There is no question in my mind that you showed genuine penance; this post was meant to highlight the difference between public and private aspects of public relations. I will add your links into the section where I talk about your response.

It isn’t that your apologies are invisible, it is that most people didn’t expect an apology from you — they wanted SEOmoz (the publisher) to apologize.

Blog culture in many ways has made people more accepting of personal views. In an increasing number of cases people and organizations are more damned by there endorsements than by their statements.

If the president of a college says something uncouth the college suffers more than the president. If a radio personality says something racist the station suffers more. Public perception has more to do with the distributor than the message.

I realize that you likely spent a good deal of time in e-mail and on the phone speaking with people on the topic of your statements, and in rewriting the post to expunge offense to people that you meant to tease in a friendly way. Unfortunately sarcasm is very difficult to communicate in bare text: blogs, forums, and e-mail.

I think that you made timely points about social media, unfortunately for everyone, the reactions to your statements serve as a much richer look into web-communities than your original insights.

I wasn’t familiar with Marty or his writing prior to this debacle. My own take on the matter, though, is that while SEOmoz didn’t write the content they are rightfully the “lightning rod” for the backlash because they published it. I’m sure Marty’s sentiments do not reflect those of Rebecca, Rand or anybody else at the moz, but they can’t take the position of not supporting Marty’s position if they’re going to allow him to post on their main blog.

It would have been a different story had the publication been limited to YOUmoz. Marty’s post was pushed through to the main blog - that action, in my opinion, takes the post somewhat out of the category of user-generated content and into that of editorially-endorsed content.

I agree the negative effects on Marty’s reputation will be significant. That’s how people work. A public bashing of others never has a good effect on the basher in an open community. Disrespect is ugly, no matter how well-deserved we might think it is.

The situation is somewhat similar to the last blow up I witnessed at SEOmoz - that involving Michael Martinez. Michael left a comment that, while it wasn’t a 100% positive review of the new SEOmoz Trifecta tool, was certainly not hostile. The backlash of a few key mozzers went well above and beyond what was warranted to express a disagreement with Michael’s point. Why did this happen? Because Michael has something of a reputation that preceeds him - at least in the eyes of those mozzers.

Of course, no matter how negatively we might view someone, the act of speaking out publicly about them in a rash and disrespectful way damages our own reputation. We may never achieve civility on the web as we expect it in person, but individuals will find that the expression of their negative opinions on others, especially when they get personal in their attacks, always has a negative backlash.

Sharp personal criticism cuts both ways.