What’s left to see now is how much of that traffic leaves for good and how much of it stays to read the material I usually write. There’s a bit of the experimental side of me found in that article wanting to see what people are into and in what ways you can attract traffic. I appreciate your opinion on this.

Cheers

A lot of things were definitely added in the comments, but you can tell by other comments that those who posted comments were not even reading the post — they referred to “commonly misspelled words” rather than “commonly misused words.”

Still, you raise a good point. I don’t undervalue people’s clever ways of gaming the system, but I think that there is an inherent flaw with the way the current voting system works. This isn’t a particular attack on your blog — you did a good job. However, don’t you think it’s interesting how the way you write the headline and description can score your blog major traffic?

Then there’s the question of the topic. Does the end justify the means when it’s slightly misleading? I’d say so since the majority of the comments were positive and added even more words than was listed in the article. The question is, does it make more sense to point these things out in a frustrated manner or would it be better to appreciate the fact that you don’t have any problems in writing flawlessly yourself? What kind of an impact would you rather instil into your environment and your own mind-set?