I should add that although I've been around since the beginning, I've never seen anything like what has happened in the last few weeks. Now that our hosting situation has stabilized and we're happy with our new host, Amazon and Blogads have been holding the site hostage off and on.

I have to force myself not to care, lest I start chanting I hate myself and want to die.

ARGH!

Cool, congrats, Mr. Winn. I'm curious when I'll hit #1000 myself . . .

Speaking of curiosity, what section was re-absorbed?

Top Commenters, all time
Eric Olsen: (3369)

Phillip Winn: (1009)

Al Barger: (802)

The Theory: (692)

Jim Carruthers: (609)

Brian Flemming: (571)

Mark Saleski: (571)

TDavid: (474)

Tom Johnson: (468)

Mike: (438)

I, uh . . . er, meant "time-wise, when will I hit #1000." I'm aware of my prolific commentary . . . and here's another one!

if the cigarette smoking ban thread keeps going....i'd say, oh...around a week from thursday.

Tom (#2), the 'Review Links' turned out not to work out as well as we'd hoped. We had some good people putting in some good effort, though, so instead of just shutting it down completely, I moved all of those posts back into the Blogcritics mainstream. I still get traffic on my personal site from a single 'Review Links' post I put together that now has more than 100 comments.

Gee, I believe you visited it yourself, Tom!

By the way, it wasn't that long ago that I was #4 or so on the commenters list. I didn't consciously plan to pass up The Theory, though I'll admit that when I got close to Al's mark, I paid a little closer attention. And I think it might have been just last month that I passed him up, so slow and steady seems to work well. I don't necessarily post comments in huge bursts on a single post, but I try to post comments almost every day, and they add up.

I'm surprised you had to pass me in the first place...

Yeah, some super-secret reports I check every now and then reveal that I have been sporadic at best with posting. For example, here is my post count by month from the beginning:
Phillip Winn 5 2 0 1 1 4 3 1 12 16 21 3 3 15 22

With a current total of 109 because I'm still sitting on about a half-dozen posts. I was really trying to average a post a day this month, but I'm still six behind. Sigh.

I need to write a similar report for comments, I suppose.

Do any of you think it might inspire you to be more involved if such reports and ranking were readily available, perhaps linked from the leaderboard? Right now I update the 'Top 10 posters last month' report in the left sidebar manually once a month, and the leaderboard gives snapshots. Is that enough, or would reports-over-time help?

Phillip, we couldn't live without your efforts and you're a super guy too. Thanks.

I wonder how many words I've spent between the comments and the posts over the last 14 months.

Aw, shucks. Stop it.

Come to think of it, that's not at all what you said on the phone yesterday. ;-)

Hmmm. That list shows commenting and having something to say aren't necessarily synonymous.

Y'know I was just saying the same thing to Robert Mugabe the other day. He was asking me how he could improve his image in the Commonwealth, y'know tone it down from murderous dictator to merely an abusive despot.

Hmmm. That list shows commenting and having something to say aren't necessarily synonymous.

MD: ouch.

Hmmm. MD's Comment shows that she can't help but be an ass.

Careful now, Chris. Mac Diva could just threaten to leave Blogcritics.

Again.

Seriously, MD, that was rude and personal. That you didn't narrow it down beyong a list of ten makes it no less personal, and perhaps more personal, as I now have to decide whether or not I've been insulted along with nine other people.

If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest that you avoid garbage like that comment.

Besides, the only reason you're not on that list is that you haven't been here long enough - you're on the list for today, this week and this month. At the rate you've been going, I bet you'll be on the all-time list in about six months.

Phillip - congrats on the consistency and may there be many more words output from your computer ;)

Now since you asked for some feedback on the leaderboard thing here goes:

That leaderboard list isn't completely accurate. Natalie, for example, should be up there near the top but she changed her URL midstream and thus got bumped. She is a prolific commenter and should return to the list though, unless she changes URL again, of course.

Maybe the list should be by name, not by URL/name? Just food for thought.

Of course there would be a few folks that would benefit from others having used the same name since there is no password protection scheme to prevent this usage.

As for receiving more traffic from posts than comments? I think that this also has something to do with the name in the byline of an article/post is more obvious than the name in a comment. There are 4 links with each comment, 3 of which (url/name/both) go to the blogcritics-internal lists. So Joe Visitor that comes along is more likely to click on the internal-Blogcritics links before clicking through to the commenter's blog, even if they had intended to click through to the commenter's blog.

I'm not complaining, so please don't misunderstand; just pointing this out as an additional possibility why folks might be clicking through to blogs from the articles/posts rather than the comments.

As for whether having more stats will improve participation? In my case it wouldn't, but I do know that most webmasters love stats. So if you have a few minutes in your spare time and want to mix in a few 3D graphs and other stats-related goodies, I bet it might just motivate a few others out here.

A better campaign to increase posting/commenting activity might be to seek out past-active blogcritics like Dew for example and find out what they are up to and why they aren't as involved any more. It seems like after she had another blogcritic post specifically critiquing her writing, she hasn't posted again :(

Maybe a system could be setup to auto notify you guys when somebody that was previously active (posting/comment/both) leaves after a period of time, so that manual follow-up could occur?

Hope these suggestions are helpful in some way ;)

Great input as usual, TDavid. I noticed it just as I was coming back to post that I noticed that not just Natalie is being short-changed, but Mac Diva also. Both changed their URLs and therefore started over again in the comment ranking.

I have to use something more than just the name, because there are too many shared names. It does lead to problems like these, though. I wish I could use email address, but that would expose email addresses to the world, so I can't (won't).

Maybe on request I can go back and update people's URL in old comments to match their new one. Natalie's 269 through September would then be combined with her 383 since, and Mac Diva's 188 with the correct URL would be combined with the 134 she has from the tail end of September onward with an "extra" space in the URL.

Ack! I just noticed that Natalie has another 133 for which she used 'Natalie' instead of 'Natalie Davis,' too! I can't win!

At one point I think I had a query that would match if either the name or the URL were the same (which would take care of Natalie), but I'm not doing that now for some reason.

I believe that Eric does keep a close eye on the super-secret reports I've already built to try to woo people who are drifting away, but I'm not sure.

I'll think a bit about what sorts of reports might be helpful, and then maybe I'll open a new post asking for comments.

Thanks!

Heck, I didn't say everyone on the list, or even most. I stand by my point: It contains some emptyheaded blabbermouths. (I suspect they know who they are.)

It also contains one of the best of current bloggers: Brian Flemming.

A thought it engenders in me is remembering why I write books and articles. Part of the reason is to avoid wasting my words on people who are incapable of understanding what I am trying to say. The reader who seeks out a book is more likely to be interested in what it says and smart enough to read it critically. The Internet, including the blogosphere, attracts a disproportionate share of nitwits. If I had come to Blogcritics earlier, I might be on the list. But, after being in the blogosphere for nine months, I see the potential problem with that. I could comment until my fingers fall off from typing and reach mainly know nothings. So, I am going to take a cue from Brian and be more reticent.

The leaderboard simply illustrates people who are making a contribution to the site. Whether their contributions to the site are worthy or not is entirely up to each reader. It's also personal, and I don't think anyone has any business suggesting that some contributions are more worthy than others.

(Snickering.) And, there's no difference between sugar and sh!t, eh?

I think it fairly pointless to try to make the subjective objective. All contributions make the site better and sttronger. We are a forum, and the broader the range of opinion, perspective and even style, the broader our base. I thank all contributors for their time and efforts.

I recommend that we all avoid feeding the troll. While MD obviously makes good contributions elsewhere, I'm unhappy that she has polluted this thread (that was meant to be encouraging) with personal attacks.

Please, everybody, you can build your comment counts by posting more useful things on other posts!

Hi, honey! I'm home!!!!

I personally enjoy the leaderboard and being able to see the stats for individual posters. It helps on those cold nights when someone has been fibbing! :-)

I haven't really been gone, I just haven't had much to say. That's more so attributed to personal relationships rather than *ahem* other Blogcritics. Besides, you can't get rid of me that easily!!

I believe the Leaderboard is a fair and accurate account of participation for current posters. I tend to pay more attention to the list detailing monthly, weekly and daily information. For anything further back I usually go to the Poster/Commenters link specifically. As for the links, it annoys me that most name-links are directed to that poster/commenter's blog instead of their stats. I realize I am the minority on that, especially since I only got the blog to join this site. But to each, her own, right?

BTW,
Technically, sugar and sh!t are the same if what you expected was salt.


-------------------------------------
'deleting blogs are like wiping fingerprints off a smoking gun'
- Anonymous

Welcome back, Dew! :)

Hi Dew! been wondering about you. Very nice to have you back.

Ah! If only it were true. The truth is some of the people on that list could not think a rational thought, do a correct attribution, or write a grammatical paragraph if their lives depended on it. Quality matters. Anyone who thinks it doesn't probably does so because that person knows he or she is incapable of producing it.

I again suggest semiliterate people take classes in writing instead of wasting their time trying to blog.

Gosh, I don't know. Cutting down the top commenters on the site sounds a little like . . . oh, I don't know . . . jealousy, perhaps?

Troll's been fed for the day, someone come back tomorrow for another feeding . . .

Why would anyone be jealous of some ninny sitting at a computer proving he is a ninny to the tune of hundreds of posts? Only another ninny would conceive such a thought. Real writers have better ways to measure their merit. But, hardly anyone on this thread would know that.

Indeed, quality DOES matter, they don't pay us all this money to put out crap, you know.

Actually, from what I've known of real writers, they don't really give a damn what anyone thinks of them. If you're not writing - or, hell, even just blogging - solely because you love it, you're in for some mighty painful heartbreak. If anything, it just looks like you're looking for attention when you make comments like this.

Why jealous? Because I think you're jealous that people can just come to BC to have fun. I know it's all about sending an "important" message to you, but some of us (most, I would assume) are here because they enjoy being here and enjoy the sense of community that has developed between some contributors. I think it's great if you feel you are on a mission to educate the world. Go to it! But there's absolutely no need for you to come here and belittle people because their own mission in life, in writing, in blogging, is different than yours.

You seem like a no-nonsense type of person. That's admirable - you're the type to get the job done no matter what. The world needs people like that to balance people like me, who I'm sure you assume is all-nonsense. I'm not, and if you read my posts you'd know that. I've read yours - I don't comment on them, as I stated I wouldn't - but I know that you make an intelligent, positive contribution to Blogcritics. At least when you're not doing things like this. But you know, I make positive contributions here too. I think you want to disagree, but I invite you to actually read my posts and really find out for yourself. Here's one for you that I wrote recently to get you started. Everyone on the list above, and even many who are not, they all make positive contributions to the site. The problem I have with you is that you immediately assume that you are superior to everyone around you. You aren't. I'm not either. We're really all pretty equal, regardless of "comment ranking." I wish you could approach Blogcritics like most of us do and just enjoy it. You have a great message and a great voice with which to do it, but you ruin it for yourself when you cut down everyone around you like you have in this and other threads of comments. And that's too bad.

The contradictions in this thread alone are humorous and quite representative of a truly conflicted character:

#11: Hmmm. That list shows commenting and having something to say aren't necessarily synonymous.

The original flame; essentially calling out everybody on the list. There was no qualifier here; the gauntlet had clearly been thrown down.

#19: Heck, I didn't say everyone on the list, or even most. I stand by my point: It contains some emptyheaded blabbermouths. (I suspect they know who they are.)

So now we've established, from the troll's own mouth, that the troll dislikes only "some" folks on this list, right? That only "some" of us on this list are "emptyheaded blabbermouths."

#27: Ah! If only it were true. The truth is some of the people on that list could not think a rational thought, do a correct attribution, or write a grammatical paragraph if their lives depended on it. Quality matters. Anyone who thinks it doesn't probably does so because that person knows he or she is incapable of producing it.

The troll is still definitely describing "some of the people" on this list, right? Or maybe some of the writers at Blogcritics? Uh oh, er, wait! Not so fast ...

#29: Real writers have better ways to measure their merit. But, hardly anyone on this thread would know that.

So Mac Diva first comes out and intentionally infers that everybody on this list is a literary hack, but then when Phillip and others rightly protest (hey, wait a minute!) she backs off from and tempers that boorish, incorrect statement by saying that she really meant it for only "some" folks on the list and specifically names Brian Flemming as one of the good examples.

Unfortunately (for her) she later contradicts herself by saying "hardly anyone on this thread", thus returning to the original presumption that the majority -- except for Brian Flemming, because he's the only one not fingered directly here -- is: "some ninny sitting at a computer proving he is a ninny"

Ladies and gentleman of the real writer jury we now have first person public evidence that this troll is guilty of jealousy and character contradiction in the first degree.

Any real writer would fail the test of any real editor when churning out this totally flawed point of view. The editor would say: hey, get it straight: either this character feels that most of the group blows or some of the group blows, but both can't be blowing at the same time.

Or maybe it could be, the ever talented real writer could argue: offering that the troll character is an anal retentive, neurotic antagonist designed to intentionally frustrate, disrupt and irritate readers.

But aren't real writers are supposed to care about their readers? At least at some level, because after all, they are the writer's real customers, yes? Economic realities can be harsh.

Unfortunately (for her) Mac Diva points out in her own words again in this very thread, she cares very little for her readers too: A thought it engenders in me is remembering why I write books and articles. Part of the reason is to avoid wasting my words on people who are incapable of understanding what I am trying to say.

So unless you agree with her on her almost-everything-is-racist or other flawed, contradictory comment claptrap, you are just an unimportant hack who is "incapable of understanding" what she is trying to say.

In my book, she lost most her credibility when she threw that very public tantrum here a little while back and childishly tried to take back her work (you can't play with my toys, neener, neener, neener!). She was starting to re-establish her credibility by contributing some good, useful articles again, and then she nukes herself in threads like this one. Why?

At this point, I really think she should just take her own advice, which apparently she got from her Blogcritic idol: "I could comment until my fingers fall off from typing and reach mainly know nothings. So, I am going to take a cue from Brian and be more reticent."

Or perhaps if she won't follow her own words, then maybe the wise words of Kansas:

Masquerading as a man with a reason
My charade is the event of the season
And if I claim to be a wise man
It surely means that I don't know

Let me see if I can sort some of this out a bit. I see essentially three issues upon which writers can be judged: writing ability - some writers are "better" than others due to such factors as practice, education, attention to detail, among others. In general the more you have written the better you will be at the nuts and bolts of writing. I am certainly technically better now than 10 years ago or 20 or 30, as a function of practice and seeing the result of being edited.

But being a "good" writer isn't the same thing as having something to say, which is the second point. A lot of people have inteesting thoughts, ideas, points of view, and in some ways this is more important than being a "good" writer. We have a lot of people like this and it is important that they do their best at the "writing" part of writing and improve over time, but that doesn't mean what they write now is without merit or value.

"Correct thinking" is also a factor here, and agreement with the judge's political, cultural, etc point of view is really about thinking, not writing. I try hard not to judge a person's writing based upon whether or not they agree with me, and this isn't always easy because I like to defend my own perspective vigorously, but theree are all kinds of people who don't agree with me who write well, who present their point of view logically within their own framework, and good for them. I can learn from them, have my own view sharpened or become more nuanced, and even change my mind entirely.

Based upon these criteria, I am very pleased with the contributions to the site, which have improved on all levels over time and which make the site something of a grab bag, but a genuine forum as well.