Bill Cammack

Six months ago, back in August, I wrote “Digital Internet Snobbery”, which was basically about how I had begun interacting with more and more people that knew about, understood and utilized Social Media and fewer and fewer people who didn’t.

I actually halted the process of adding more people to my social sites to see if I could do something about that or if I WANTED to do anything about that.

I’m very comfortable and happy with people that know how to use Social Media properly, because it’s an efficient form of communication. The least time is wasted explaining things. I have very few conversations that I didn’t intend to have. Anything I want to tell someone is available by sending them a link through iChat or Skype. I can talk to Rox in Hawaii or Phil in the UK at the press of a button.

At this point, it just about PAINS me to interact with people that aren’t “hip” to Social Media. It’s so limiting. To me, it’s like speaking to people that don’t actually know English, even though they speak it a little. It’s so inefficient. You end up explaining things that you’ve already forgotten the explanations for because they’re so internalized already.

However, those of us that “get it” are in the vast, vast, VAST minority. We’re a subset of people that want to interact with other people inside a subset of people that have internet access inside a subset of people that have computers in the first place. There’s nothing wrong with that, but I’ve had a couple of experiences in the last week that have allowed me insight into what “the masses” think about what it is that I/we do on a daily basis.

At some point this week, reader “David” got upset over a post I wrote. Last night, David suggested that I was linking to articles about real-life cases in order to increase my Google rankings. I’m not going to link to that post or his comment because the response would be the same… “You wrote this post so you could link to your other post and increase your Google rankings AGAIN! :( “. hahahaha But the point is that offhand, I just didn’t have anything to say about that, because linking to references from inside posts is as common to me as saying my name when I introduce myself to people. However… SOME people don’t SAY their names when they’re introduced to people. Some people never introduce themselves at all…..

Earlier in the week, I was talking to my friend, Faya, and I linked her to a couple of my posts that reference Renzo Gracie & Carlos Feliz, including the trip Carlos and I went on to see Renzo fight against Carlos Newton @ Mohegan Sun.

Now… You see how much BETTER that last part was? You see how IF you were interested in any of the topics I mentioned, you could just click on them and get an extension of my post? Do you understand how much less typing I have to do because I can hyperlink to previously-posted material instead of having to explain the whole thing over and over? :D

Anyway… So I linked Faya to my posts and her response was “Are you a publicist?” :) I laughed at that, because I was reminded that to people who don’t do what we do as far as Social Media, our form of communication is going to appear strange to them. I certainly didn’t consider her question an actual inquiry as to what I do for work, which, in fact, it was hahaha.

The whole point of linking inside posts is a) avoiding redundancy / reinventing the wheel, and b) allowing the reader to quickly and easily access information which bolsters one’s point… or, in David’s case, refutes one’s point. David didn’t believe that the article I linked to had anything to do with the point I was making in my post, because I didn’t know the person in the article I had linked to. Unfortunately, that’s one of the flaws of the internet. We get information and we can’t possibly get the entire context. It’s just not possible. We have to roll with what we’re told. If they’re having a Presidential debate and there are lines on the bottom of the screen, we’re supposed to believe that those lines represent commoners who have buttons in their hands to click approval or disapproval of what the current speaker’s saying. All we can do is believe that or not believe that. We post what we think based on what we take away from the event.

So if someone posts opinions of the debate based on what they saw the lines do while the candidates were speaking, you can say the exact same thing. “You don’t know the people who had the clickers. You don’t know what their motivations were. You don’t know what was in their minds.” That’s absolutely true…. Unfortunately, what we’re presented is all we have to go on. It’s a flawed system, but it’s what we’ve got.

That’s not to say that I’ve never done things that I think would climb on Google, hahaha of course I have. Google is where you want to be, because it’s the only search engine people actually use. My point in the case that David commented on though, was that I was providing an example, granted, an EXTREME example of the situation I was writing about.

As far as Faya’s question, I can understand why she asked that. :) Attempting to read my posts as an outsider (read: 99% of the population), they definitely read more like news articles than personal entries on a blog. This is a personal entry right here, and it seems more like a report than anything, to me. This is because I’m not talking to myself…. I’m talking to anyone that happens to read my blog, wherever in the world they happen to be.

That’s what I look at every day. People from several countries reading my blog. I had over 4,000 unique visitors request over 7,000 pages of mine in the last month.

So it wouldn’t make sense for me to figure that people in California know about local NYC news. People in Hawaii? The UK? Germany? If you don’t post links to what you’re talking about, you’re leaving people in the dark that might otherwise learn something new and improve their lives. You’re leaving them to fend for themselves and try to Google the information that you very easily could have linked them to.

This is why it comes off as “being a publicist” to Faya and “increasing Google rankings” to David. When you get involved in Social Media, you learn to speak to the masses instead of to one person. Instead of one-to-one communication, it’s one-to-many. If I Twitter Bre that something’s going on, I’m actually announcing it to my entire roster of 1,200 Followers. That necessitates a different communication than if I had sent a direct message.

Similarly, some people post to the internet as if they’re writing a text diary. A “blog” is short for a “web log”. Some people are happy and content to type about what their dog did today or that happened at their job. I post a lot of pictures, but if I’m going to WRITE something, it’s because I want people to THINK. Think about ME, Think about YOU, Whatever… just THINK!

Even if you don’t like what I’m saying, you’re learning about something else in life that you don’t like and you can avoid in the future. Even if you don’t believe what I’m saying, you achieve a new understanding of the possibilities of what someone might be thinking about you or your relationship or your web series or whatever I happen to post about. So that’s one of the reasons why I post the way I do. Every post is a message in a bottle. I appreciated David’s comment because it’s an indication that he received the message. He didn’t LIKE the message… :) I understand and respect that and I’m willing to debate anything that I post.

As far as Faya’s question… yeah… I guess I *AM* a publicist. :D I publicize myself. I could publicize other people if I felt like it. I spent the last 8 months (still there, I just don’t care anymore :) ) on page 1 of Google for just my first name because I RAWK Social Media. Period.

For better or for worse, it’s changed the way I think and the way I communicate, and I appreciate comments and questions from people that don’t do this the way I do it, because I get to test my logic.

Cheers!
~Bill

… continued from E-Stalking [Part 1]…

So… I’m minding my business, like I love to do… (my sister’s patented story-opening line)… and I start getting hits from Melissa’s site…

In the first line of her post, Being a Relater, I saw my full name and a link to my site. To this point, I’ve only referred to Melissa by first name in text & tags because I wasn’t sure whether my post was going to become some format of a ‘conversation’ between us or just one post BY me ABOUT her. :) I felt it would have been a Social Media faux pas to encroach on her Google Search results (like my posts love to do). So, since she’s ack’ed me at this point, I’ll mention that her name is Melissa Sconyers, and as far as I can tell, she’s a prodigy/phenom.

I had intended to go in a different direction with part 2 of E-Stalking, but I hadn’t anticipated her posting about my post, so now I’m compelled to respond to a couple of her points.

he talks about how he didn’t recognize my Twitter name or my real name, and therefore was unable to place me in context. He also mentions that’s he when he tried several times to draw a connection between us, and found none.

Yes. This happened in the very beginning of when I spoke to her. Most of the time that I go to Social Media events, I’m hanging out with my friends and I meet friends of my friends. I was immediately at a loss, not being able to connect Melissa to someone I had already met, so I believe I reverted to the dreaded “what do you do?”. :) I don’t exactly remember her response, but it was one word. It was probably “marketing”. Whatever it was that she said, the WAY she said it was what was of interest to me.

Most people that you encounter on the meetup circuit are “looking to make a come-up”. IME, they normally connect themselves to the largest, most recognizable company or accomplishment they’ve achieved so far. Whatever Melissa’s one word was, it was delivered with the matter-of-fact-ness of “I do what I do”. She didn’t feel any need to explain her “doing” any more than that. Something about her demeanor indicated a confidence and self-sufficiency about her that made me figure that if she had been from around here, I would have heard of her by now. Since I hadn’t, I believe I asked her if she was from out of town.

… it’s easy for me to tell people what I “do right now” with any number of simple answers — marketing, advertising, search marketing, digital media — and much, much more difficult to explain what it is that I “do.” Because I do a lot of things.

See, this is what I was talking about. Having so many skillz to “fall back on” makes it so that one doesn’t have to latch onto any particular thing to receive props. If Rob hadn’t told me I should wait and get a new iPhone, I would have already replaced my old-ass phone with the little alien in it that jumps rope and takes baths (don’t ask), and I would have googled her right there on the spot.

… to his credit, he did a very thorough e-stalk on me, and emailed me with all sorts of comments and questions.

haha Yes I did Laugh Out Loud at “thorough e-stalk” hahaha :D

The way I see it, the net is a place where you can put all sorts of information about yourself, and if it’s not buried too deeply, anyone who’s interested in finding out about you can do so. Also, if they find out things they don’t like, they can eject without ever having to contact you. The reason I say “buried too deeply” is that I have over 300 videos that I’ve posted to the net since 2006 and *I* can’t even find some of my own videos easily! :D My cousin asked me the other day “How’s that girl doing that you did the music video in the car with?” and I was like ????? I didn’t even REMEMBER doing a music video in a car.

Song: “Tease”
Artist: Kelly (www.myspace.com/KellyPorter)
Video performed by Firestarter from KR3Ts (KR3Ts.com)
A&B Camera: Krys G., Bill C.
Edit: Bill C.
Date: August 02, 2006

Anyway… yes. I am an extremely thorough E-Stalker. Depending on my level of intrigue, I will skim every single piece of media that I can find on the internet with your name on it. Everything means something. It’s so interesting to build a psychological profile of someone, pieced together from your guesses about their media and then see how close you come to their actual demeanor and way of being, IRL. :)

This makes me quite good at small talk. But it still doesn’t mean I enjoy it by any means.

To me, small-talk is similar to not browsing the other person’s media on the net. It’s like throwing away time. I’d rather say nothing and enjoy my own thoughts than ramble on about some nonsense. Even if someone’s on-topic with me, I’d prefer that they knew what they were talking about, haha. I *can* small-talk… but if I did, I’d be perfectly aware that I was wasting my time as well as theirs.

As a keen observer, I prefer to move around a room, watch how people are interacting, overhear a couple of conversations, and then find one where I can jump in. This is my way of finding context, when it isn’t possible to know something in advance about the person standing in front of me. Plus, the participants in the conversation are already more interested in talking to me than if we had all started cold, because I’ve made myself relevant to what they’re already talking about.

I enjoyed reading this paragraph, because this is exactly what Melissa did to me. :) Once I had determined that Jonathan was in twitter contact with Melissa, I knew what I was going to do. I was going to find her the next day in his twitter stream and get my E-Stalk on. :D Until that time, I was perfectly content with my current understanding of “who she was”. I knew how tall she was, that she had something to do with marketing, that she was cute and that she spoke English. That’s it. :D Oh, and that she had a Twitter account name, which I was currently too inebriated to remember, but knew I was going to get from Jonathan ‘on the morrow’.

At some point, she says something to me about my shirt.

I replied something like “Oh, that’s Renzo Gracie. He’s a fighter”, and expected that to be the end of the conversation… except she goes “I know” to which I raised an eyebrow and listened to her continue about a topic that I’m very interested in. hahaha Excellent Technique! On top of that, it worked on me just like it was supposed to. That conversation went directly to the top of my ‘understandings’ about her, because as she says:

In my experience, people aren’t interested in “you.” They’re interested in how “you” are interesting to them.

heh. Spot-On.

Apparently, Bill wasn’t the only one who didn’t get a full impression of who I am.

I think the important thing is that the impression that I *got* was that there was more to learn about Melissa. I don’t think it’s feasible that I would have gotten the entire picture, IRL. People will type stuff like this, but they won’t rattle it off when they meet you:

Yes, I am in advertising. But I’m also a geek, a writer, a blogger, an author, a photographer, a photojournalist, a restaurant reviewer, a programmer, a world traveler, a public speaker, a fluent Mandarin Chinese speaker, an entrepreneur, a web and graphic designer, a videographer, an inline speed skater, and probably a lot of other things that I’m forgetting.

I think the best you can do in a social situation is exude potential. Maybe potential, personality and class. When people ask me what I do, I say “I edit” or “I’m a video editor”. I’m not actually interested in people knowing how good I am at editing or what schools I graduated from or that I’m a world-class XBOX team leader or an ultimate frisbee terror. That’s because I’m not “tryinna make a come-up”. I don’t go out to make business contacts. That’s why I don’t carry “business cards”. I go out to spend time with cool, fun and intelligent people. If we have something in common, let’s chill. If not, let’s not! :D

Basically, I derived enough from our interaction at that event to consider Melissa someone I’d be googling in the near future… and I think that’s really all the impression one needs to make in this day and time! :D

Continued in part 3…

It turns out that Sherdog interviewed Renzo this morning @ 4am. Click the link to go to the page with the interview video.

http://www.sherdog.com/videos/videos.asp?v_id=1079

Basically, Renzo confirms exactly what I said last night, which was obvious from watching the fight footage on DVR. He also makes a very good point about position. With the control Renzo had over the ground position, if kneeing to the head while the opponent’s grounded were *LEGAL*, the fight would have been over ASAP.

I’m glad Renzo’s ok. I had a concussion in 6th grade. I got it just before we went out to eat, and I was nauseous, my vision wasn’t really good, and the food I ate came right back up before we even left the restaurant. My friends were concerned for me, but later that day, I was fine. I’m glad the ref did the right thing and held the match up and ended up DQing Shamrock, because it’s one thing to train for months and then fight at your best conditioning, and another altogether to fight while your system isn’t operating correctly because Shamrock decided to blatantly cheat and then act like he didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to do that.

IT’S.IN.THE.RULES!!!!! :? Elite XC Match Rules

Fouls:

13. Grabbing the clavicle.

14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent. A grounded fighter has more than just the soles of their feet on the ground. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.

15. Stomping a grounded opponent.

They’ve both said they want a rematch, so that’s probably going to happen.

New York Times article about Renzo Gracie, Feb 06, 2007 [link]

Photo: Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Of course, there’s Carlos lampin’ in the upper left, waiting to get biz! :D

Frank Shamrock decided to knee Renzo Gracie in the back of his head… TWICE!!! while they were both on the ground. That’s clearly illegal, and Shamrock was rightfully DISQUALIFIED.

The win goes to Renzo Gracie.

It’s pretty ridiculous that Shamrock’s “defense” was “I thought we came here to fight”. That doesn’t have anything to do with the clear and obvious rules that are explained to everyone before the fight… WAY before the fight. It’s not possible that Shamrock didn’t know knees or kicks to the head while your opponent is on the mat are illegal. On top of that, you can clearly see that Shamrock had his hand on Renzo’s head. He MOVED HIS HAND so he could knee Renzo, then put his hand back. He MOVED HIS HAND AGAIN so he could knee Renzo in the head AGAIN, and then put his hand back. CLEARLY illegal. CLEARLY intentional. Pathetic. :/

Apparently, Shamrock knew the rules of the match, because he was stalling on the bottom and looking for the ref to stand them back up again. How is it that he knew that there was a 15-second rule in effect, but he didn’t know kicks/knees to the head while your opponent’s on the mat are illegal? That’s good for him that he got disqualified. It would LITERALLY have been insult to injury if anything less had been the decision. No draw, No win, No “no contest”… D.Q. Period.

That’s pretty disgusting. Shamrock looked pretty smug at the end of the fight, but he SHOULD feel embarrassed. Maybe he thought it was still back in the day when A) just about anything was legal, and B) there weren’t cameras to record what you did and play it back to everyone in the arena on the spot. There was no reason for Renzo to feel he had to defend himself against knee strikes while he was on the ground. EVERYONE, including Shamrock KNEW that’s illegal. Renzo had control of both of Shamrock’s arms, so he wasn’t worried about elbows either. That was a completely pathetic showing by Shamrock. He completely cheated everyone out of seeing the true potential outcome of that fight.

I hope Renzo’s ok.