The other day, Ragan’s PR Daily posted a list of 11 things that annoy journalists and bloggers. The list prompted a few thoughts, since I’ve been on both sides of the pitch for a long, long time. Here we go:

1. Blasting mass emails. Yeah, I totally get it. It’s not nearly the preferred method of communication, and certainly not the way you want to manage communications throughout the entire life cycle. But, as a first step to see who out there is interested, it can be of some use (if used, though, the specific language in the email is absolutely crucial).

2. Sending the same Twitter @ reply to 30 people. That just sucks. Conversation should not be saying the same thing over and over and over and …

3. Mailing big press kits. Anyone doing this anymore is missing the boat. Save that expense for a snappy media drop. Press kits? Create an attractive postcard that points to an online press room and give them what they need online.

4. “Just following up.” This is why I have caller ID.

5. Leaving phone messages. As long as you keep them short and to the point, what’s the problem?

6. Adding them to your newsletter. Not only is it annoying, it’s illegal. CAN-SPAM, people. Standards!

7. Giving them packed itineraries. Yep. Respect people’s time.

8. Booking press trips with 20 people. Yep. Respect people’s professionalism.

9. “Friending” them on Facebook. That’s an interesting one. I don’t think it’s necessary to know someone’s kids’ names and birthdays in order to friend them, and I think Ragan is being extremely conservative in this respect. I agree that the LinkedIn request is often more appropriate, but a Facebook connection is entirely dependent on the specific relationship. If it sorta feels right, then go for it; if it sorta feels wrong, then don’t push it.

10. Profile Pitches. Good point.

11. Send off-topic pitches. Yeah, that’s the downside of 1 above. It’s also the downside of working with a media database that’s woefully out of date. Or any media database for that matter: I’ve experienced multiple instances of running Cision searches for NY-area bloggers and winding up with a blogger in California (despite all search result evidence to the contrary). However, I’ve also used that California blogger’s annoyance as an opportunity to have a conversation and bring that person into my circle of contacts for the future, when something California-relevant does come along.

As is so often the case when it comes to these sorts of things, there are no hard-and-fast rules, but there are general guidelines. Observe them, but don’t be afraid to make the appropriate exception when it seems right.

As if we’re not drowning in infographics already, here comes a nifty little diversion: Create an infographic of your Twitter account–or any Twitter account, for that matter. For example, here are infographics for Ringling Bros., John C. Dvorak, The Onion and me. (Hat tip to Sarah’s Faves for the heads up on this one.)

When you see those press releases months from now trumpeting the rapid growth of Google Plus, keep in mind that all new Gmail accounts now require users to sign up for G+ too. ReelSEO explains.

That’s the question asked by Todd Wasserman over on the American Express Open Forum. The article doesn’t really answer the question, though. Instead, it talks about ways to manage all the cards that come your way.

I’ll answer the question: No, it’s not.

But: If you’re not placing your social media information on your card, you’re a schmuck. That screenshot up there is a scan of the back of my business card, and I can’t count the number of compliments I’ve received on it.

By contrast, I’ve seen business cards from self-proclaimed marketing experts that don’t even include a website address, much less a social media icon. These days, that’s downright pathetic.

Takeway for marketers: If part of your marketing expertise is digital and social media and your card doesn’t reflect that reality, you have some work to do on your personal collateral.

As you probably know, many major sites went dark yesterday to protest the proposed SOPA and PIPA legislation. (Get the full text of SOPA here. Get the full text of PIPA here.)

Twitter, of course, was all abuzz with SOPA and PIPA. Mashable reported some 2.4 million tweets on the issue. The ones I saw displayed everything from hair-on-fire lunacy (“If #SOPA passes, there’ll be NO YouTube, Twitter, Google, Wikipedia, Facebook & Tumblr, #SOPAstrike today and End Piracy, Not Liberty!”) to delicious irony (“This is kind of funny, in a predictable way: Author of #SOPA paper uses uncredited stock photo on website http://twurl.nl/61e8ng“) to things that make you go “hmmmmmm” (“Under #SOPA you could get 5 years in prison for file-sharing a Michael Jackson song. That’s one year more than the doctor who killed him”). Buzzfeed posted a gallery of kids who were angry about being unable to do homework because of Wikipedia being down.

Was the reaction to the proposed legislation overblown? Probably. Nevertheless, the protest had real effect: Republicans have bailed on the legislation. Politico reports that Congress has been “rattled.” As Jeff Jarvis notes: “We are the lobbyists,” which — more so than the specific effects on SOPA and PIPA — may prove to be the more significant outcome of the protest.

If you want to dig deeper into the context and ramifications of SOPA and PIPA and hear an interesting discussion between two intelligent critics of the legislation, one who has been a longtime tech journalist and one who has actually read both bills, check out episode 374 of the No Agenda podcast. Or, at least, check out the links in the show notes to a fistful of interesting articles about the legislation.