There were a couple of blog posts yesterday interviewing experts in the field of email. Also yesterday I had a quick review of my Google Analytic stats for this site. Additionally, a friend pointed me to this terrible blog post from an ESP that isn’t even using terms in industry standard ways. And finally, Spamhaus released a statement about a “fake DNSBL.”

You see, as I was looking at my Google Analytic stats, I came across an old post of mine from last year. The (unstated) point of that post was to make us think about who we’re listing as experts in email matters.

The link in that post was to an article written by someone who claimed expertise in “Web Analytics” about email. The information in the article was both silly (Was anyone shocked that email isn’t picked up by search engines?) and demonstrably wrong (“Transactional e-mail does not have CAN-SPAM requirements”).

There was a similar post the next day after about other “experts” who are wrong. You might think that state attorneys general would know about the statutes that they are expected to enforce. But, if you do think that, then you’re going to find yourself sadly disillusioned.

And, of course, people depend upon operators of blocking lists to be experts in their field. As Spamhaus points out, some folks just rip off the work of others and pass themselves off as experts while hoping to make a quick buck through delisting fees.

So, yesterday, we saw articles interviewing two experts in email delivery. Both Al Iverson and Annalivia Ford deserve the title of “expert” and people should listen to them. So, to me that brings up a question: Which experts are we listening to?

Are we listening to real experts? Or, are we making decisions about email based upon the advice of web analytic experts and poorly informed attorneys or ESPs who don’t know where the industry is or where it’s going?

So, dear readers, which experts are you listening to? Who influences your decision-making? Let’s hear from you in the comments.