Hacking Memeorandum 101

Tara has some advice for the Memeorandum 'star' wannabees, a 5 point plan:

  1. Get quoted saying something quite controversial
  2. Squawk about the quote
  3. Get a whole bunch of attention for squawking about that quote
  4. Watch your Memeorandum star rise
  5. Wish you had just shut up in the first place 'cause nobody but you would have probably even noticed it

Now I'd say that even the suggestion of hacking Memeorandum is controversial enough to cause some dismay. 'You see! Is just an algorithm!!' I hear the cry.

So, Tara's post arguably meets the first part of the plan, as does me quoting her here.

Now, Step 2: here's the squawk: Aaaaahhh!  Memeorandum is just getting hacked by people who want to get on to Memeorandum! What good is that??? Grrr.

There. Squawk over.

Step 3 of the plan is up to you. Quote Tara and / or me. Point to this post and to mine (the Memeorandum algorithm likes cross-linking), agree or disagree and 'add value' to the conversation as Robert would put it - you're not going the make a Memeorandum star by just 'Yes, I agree', or 'Nope, that's a pile of pants'. You need to 'add that value': 'I think she's right because of blah' - 'I think he's talking drivel due to the fact that blah' - whatever it is. And then you need to get pointed to by someone in order for the Memeorandum juice to kick in.

With Step 3 complete, you should see Step 4 - now you've 'arrived'.

Then, like me now, Step 5 kicks in.

For no particular reason other than Tara did so, I recommend adding the suprcilious tag. I'm adding another: self-referential. Sorry, no screencast today (although if it works, you never know).

Screencast and general update available here.

Comments (9)
  1. Enric says:

    This does point to a self-referential danger of insulated messages echoing.

  2. Gabe says:


    I want to leave some belated comments here. Because I was mostly away from the Internet the first time around and even now your page ranks high in a Google search for "memeorandum".

    I think you omitted, intentionally or not, touching on a lot of important points that undercut your assertion.

    First, a memorandum “hacker” must be a blogger with an established reputation and in doing so risk their reputation and the prospect of future placement on the site by “hacking”. I think it’s mistaken to assume that lots of bloggers will do this.

    Second, one needs to spam their own site to spam memeorandum. Your screencast asserts that we should expect Viagra ads on the site soon. It seems doubtful to me that influential tech bloggers will blog about Viagra to bring about this result. Remember, anonymous link farms which affect Web search aren’t seen by memeorandum in the first place.

    Third, memeorandum can even be policed in real time. It’s just a page, not a search engine. It requires about 1/10 of a human to check headlines. I think you’ve applied a search engine mindset to something that isn’t a search engine.

    Finally, I have a problem with some of the images you posted to document your efforts, since disappeared quietly. They were misleading, and had the effect of exaggerating the impact that the hacking had to readers not intimately familiar with my site. You even planted the words “Memeorandum hacked – the return” where there were none onto a supposed screenshot of my site. I think that was a low blow, and unfair for your readers too.

  3. Matthew says:

    Megite is the newspaper for anyone interested in what’s happening right now by intelligently uncovering the most relevant items from thousands of news sites and weblogs. Check it at http://www.megite.com

  4. Using RSS 101 – Screencast

    Using OPML 101 – Screencast

    Using Technorati and Tags 101 – Screencast…

  5. BrainJams says:

    <p>Wow!  I can hardly believe we are doing the first real BrainJams event this Saturday 3Dec2005.  Just 72 hours from now, I will be at SRI doing final setup work.   Thankfully, a lot of people have offered to help out and it looks like we will

  6. Oh no, so it’s happening again (again, again, again)…!

Comments are closed.

Skip to main content