Monday, November 28, 2005
ranking
Sigh, alas, and alack. Recognizing that TTLB's ranking is essentially irrelevant, with all due respect, one nevertheless wonders why JMBM plummeted seven levels in the last couple of weeks. Did it become so much less interesting in a short period of time? Should it be more pointed, witty and/or controversial? Or . . . ?

Labels:

Permalink | | posted by jau at 2:36 PM


7 more:
Blogger CGHill — at 10:06 PM, November 28, 2005:
Among other changes, the levels were made smaller: it now takes 200 links, for instance, to qualify for Large Mammal, which puts the cutoff point at about #785, dropping 800 people off the list and presumably pushing downward everyone below them.
 

< home >

Blogger jau — at 9:39 PM, November 30, 2005:
Ah. That explains it. But sheesh. I feel uneasy about the mainstreamization that's creeping into the blog world.
 

< home >

Anonymous Anonymous — at 10:10 AM, December 01, 2005:
Anne, I dropped froom being a "flappy bird" to being a "slimy mollusc!"

I had wondered why, also. On site I regularly visit dropped from a ranking of #999 to somewhere in the 7000's...

The Bear has been changing algorithms and promises even more changes within a few days...so, well, we'll see what happens! (Ego aside, I think that announcing my sliminess upfront isn't good advertising! Why do we let others classify us and our blogs??!?)
 

< home >

Blogger jau — at 11:28 AM, December 01, 2005:
You know, that's a very good question. It seemed cute and amusing when it didn't really mean much. But doesn't it seem to be starting to have MSM overtones? I think I'm going to pull it, any moment. The map is cool and knowing you get visitors is fun, but this isn't meant to be a competition, I don't think, do you? (Unless slimy mollusks are good things?!)
 

< home >

Blogger CGHill — at 9:43 PM, December 01, 2005:
I do my best to avoid taking the Ecosystem too seriously. (While I didn't invent the practice of inserting a bogus Ecosystem rung - I am currently, if you believe my front page, a "Screaming Yellow Zonker" - I've raised it to the level of an exceedingly minor artform.)
 

< home >

Anonymous Anonymous — at 1:07 AM, December 03, 2005:
Anne,

I've considered pulling it before -- mostly because I do try to keep my page size down -- but I find myself using the service for my own tracking of links. I think it's too bad that so many services exist to track links, but that results vary between all of them! I mean, in order to get the broadest picture, you need to participate in a multitude of services...

I like cghill's idea of faking the ranking creatively. (But, alas, if you don't post the true ranking on your blog, you don't get the true [but partial] stats -- right?)

It does have an MSM feel, actually. I had never thought of it that way. Mostly, I'm irked that the "big names" maintain a perpetual place in the very top rankings. I, myself, almost never reference them on my blog. I don't even read them except for rare occasions. But the "pull" exists for may others, who circle those big names like newspapers circle the New York Times or other MSM big dogs.
 

< home >

Blogger jau — at 1:49 AM, December 03, 2005:
I haven't pulled out all the way, yet, just suppressed the display pperhaps as a way of rebelling. I do very much want to know if anyone's reading...and I love the map for that because red dots in Japan for example have to be new readers, not just my own visits. You're right that each one seems to grab different stats, which is odd. A hit seems like it would be hit by any other name, eh? And I totally agree with you about the big names - I only look at them very rarely and briefly; they don't interest me much or hold my interest. The smaller ones' enthusiasm, cleverness, smartness, etc. (you being a superb example, Curtis) are what excite and interest me.
 

< home >


Post a Comment

< home