Skip to content

Who Paid ThreadWatch to Close?

An interesting question raised this morning… did SEOMoz or SearchEngineLand buy out competitor ThreadWatch? Directly or indirectly?

Thought was (as expressed), that both SEL and SEOMoz have budding “communities” competing for attention. SEOMoz is “membership only” so you need to register to post comments, and there’s a monthly fee for “premium” status. In other words, it’s gone commercial. SearchEngineLand has gone up against the establishment this year, and is working to steal the SEM thunder from SES (as well as the conference dollars). Clearly a site like ThreadWatch, which refused to carry a party message and frequently posed the tough questions (sometimes to the chagrin of these other player sites), was a problem for these industry builders.

Webmaster World bought and held on to back when launched. Clearly a competitive move by Brett-MrCompetitive-Tabke. Now that SEOMoz has momentum, and now that Danny Sullivan’s SEL is full-steam ahead, did they have an active interest in burying ThreadWatch?

Possibly the suddenly-homeless ex-TWers simply find those other communities so unattractive that this conspiracy theory is relatively attractive. But, it might have some credibility.


  1. IncrediBILL wrote:

    Maybe Big G bought it just to silence one of the loudest bunch of G-bashers around. Besides, if you were shorting tin-foil futures, closing TW would be a complete windfall.

    Tuesday, July 3, 2007 at 10:17 pm | Permalink
  2. JLH wrote:

    I don’t see the regular TW readers becoming active in SEL or SEOMoz anytime soon, there are plenty of other places like WMW to kiss Google’s butt every day that all ready have users, we don’t need anymore. My hope is that the TW regulars will resolve to some where else but similar. I must admit I just went there for the tag lines, they were always humorous, my favorite, “Matt Cutts Devours Babies.” Classic.

    Tuesday, July 3, 2007 at 10:36 pm | Permalink
  3. Pete W wrote:

    At least spell it right… SEOmoz – little m.

    Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 2:03 am | Permalink
  4. Stuart wrote:

    And I thought that I was the only one with a twisted mind that wandered along such devious paths :)

    Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 4:03 am | Permalink
  5. TropicalSEO wrote:

    > At least spell it right… SEOmoz – little m.

    It is spelled right, just not capitalized right. Companies who have odd capitalization (e-Bay?) can get over it when their company names aren’t capitalized ‘correctly’.

    Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 12:03 pm | Permalink
  6. Lea de Groot wrote:

    To be honest – I used to have ‘threadwatch’ as one feed in my aggregator – now I have a folder that holds all the new sites and I am waiting to see where the density is highest.
    Nowhere, yet! :)

    Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 3:20 pm | Permalink
  7. Jill wrote:

    Funny, I just came here when I sadly remembered that TW was gone…

    Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 7:10 pm | Permalink
  8. graywolf wrote:

    I was having this same discussion with big-foot and el chupacabra on our way back from moo-moo land over to vist Nessie in Scotland (I hate those layovers in Atlantis), and we agreed it was probably bought by Elvis as he’s totally going to use it a cover story for the alien landing on the grassy knoll in Dallas later this year …

    Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 7:18 pm | Permalink
  9. Threadwatch was not a problem for me, nor something I felt was to my chagrin. I happily and avidly pointed to Threadwatch from our SearchCap newsletter often and sometimes did particular posts on SEL pointing over there. It was an important part of the search marketing blogging space, and I’m sorry to see it go. But it was neither a threat to me, nor something I worked to wipe out.

    C’mon, John — seriously. I ran SEW for years. When Threadwatch came in, I welcomed it there, pointed people at it and yet somehow, SEW manage to survive when Threadwatch was even more radical and full of good stuff than it was during its post-Nick decline.

    For the record, I learned about Threadwatch closing when I saw the post about it in my RSS reader. So much for me working to make it happen.

    Thursday, July 5, 2007 at 7:57 am | Permalink
  10. Bill Hartzer wrote:

    Do you really think someone paid threadwatch to close? Most likely not. It’s called threadwatch, and the idea of it was to follow forum threads, right? And things have changed. So, like Danny says, we’re all about using RSS readers now, right?

    Thursday, July 5, 2007 at 10:30 am | Permalink
  11. john andrews wrote:

    Thanks to everyone for showing your faces.

    Not everyone is an avid feed reader, and even when you are, all you get is the original spin. Expand your feed to include numerous perspectives, and unles you’re in the business of editing search industry commentary (or you simply enjoy reading all day long), it’s too much work.

    What I like most about the blog web is the way some people take things literally, others take them cynically/sarcastically, and others immediately show how much they want to know what something *really means*… I believe that’s called character, expressed. Most editorial is purported to be opinion on fact; TW editorial was largely opinion on that character.

    In the search/SEM biz, it seems character is more important than fact. If you can read the character, you learn more than you learn from the spin.

    Thursday, July 5, 2007 at 11:33 am | Permalink
  12. Brian Turner wrote:

    I’m curious – why would you even suggest SEL or SEOmoz buying out TW?

    The only real tin foil hat contender is Google – they told him to kill the anti-Google rhetoric on TW, or else would be delisted. ;)

    Tuesday, July 10, 2007 at 1:40 am | Permalink
  13. Nahhhh, Brian, that would be EVIL lol.

    Wednesday, July 11, 2007 at 10:13 pm | Permalink
  14. acnecaregal wrote:

    maybe big G bought it as someone said above :)

    Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 3:43 am | Permalink