PhotoDude.com

The Daily Whim

The Daily Whim

Sun. Jun 16, 2002

Blogallery

Blogallery – Nick Denton coins a new word, puts a fine new project online, and you get to benefit from the results. You can now put a face to the words: "As a small part of a broader weblog directory project, I’m collecting photos of weblog authors [...] In case you’re wondering, the criteria for inclusion were Alexa position, celebrity factor—and a whole lot of subjectivity. The gallery will expand."

And there I am, on the same page as Whil Wheaton and RuPaul. I’m flattered to be included, but it’s slightly disturbing on a couple of levels (proximity to RuPaul aside). I don’t see myself as in the same league as a lot of those listed, in terms of traffic or popularity. When presented with supposed evidence to the contrary, like my listing in the top twenty in the Blogosphere Ecosystem, I scoff at the methodology, and instead see it as proof that numbers do lie. There may be 132 web logs that have links to my site, but that doesn’t mean anyone actually clicks them.

My traffic remains several notches below that of those others in the top twenty. Don’t get me wrong, I’m perfectly fine with the that, but this kind of thing could actually reduce my visitors. Steven Den Beste drives a fair amount of traffic to my site, and has a link policy unlike that of many web log authors: "I have an extensive list of outside sites elsewhere here, but for the sidebar I’ve decided that what I want to do is to keep a short list of sites which are not heavily trafficked but which I think are high quality. In other words, I’m trying to do what I wished others had done for me last year."

A couple more inclusions like this, and I’ll be dumped by Den Beste. So do enjoy Nick’s Gallery, but keep in mind, these ”rankings” don’t necessarily reflect actual traffic numbers.


Peanut Gallery

1  N.Z. Bear wrote:

Er... um... it's about that spot in the Top 20, Reid... In this case, you were indeed correct to be suspicious of the methodology. I would put it slightly differently than you did, however: numbers don't lie. But people do screw up. In particular, *I* do. I made a big goof in yesterday's run; there's a step in the process where I filter out links that a weblog has to itself. I missed it, and therefore everyone's link totals were higher than they should have been. In particular, since you have a lot of internal links on your page to your own blog, it shoved you way up the list. I fixed the problem this morning, so you can check out the new list. And my profound apologies! Take care... -NZB PS - Gorgeous shots, chief! I need to spend some more time browsing your blog...

2  PhotoDude wrote:

Mr. Bear, I didn't mean to impugne your efforts. I found the results very interesting, and they do point out I'm a bit more popular than I might realize at times. But when I see a list such as yours, or the short link list at American Digest, and find myself included in those lofty few, well, I become an utter skeptic. However, I see now I've dropped from a supposed 132 links to a mere 35. This does seem a bit more in line with my actual traffic figures, and while I understand your point regarding links within my own front page ... this would indicate 98 of them. Am I really so self-linking? Are you counting permalinks?

3  N.Z. Bear wrote:

The process counts (or at least, *should* count) every single link on the front page of your site. So whether its sitting in your blogroll, the permalink of one of your own posts, or anything else, anything with a "a href..." tag gets pulled. I then filter out links to URLs that aren't on the same site as one of the 250 sites I'm currently tracking, and filter out links from a site to itself (the step I missed yesterday). If you're even more curious, go over to my page; I posted a zipped file with the full data from this morning's corrected run. You can look through there and see exactly what links (after the filtering proceses) you ended up with.... -NZB

4  Andrea Harris wrote:

Well, my picture isn't even on the gallery. (*Sniffle* Chokes back sob.) Why not? Is it the sword, or the helmet? ;)

Comments are closed for this article
Contact me to find out more