Jimmy Traina from SI.com joins the show to give you the inside knowledge on how to get your site linked on Hot Clicks.

Basically, per Traina, it’s a crap shoot. We do, however, talk about the process by which he creates one of the most trafficked sites on the internet (at least the sports side of things) and he gives a behind-the-scenes look at the way Hot Clicks, and SI’s Extra Mustard, is produced.

Traina sifts through hundreds of emails per day, and I was surprised to find out that roughly 70% of those emails are tips from readers and not bloggers whoring themselves out for links. We discuss the balance of going to the well too many times with the same blogs, and how he can’t keep linking to the top sports movies or mustaches and expect to keep his audience. That said, he understands there are some sites that are more in line with what his audience is looking for than, say, a series of 30-60 minute interviews.

Last week, we spoke with Josh Zerkle of With Leather and he mentioned that the stories he posts come more from reaction to what the audience wants than telling the audience what it needs. But Traina’s site is built on a formula of giving people links around the internet -- less ‘breaking news’ than other sites, despite the occasional scoop -- so how much of what he gives the reader is setting the trends, and how much is reacting to those trends?

Traina takes us through a day in the life, from the time Hot Clicks is done to editing Extra Mustard. We discuss the inner-workings of the office at Sports Illustrated -- is working at a weekly magazine and online outfit more like a traditional newsroom, or with reporters all over the world covering sports, is the office pretty barren? And why does Richard Deitsch get an office when his editor only gets a cube?

We talk about the web presence of SI.com and I ask (dance) if Traina feels SI has fallen behind other sites, specifically without a dedicated blog construct. Wouldn’t Extra Mustard, and in a way Hot Clicks itself, work better as a blog, than a traditional ‘come here once a day’ column?

We’ve spent a lot of time on our show about the importance of being right, or being first. And with someone like Traina, is who you know as important as what you know and when you know it? Does he have guilt not linking to certain websites if he’s friendly with the writer? And if he’s trying to give credit to the site that had the story first, how can one tell who is even first?

Traina brings up how Twitter has changed the ‘being first’ concept to the point where it’s virtually impossible to determine who is first on anything. He specifically mentions the firing of Tony Bernazard and credited a New York writer with the scoop when Jon Heyman of his own publication was the guy who actually broke the story!

It’s impossible to tell at this point who is first, and Traina points out that even when someone does get credit for a scoop, that credit is short-lived. Look, as example, at the A-Rod steroid scandal broken by SI.

“Within a half hour of SI breaking that story, it was no longer SI’s story. It was, you know, ESPN had every analyst on -- their 50 analysts -- and even though they say, ‘SI.com reports,’ once you put the story out there, you get a little rush for a little while and after that, once it’s out there, people see it on Huffington Post, or something like that. It’s on every local news station. It just spreads.

“A huge story like that spreads in a way whoever broke it first, doesn’t even matter.”

But shouldn’t it matter? Shouldn’t reporters still care about building a reputation based on being both first and right? In media circles, people know who the top reporters are, but does the general readership care who about a writer’s reputation? Or is it just about the Hottest Clicks?

We said we were going to try and avoid talking about the Erin Andrews situation, but with Traina on the show, it’s virtually impossible to do that. Traina is one of the few in the blog side of the business (if he is in fact part of the blog side of the business) who knows and talks with Andrews, so I ask if he’s spoken with her since the video came out. He has not.

I also get his take on the entire situation, and specifically how he handled it and how he felt the rest of the internet handled it. Traina has gone to the EA well on many occasions, so how will he handle the situation moving forward? Does he cover Andrews like he used to -- with photos to boot -- or does he handle the situation differently? Traina brings up a good point that in July, it’s easy to say one thing, but in November when she’s on the sideline and catches an errant pass with one hand or does something else that would have been traditionally covered if Erin Andrews did it, how do you not cover it? And we discuss that if things don’t go back to some semblance of normal, aren’t we re-victimizing her in way that’s not fair to her and her career?

I bring up the video, and subsequent interview, Traina posted last month with MMA reporter Heather Nichols. If that were Andrews, or even Rachel Nichols, instead of newcomer Heather Nichols, the story of a female reporter getting humped by Rampage Jackson would have been huge news. Instead, it was a funny video people sent around.

That said, Nichols told Traina in the interview she was not in on the joke and was surprised by Jackson’s actions, yet kept going in an effort to get the interview done.

Here is the key exchange:

Jimmy Traina: What did you think when Rampage started, um, getting frisky? Did you think it was funny or did you take offense?

Nichols: At first I was just shocked when he grabbed me, and all I could think was, "Oh my gosh, what is he doing?!" Then I tried to play along a little bit because I knew he was trying to be funny, but after about the first 5-10 seconds, it was just plain awkward. I kept thinking, "What should I do? Knee him? Keep going?" So I decided to keep asking questions, assuming he would stop if I did that. So I asked another question, and he kept going. I asked ANOTHER question, and he kept going. At this point I was just freaking out, but still trying to be a professional and ask all the questions I was assigned to ask, and this has been interpreted by some viewers as me liking it and egging him on. This was definitely not the case. I was hired to do a job, which was to interview Rampage, so I decided to put up with his shenanigans and finish the interview.

Basically Traina got Nichols to explain she wasn’t in on it, and was ‘freaking out’ during the taping. In other words, the video is sexual assault. Not that anyone pressed charges, but in essence, we all chuckled at sexual assault of a female reporter.

I ask Traina if there was any pause in putting up a modeling photo of Nichols in a bikini on the site when he linked to his interview discussing how she was trying to be taken seriously as a professional reporter.  To his credit, Traina admits that may not have been in his best judgement to use the photo. But it leads to a bigger issue? How does someone like Traina deal with this stuff? His site is Hot Clicks, and we all know what the Hot stands for. We talk about how the Erin Andrews situation changes the game for internet writers...or does it change it at all?

We shift gears to briefly talk about Michael Vick’s conditional reinstatement. Who broke that story? Did Twitter break it? And is Roger Goodell looking out for the league, or is he just a guy worried about PR, and in doing so plays judge, jury and executioner far to often? Shouldn’t we let the criminal justice process be enough for Vick? He did miss two years of football after all.

Last, how did we get through 55 minutes and NOT talk about Derek Jeter? It’s amazing if you think about it.

Thanks to Jimmy, and to you for checking out the show.