<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Rules of Engagement</title> <atom:link href="http://twopointouch.com/2006/blogs/rules-of-engagement/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://twopointouch.com/2006/blogs/rules-of-engagement/</link> <description>web 2.0, blogs and social media</description> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 May 2011 20:58:01 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator> <item><title>By: RubySquad</title><link>http://twopointouch.com/2006/blogs/rules-of-engagement/#comment-10277</link> <dc:creator>RubySquad</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2007 04:52:13 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://twopointouch.com/2006/10/27/rules-of-engagement/#comment-10277</guid> <description>&lt;strong&gt;Wednesday Search Industry Links 021407...&lt;/strong&gt;
Here are those great 30 Traffic Generating Tips from Daniel&#039;s blog:
1. Sridhar Katakam
Keep track of blogs and leave comments on them. How do you know which blogs to keep track of in the first place......</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Wednesday Search Industry Links 021407…</strong></p><p>Here are those great 30 Traffic Generating Tips from Daniel’s blog:</p><p>1. Sridhar Katakam<br
/> Keep track of blogs and leave comments on them. How do you know which blogs to keep track of in the first place.…..</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Ian Delaney</title><link>http://twopointouch.com/2006/blogs/rules-of-engagement/#comment-1204</link> <dc:creator>Ian Delaney</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:37:55 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://twopointouch.com/2006/10/27/rules-of-engagement/#comment-1204</guid> <description>Wow. Great comments there. I hadn&#039;t followed the comments thread on Robert&#039;s post, but I clearly should do before I post further on this subject. The popular posts plug-in on my side-bar uses about 6 different measurements to judge what&#039;s popular. I wonder if anyone can do that across the blogosphere? Will try to do an update on the discussion tomorrow.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow. Great comments there. I hadn’t followed the comments thread on Robert’s post, but I clearly should do before I post further on this subject. The popular posts plug-in on my side-bar uses about 6 different measurements to judge what’s popular. I wonder if anyone can do that across the blogosphere? Will try to do an update on the discussion tomorrow.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Bob Boydston</title><link>http://twopointouch.com/2006/blogs/rules-of-engagement/#comment-1203</link> <dc:creator>Bob Boydston</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:22:25 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://twopointouch.com/2006/10/27/rules-of-engagement/#comment-1203</guid> <description>Who are the consumers of such measurements, be they through the Engagement method proffered in this article or through the old methods?
One can say for an advertiser accurate measurements are necessary so that a price for the advertisement can be negotiated. Conversely, for the owner of a site, accurate measurements are important to get ads and to plan for the future.  If the owner has investors, these measurements indicate success or failure. For the advertiser, no matter what the measurement, if there were no sales from the ads, then the cost was too high.
Scoble writes that the Engagement method is a better measure but I don&#039;t really see any precise definitions.  I get a warm and fuzzy feeling about it, but what from the presentation here, I am not convinced.  One of the comments in Scoble&#039;s article presented &quot;Kirkpatrickâ€™s Levels.&quot; This, to me, has more merit but I doubt the measurability.  Here are the levels according to Robert:
Kirkpatrickâ€™s Level&#039;s
1. Reactions (they heard you)
2. Learning (they understood and retained)
3. Transfer (they took in the information and can apply)
4. Results (they use the learning to achieve a goal)
Robert proposes a site equivalent as follows:
1. Click - A reader arrived (current metric)
2. Consume - A reader read the content
3. Understood - A reader understood the content and remembers
4. Applied - A reader applies the content in another venue
1 and 2 are measurable, but 3 and 4 are less.  My comment here is demonstrative of 3 and 4 as I am understanding and remembering (3) and applying it another venue, i.e. your blog (4).  But, how does that get measured for the first blog?
Some comments here and there try to equate &quot;likeability&quot; to &quot;popularity&quot;.  But, I don&#039;t think that really matters.  Some of the most famous people are those you don&#039;t like.  Controversy generates traffic and traffic is what advertisers like.
So, I like the direction of Kirkpatrickâ€™s measurements but I don&#039;t know how they are feasible.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Who are the consumers of such measurements, be they through the Engagement method proffered in this article or through the old methods?</p><p>One can say for an advertiser accurate measurements are necessary so that a price for the advertisement can be negotiated. Conversely, for the owner of a site, accurate measurements are important to get ads and to plan for the future.  If the owner has investors, these measurements indicate success or failure. For the advertiser, no matter what the measurement, if there were no sales from the ads, then the cost was too high.</p><p>Scoble writes that the Engagement method is a better measure but I don’t really see any precise definitions.  I get a warm and fuzzy feeling about it, but what from the presentation here, I am not convinced.  One of the comments in Scoble’s article presented “Kirkpatrickâ€™s Levels.” This, to me, has more merit but I doubt the measurability.  Here are the levels according to Robert:</p><p>Kirkpatrickâ€™s Level’s<br
/> 1. Reactions (they heard you)<br
/> 2. Learning (they understood and retained)<br
/> 3. Transfer (they took in the information and can apply)<br
/> 4. Results (they use the learning to achieve a goal)</p><p>Robert proposes a site equivalent as follows:</p><p>1. Click — A reader arrived (current metric)<br
/> 2. Consume — A reader read the content<br
/> 3. Understood — A reader understood the content and remembers<br
/> 4. Applied — A reader applies the content in another venue</p><p>1 and 2 are measurable, but 3 and 4 are less.  My comment here is demonstrative of 3 and 4 as I am understanding and remembering (3) and applying it another venue, i.e. your blog (4).  But, how does that get measured for the first blog?</p><p>Some comments here and there try to equate “likeability” to “popularity”.  But, I don’t think that really matters.  Some of the most famous people are those you don’t like.  Controversy generates traffic and traffic is what advertisers like.</p><p>So, I like the direction of Kirkpatrickâ€™s measurements but I don’t know how they are feasible.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: David Phillips</title><link>http://twopointouch.com/2006/blogs/rules-of-engagement/#comment-1202</link> <dc:creator>David Phillips</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:18:31 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://twopointouch.com/2006/10/27/rules-of-engagement/#comment-1202</guid> <description>Ian... fantastic... it is just what we need in the debate.
You don&#039;t get the money yet.
It is one thing to see response in one medium. But to be extra valuable, there is a need to see how values jump from one channel to the next. If the value is in a blog post, does it also have value in .... a podcast... newspaper.... supermarket shelf. Then the driver of the value  is even greater.
As an aside. There can be no question about big portals. They can, as best, offer a version of scream marketing. A list that gets in the way of information or engagement is as bad as the pop-up and spam mail.
As RSS and similar technologies mature, the information people seek will go to them and that which they do not want will not be included - that is how this post came to me.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ian… fantastic… it is just what we need in the debate.</p><p>You don’t get the money yet.</p><p>It is one thing to see response in one medium. But to be extra valuable, there is a need to see how values jump from one channel to the next. If the value is in a blog post, does it also have value in .… a podcast… newspaper.… supermarket shelf. Then the driver of the value  is even greater.</p><p>As an aside. There can be no question about big portals. They can, as best, offer a version of scream marketing. A list that gets in the way of information or engagement is as bad as the pop-up and spam mail.</p><p>As RSS and similar technologies mature, the information people seek will go to them and that which they do not want will not be included — that is how this post came to me.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Ian Delaney</title><link>http://twopointouch.com/2006/blogs/rules-of-engagement/#comment-1188</link> <dc:creator>Ian Delaney</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:37:01 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://twopointouch.com/2006/10/27/rules-of-engagement/#comment-1188</guid> <description>Hi Vern... plug away! Think you&#039;re right about big portal sites, at least for people like you and I.
Hmmm. I discovered why Scoble might have it in for The Register. It rather unkindly called him a &quot;globule&quot; in their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/11/dell_plug_sun/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;report&lt;/a&gt; about the Dell blog. Not very nice.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Vern… plug away! Think you’re right about big portal sites, at least for people like you and I.</p><p>Hmmm. I discovered why Scoble might have it in for The Register. It rather unkindly called him a “globule” in their <a
href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/11/dell_plug_sun/" rel="nofollow">report</a> about the Dell blog. Not very nice.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Vernon Lun</title><link>http://twopointouch.com/2006/blogs/rules-of-engagement/#comment-1187</link> <dc:creator>Vernon Lun</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:18:41 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://twopointouch.com/2006/10/27/rules-of-engagement/#comment-1187</guid> <description>Ian, this is a terrific discussion. Thanks for posting. I always saw the blogosphere in terms of islands of conversations and referral carries more weight than a casual click. I know my own habits have changed, if I have a moment to spare, I go look for the good blogs on any of our member sites. This isn&#039;t a plug for TGB but I know the community and more often than not, I&#039;ll find something I like. Maybe big portals are on the way out.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ian, this is a terrific discussion. Thanks for posting. I always saw the blogosphere in terms of islands of conversations and referral carries more weight than a casual click. I know my own habits have changed, if I have a moment to spare, I go look for the good blogs on any of our member sites. This isn’t a plug for TGB but I know the community and more often than not, I’ll find something I like. Maybe big portals are on the way out.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
