author John T. Reed has an informative real estate ‘guru’ review page that reviews most of these guys (and he’s been sued over it):

      “Rich Dad Poor Dad is one of the all-time worst financial books ever written! I was so disturbed by it that I wrote an extensive review of it.”

      Reed also has a very extensive scammer avoidance checklist, mainly focused on real estate scammers, but it is just as useful for determining IM scammers:

      “John T. Reed’s Real Estate B.S. Artist Detection Checklist”

    3. @Tonces the cat,

      Yeah, I remember Kiyosaki. He’s one of the very few of the get rich scammers that I knew about before Salty Droid.

      I was all, you know, trying to find legit ways to make money, but, of course, like any half-awake, half-dead zombie-human, I was only half way paying attention to what I was doing.

      So I just type stupid things into Google and see what comes up. I listened to his Rich Dad, Poor Dad book. I honestly thought it was pretty crappy.

      Now–there were two different anecdotes in the story that I liked a lot. So… that means I could say that thing that so many people deep inside the pyramid say–the line that goes something like (with lots of enthusiasm) “I learned so much! He taught me so well!” blah blah.

      I could say that… but I’m not going to. Because two good illustrative anecdotes mixed into a whole steaming pile of nonsensical, semi-motivational bullshit does not make up for the rest of the pile. It just doesn’t.

      His book was crappy. It actually kind of made me mad when I was done listening to it. He was so smarmy and his reasoning so slipshod and sloppy. …

      But at that time, I still didn’t get it. I didn’t (fully) realize that the book was just “lead gen” for his other crap. And I totally didn’t get how thoroughly this make money meme gets inside your head and rewires your whole value system.

      It took to show me that.

      Thanks, Salty Droid.

      Furry cows moo and decompress.

  9. This is kind of off topic but…what do people see in Tony Robbins?

    I don’t get him at all.

    1. @mirele,

      What people get out of Tony Robbins and others like him is Hope.

      Hope and Hype.

      Pretty much the same thing.

      Out of curiosity, have you seen “The Avengers” movie yet? There is a scene where Loki, the Norse God of Mischief, commands a group of people to kneel. They oblige.

      Then he says something to the effect of “See, isn’t that better? This is your natural state… you crave to be ruled.”

      Sadly (when looking at a societal scale of context) he is right. Hence why Adolf Hitler said ‘How Fortunate is it for those in power that people don’t think.’

      That is what people see in people like Tony Robbins… they see someone to rule them. Someone to tell them what to do, how to think, how to be. It’s sweet surrender, with the hope of something greater without the expense. Well, the expense of money, yes. The expense of free-thinking? No.

      1. @…Ooohhh…,

        No, I haven’t seen the Avengers, but how about “Kneel before Zod”?

        Or, more to the point, my oft-stated position that if the god of the evangelical Christians exists, I will be more than thrilled to cuss him out floridly as I’m being shipped off for an eternity of hellfire. Because I am not into bowing down to authority figures.

        But seriously, I tried listening to Robbins, and he comes across as a pompous dick. I’d rather listen to the Dalai Lama.

  10. Look forward to you putting Matt Cutts through the ringer. Google is the biggest scammer company of them all, squashing the small guy repeatedly.

    1. @Allyn ::

      Love it!

      Back off you dirty fucking bird … no … just kidding … I love you dirty bird.

    2. @Allyn,

      I’m so used to seeing the droid in a picture with a scammer, it causes me to be suspicious of the bird and its handler for no good reason.

  11. Fact: most people here are extremely biased, stupid, or both. Which is not as bad as the fact that they have absolutely no idea what they’re fucking talking about. Once again, fact. Droid, love your blog honestly but the fact that you resist any and all reasonable logic relating to IM really hurts your credibility. You continue to call ALL internet marketers scammer, when you know for a fact that isn’t true. I run a successful website selling party goods. I have also taught others to duplicate my success online, selling real, physical, valuable products. Am I a scammer? Fuckboys vote this down now….

    1. @doesnt matter ::

      I hadn’t noticed that I was having any credibility issues … thanks for informing me of that Mr. Anonymous/Irrelevant.

      Link to your suckessful sites :: or yeah … you’re most def a fucking scammer.

      … you can’t make money online.

    2. @doesnt matter puked up:

      “Fact: most people here are extremely biased…absolutely no idea what they’re fucking talking about.”

      You’ve got some bias right there, party boy.

      Party goods, huh? You tweeting affiliate links to kazoos and tooters on Amazon? Toot toot!

      Now you’re at our party, so enjoy the punch(es), scamwit!

      P.S. You can’t make money online.

  12. @SD …. exactly what I expected. Your typical side-stepping of the real issue by focusing on the easiest point of critiscm.

    I have no interest in posting my site here because quite frankly, I don’t trust your extremist followers. Why would I post my site here? I have to post an ecommerce site just to give an opinion?

    You know it’s irrelevant but you asked because it sounds good.

    You should have noticed that you have credibility issues because you do…as in, everybody views you as an extremist. Sorry to break the news, but they do.

    Extremists tend to have credibility issues.

    I said I owned a party goods site…why the fuck would I lie? What am I getting out of that? Comeon man.

    Like I said, I actually am a big fan. I have no interest in posting this other than for somebody other than your retarded fans to have a say.

    Can’t make money online? Comeon!! I won’t even justify that, even though it’s tongue in cheek (though I get the impression most people don’t know that).

    I hate the scammers just like you do. I make money online just like other people do, by trading goods or services for money. Quite frankly you only expose your own agenda and extreme bias by calling me a scammer.

    I sell real shit online….why are you demonizing millions of good people who do the same thing?

    Saying that all people who sell online are scammers is like saying every black person is a criminal….everyone knows that’s not true, but there’s still a whole bunch of ignorant jackasses who will say it is!

    SCAMMERS are the problem. We don’t disagree on that. When you malign hardworking people who sell online, just because the medium is different from those who sell on the street or stores, you do everyone a disservice, including your beloved readers. It makes it so they can’t discern who is who (btw I agree with most of your choices in targets but I am referring to your GENERALIZATIONS here)

    Say whatever you fucking want man. I am being reasonable and I am right.

    1. @doesnt matter,

      You forgot to say that you’ve been reading the blog for a couple of years. Try to remember the script please.

    2. @doesnt matter, If sarcasm, swearing and calling commenters ‘retards’ is “reasonable and right”, I would really hate to see you in an unreasonable mood.

    3. @doesnt matter, Oh, and before you even go there–the Droid never even pretended to be reasonable, only to be right.

    4. @doesnt matter, For an intelligent man, you seem to have difficulty remembering “Comeon” is not, in fact, a word. “Come on” is two.

      I’m pretty certain I’m neither extremist nor unintelligent.

      Don’t let the door hit your amply-proportioned posterior on the way out.

  13. @doesnt matter I know one person who made a really good business online – based on mail order products. But she has done it with a real business model – fantastic sourcing of real products, efficient delivery models, strong business expertise, great marketing and branding, building up trust by real word of mouth – or even, wait for it, I have friend who has built up a global business providing web based sports games. But the business is built on brilliant life emulating sports games. i.e. a unique business model, based on IP, barriers to entry etc.

    There are of course many other people who are successfully making money online via real business models. This site is not about knocking those people who make a genuine success out of a real business that offers real value to the consumer. This site is about knocking the scammy info product fraud acadamy that you proudly seem to aspire to.

    Neither person I mention above would then go and ‘package up’ their real life success, and believe that it would be a business model that everyone could ‘copy’. They would think it was cretinous. It is what scammers do. It is what you suggest (…based on your real life business success?)

  14. @SD re “Matt Cutts forthcoming” –


    I wanted to learn more about Prosper – and I did a search: they are no longer advertised on Google… (or are they?)

    I then wanted to become a Scientologist… and I found no Scientology ads on Google either (how can they have ceased such a revenue stream? I wonder what Google’s income from the ‘church’ was?), however, searching on Scientology, I did find a link to third result down. If only I had found first – I would have been saved! But then I did a search for ‘about Scientology’ and came second after Wikipedia – so maybe there is real progress. Which would be great news.

    Are Matt Cutts / Google now starting to get on board? (Better late then never for the ‘Do no evil’ crowd) – and five stars for SD as per usual.

    Or is Matt Cutts still on the side of the scammers, and needs more coverage?

    Either is/will be good news.

Comments are closed.