Archive for the ‘Flawgosphere’ Category

« Older Entries

CONTENT! CONTENT! CONTENT!

April 8, 2013

Content-is-King.jpg

CONTENT!

Here are some random tweets from the Law Marketing Association 2013 conference using the #LMA13 hashtag:

@SatikZekian: Use relevant keywords in image filenames, separated by dashes not underscores.

@BradNeese: Put together a content editorial calendar.

@Heather_Morse: Search Yahoo Answers for content ideas. Cross check Google to see if anyone is blogging on that.

@BradNeese: Search results: Blue link is title tag; Meta description is description in link.

All thought-leading ideas to optimize your SEO social media law marketing strategy and an effective way to monetize your brand in order to generate leads, drive traffic and improve your Google ranking for your website or blog.

Oh, did I forget to mention CONTENT!?!

CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT. CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT 

Any questions? Are you content or malcontent with the contents?

Not to worry, new clients should be calling you on your iPhone to retain you in 3-2-1….

Posted in #LMA13, blawging, blawgs, blog, Flawg, Flawging, Flawgosphere, law, Law Tech, lawyer, lawyers, legal education, Legal Ethics, legal marketing, legal practice, legal profession, legal publishing, Legal Technology, LinkedIn, social knowledge, social media, technology | 3 Comments »

Oh Nikita! You’ll Never Know.

October 10, 2012

My pal, Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice, a denizen of free social media perks from Klout, doesn’t much care for guest blogging spam. Recently, I had the following exchange of twits with Scott (yes, this is the correct noun usage, get used to it): (more…)

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in blawging, Blawgosphere, blawgs, blog, ethics, Flawg, Flawging, Flawgosphere, professional, professionalism, Scott Greenfield, social media | Leave a Comment »

How To Murder Your Professional Reputation Online

June 22, 2012
Macbeth Consulting the Vision of the Armed Hea...

Macbeth Consulting the Vision of the Armed Head. By Henry Fuseli, 1793–94. Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

MACDUFF: Confusion now hath made his masterpiece.
Most sacrilegious murther hath broke ope 
The Lord’s anointed temple and stole thence
The life o’ the building.

William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, ACT II, Scene III

Spam comments are a scourge of the internet. Lately, I have received an average of 100 spam comments per day here, most, if not all, caught by the Aksimet spam filter.

All of these generic pharmaceutical products sound wonderful and I am sure they will give lasting relief, in different measure. The prOn spam, though, lacks any creativity or romance. Aside from the link-love frontal assaults, where’s the love?

But I digress.

I also regularly receive unsolicited email invites from marketing firms and self-described ‘freelance writers’ mewling and begging to write guest posts on my blawg. Strangely, none of these earnest requests are from lawyers, law students or anyone remotely interested in law.

Go figure. (more…)

Tags:, , ,
Posted in blawging, Blawgosphere, blawgs, Flawg, Flawging, Flawgosphere, lawyer, lawyers, Legal Ethics, legal marketing, legal practice, legal profession, legal writing, social media | 3 Comments »

Using Social Media Tools in a Practical and Ethical Way

June 2, 2012

 I had the privilege of co-presenting with David Whelan, Manager, Legal Information, Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) at the LSUC’s 7th Annual Solo and Small Firm Conference and Expo (Two-Day Program) (View Program Agenda (PDF)).  We presented on the topic of  ”Using Social Media Tools in a Practical and Ethical Way”.

See David Whelan’s Blog for a copy of his excellent Power Point slideshow and paper.

Here’s my Power Point slideshow:

Here’s a link to a pdf copy of my paper: Using Social Media Tools in a Practical and Ethical Way. Pribetic

Kudos to the Program Co-Chairs for organizing an informative and interesting conference:

Michele Allinotte, Allinotte Law Office (Blog: http://yourcornwalllawyer.com/category/blog/) and

Daniel Pinnington, Vice President, Claims Prevention & Stakeholder RelationsLawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company (LawPro) (Blog: http://avoidaclaim.com/) 

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in blawging, Blawgosphere, blawgs, blog, Dan Pinnington, ethics, Flawg, Flawging, Flawgosphere, Law Society of Upper Canada, LawPRO, lawyer, lawyers, Legal Ethics, legal marketing, legal practice, legal profession, social media | Leave a Comment »

Blame Twitter

April 16, 2012

Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, Randy Barnett has apologized to Larry Lessig in mischaracterizing Lessig’s position by using the following headline:  Larry Lessig: If the Republican Justices Do Not Agree With Me They Will Be Acting Politically.

So what, you may ask?

Well, the lede in Barnett’s original post reads:

“Well, that is not exactly what he says.”

According to Lessing, a bunch of people on the Twitter then jump all over him and call him mean names. Lessig then responds in the Atlantic, and offers what Barnett suggests is a “very useful blogging suggestion”:

“One final quibble, this time beyond the constitution:

Randy’s essay is a nice example about how the ethics of writing need to evolve in the Twitter age. He wrote his piece for a blog. In the days when people would come to a blog as a whole, the harm in titling a piece with a complete falsity is small — at least when you correct the falsity in the very first sentence of the piece.

But in the age of Twitter, this behavior is not harmless. For the title lives separately from the substance. It has been hilarious to watch the outrage at my “outrageously hypocritical” argument (as one person earnestly wrote me in an email) spread across Twitter, fueled by Randy’s completely false title.

It is better behavior, I suggest, not to induce such misunderstanding. Especially when it might be interpreted as being motivated by a disagreement with the politics of the person attacked.”

Barnett then offers the following explanation:

“It was the point of my piece that the substance of Larry’s analysis reflects the title of my blog post, notwithstanding he puts the  criticism that the Republican Court is acting “politically” in the mouths of “students” and “cynics” to whom he would have no substantive response (“I would have to concede the appearance that it’s just politics”).  This enabled him to criticize Justice Scalia for a being political should he vote to invalidate the individual mandate, while expressly denying he so believed (“even if I don’t believe I could ever believe it”).   So my title was deliberately chosen to reflect what I viewed to be the take-away of Lessig’s essay, and because I do not approve of the rhetorical tactic he employed.   When taken in context with the text of my blog post, I believe the title to be fair comment, especially as the title’s literal meaning was expressly qualified in the first sentence and that I included the entire unredacted passage from his original essay.

Having said this, Larry makes a very good point about Twitter dissemination.  Because I don’t use Twitter, and don’t read Tweats [sic], I did not anticipate this secondary distribution of the title alone and was oblivious to how this secondary distribution of the title without the accompanying context of the blog post might affect its meaning.  Had I realized it would have this effect, I would not have used the title I chose.  For this I sincerely apologize to my friend.”

Huh?  Blame Twitter? Barnett’s explanation sounds more like the Chewbacca defense:

Here’s my legal blogging tip: Provocative headlines are for flawgers, not blawgers, especially academic ones.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in blawging, Blawgosphere, blawgs, blog, Flawg, Flawging, Flawgosphere, social media | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,587 other followers

%d bloggers like this: