Dirty photos of Ashley Greene – Alice Cullen of Twilight – have been leaked online. Her lawyers have admitted they are indeed the real deal. Of them they said:
"The photos in question, which appear to be of our client, are illegal and are being unlawfully displayed. Our client intends to take legal action." They also have said, “Ms. Greene is the owner of the copyrights in these photos, and as copyright owner, Ms. Greene owns the exclusive rights, among others, to reproduce, distribute, and to display the photos."
I’ve questioned why these photos are in such demand and who is looking for them. You’d assume it would be men, right? But how many of them are familiar with Twilight, let alone the name Ashley Greene? That would mean the majority of people looking for the Ashley Greene dirty photos must be female. Let’s do a test. In the poll below, indicate whether or not you’ve looked for these photos and your gender.
Talk with more Twi-hard fans at Twilight Talk.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 19
Teenagers who want to jerk off?
Oh, well. They're young and horny, and they'll click on anything that looks the least bit boneriffic. You got your page views, and that's what counts.
Isn't it?
I hope so. If they stick around for political discussions, I'll really have to leave.
In my opinion, that's classic SEO sleight of hand. It's unencumbered by any kind of original content which might be seen as adding value to the community or to those outside the community who are tempted by your title to visit. SEO isn't bad or good, right or wrong, in and of itself. It's all in how you use it. This represents a new low for Gather--predictable, and a little late in coming, but still strangely disappointing.
I think I just heard the starter gun's echoing shot, starting the race to find and perfect the next new low. I wonder what it will be?
You're right...the post was a little late in coming. Next time I'll get on that and write about the naked photos when they first come out. But I preferred not to include the photos in this post. Sorry if I disappointed anyone.
How do you know this? Did you run a query on the page views? How do you count those who haven't designated a gender on their profile? Or do you really mean "half the people who bothered to answer the poll were female"?
If you want to take advantage of the benefits which SEO can bring to the community, the site and the site's monetization efforts in general, there are lots of ways to do it. Posting content which consists of little more than hot keywords and a question relating to them is one way. If you choose that way, your title works perfectly.
Another way is to do a little research on the 'pop culture' subject you wish to write about, pull together what you've learned into an essay, and share it. If that's your choice, your title will depend on the nature of the original content you're sharing.
SEO can work equally well in either case, but the latter requires actual effort. And effort requires a willingness to give something in exchange for what you'll be getting. I realize that SEO is a very promising tool for maximizing the getting and minimizing the giving, but it doesn't have to be used so cynically.
If you don't like what I'm writing about, that's fine with me. I enjoy doing it. As for "actual effort", don't assume it doesn't take any time out of my day to do it. I find it very insulting when people say that . I've poured a lot of my time, heart, and soul into making my Hot or Not group. No, that's not me being sassy. It's for real. Maybe writing celebrity gossip it means nothing to you, but it means a lot to me.
But again, if you don't like it, take up writing something that interest you. Do you like to cook, knit, discuss politics, etc? Believe me, there are people out there who share the same interests as you. So give it a try (or keep working on it if you've already made an attempt).
Please tell me you're kidding. Liz, no one has to "assume" the little effort it takes to post something like this - especially not people who put a great deal of time and thought into what they post, as Time Heals consistently does.
The things which interest me the most about SEO are the ways in which it shapes the online experience for me and everyone else. I have no interest in putting it to work for my benefit.
"If you don't like what I'm writing about, that's fine with me. I enjoy doing it. As for "actual effort", don't assume it doesn't take any time out of my day to do it. I find it very insulting when people say that . I've poured a lot of my time, heart, and soul into making my Hot or Not group."
It's interesting how you started out defending the effort behind your writing, then used the group to which the writing is posted as an example of your efforts. It's fairly obvious that the two are not the same thing. Public interest in popular culture of the kind your group seems to focus on is natural and doesn't bother me a bit. Having a group on Gather dedicated to it makes sense, considering the level of public interest. Wanting that group to be attractive, by giving it a professional appearance and running it in a professional manner is admirable.
But the content posted to the group is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. How you use it defines what it is. Much of the content you're posting to the group is about as brief and effortless as you can get. To an observer, the natural conclusion is that the lack of substance in the group's content is not a quirky side effect, but an intentional feature. To be clear, I'm not placing a 'lacking substance' label on the subjects you write about, the public figures involved in those subjects or the folks who take an interest in those subjects. I'm only referring to the content in the Hot or Not group on Gather which has your name listed as the member who posted it.
Of course, there's no reason why that should bother me, or that I should take any interest in it at all. If that was all there was to it, I wouldn't have bothered to read any of it, much less comment on it in such a provocative and potentially offending way. I'm not a wizard, or a self-appointed guardian of all that is good. But that isn't all there is to it. You're pulling down some of the best page view counts on the entire site, on content which can barely even be called content. There are lots of factors of a more or less innocent, possibly accidental nature, to which one might attribute the high page views. I can't read minds, so you've got some room for plausible deniability here--help yourself to a big plate of it. However, all things considered, it doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to conclude that this is probably not all that innocent and unlikely to be accidental.
I dare say most reasonable observers would conclude that the whole point of what you're doing is to add only one kind of value to the community--monetary value in the form of inflated page view counts. It certainly looks like you're trying to acquire that monetary value in exchange for something which has little or no value of its own. This is the essence of a something-for-nothing approach which many people find offensive and contrary to the principles of healthy community-building.
Your comments reveal that you're capable of doing better than that. If you choose not to, then there's no point in acting surprised, puzzled or offended when someone asks why you don't, or won't. I'm not so much trying to change your mind, or to bring you around to my way of seeing the matter. I'm just a guy taking a little time out to remark on what I see as a watershed moment in the ongoing decline of Gather. Now that I've done so, I have no desire to pursue the matter any further.