This site has over 700 contributors. And that does not include those who frequently offer their comments without having become full members, or those who merely regularly read and lurk.
Seven hundred. That's a large number of people. Hell, you could get a decent-sized insurgency started in a decent-sized country with a core of die-hards numbering in that range...
So. There are 700 BlogCritics. But only 300 votes.
What's I'm talking about is the 2004 Weblog Awards. BlogCritics.org was one of only a small number of sites nominated for the BEST GROUP BLOG award. But out of 13 nominees, we are...[drum-roll, please]...11th.
So. Out of roughly 13,000 votes cast (so far), we have only garnered about 300 of them. Don't believe me? Do the math yourself...
The question I ask myself is, why? If every BlogCritic had voted only once, we would have more than double our current vote tally.
But this clearly has not happened. Why?
Voting is allowed once per day, per computer. Every Blogcritic presumably has access to at least one computer each day. And voting runs from 12-02-2004 to 12-12-2004. In other words, voting has already been open for a week. Seven days.
Seven times 700 is...4,900. And that kind of vote total would have been good enough for first place...
But this clearly has not happened. Why?
At this point, total victory is pretty much beyond our grasp. But, we can still move up a few additional spaces.
WE NEED YOUR VOTE!
There are still three more days of voting left. Make yours count.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - bhw
301!
2 - RJ
Thank you, BHW.
Now, if there were only about 699 more of you... :-/
3 - Aaman
I know I've done 7*2 votes so far (2 computers, 7 days - more more ! what about you readers - help us out here
4 - RJ
Me, I've voted about 6 times.
It appears we ae picking up the slack of others...
It's about time they joined in the fun...
5 - bhw
RJ, this is probably the only thread you'd say that on, isn't it?
6 - kenlyen
And I have also voted 10 times (5 times 2 computers). So who's not voting?
7 - Steve S
I've voted once a day. There seems to be very few people in the political section since the election. The music section, the 100 guitarists thread and the Michael Phelps thread seem to get all the comments. Perhaps if someone went to those threads and left a comment and then said 'oh, btw, vote for this site to keep this thread going and if it wins, maybe Michael will show up and take off his shirt for you!'
8 - Shark
Wow. With the confessions of multiple voting by BCers, it now appears the actual number of votes by different individuals might be up to something like six or seven.
PS: RJ, is 'winning' this "poll" part of your fantasy that someday -- writing for this site will be a vital component of your resume?
~ahahah
9 - Distorted Angel
319 as of this writing. Several of them are mine, but I couldn't vote from work at all yesterday -- the site kept telling me I'd already voted, in spite of the fact that I hadn't.
10 - Dawn
I have voted twice - and will try to do so from home with a different IP - the problem is (and it always is with these types of things) that Blogcritics is made up of what I like to consider REAL WRITERS, WITH REAL LIVES, AND REAL PRIORITIES, unlike many of the readers (and writers) of the other so-called "A-List" bloggers. Also, the people who come to Blogcritics who are also a "blogcritic" aren't a bunch of thumb-sucking, navel-gazing, nose-picking, ass-grabbing, hand-screwing, auto fellators - they are people looking for interesting content about culture - rather than one over-inflated, bloated ego, meglomanical asslicker's personal opinion on any stupid thought that comes dribbling out of their pea-sized brain.
You know what, while I am on the subject I have a few things to get off my chest about the blogosphere in general.
This may be hurtful to some of you, so feel free to either a.) avert your eyes or b.) assume it doesn't apply to you.
The blogosphere, while being totally cool and neato and loads of fun isn't REAL LIFE - it's just a community of people who are either looking for ways to wile away the hours on their bosses dime, seek validation for their meager and oft-times pathetic existence, glom onto someone whom they deem as their leader or just plain blow off steam - but it isn't and I REPEAT isn't - a replacement or a substitute for a real life.
Just because you get 5000 hits a day on your blog, doesn't mean your boss, spouse, friends, children, the guy you cut off this morning or the average joe walking down the street thinks that your poo poo doesn't stink, or that you don't have bad breath, dandruff or whatever ails you. You are still just a person, no better than the rest of us.
While I am sure this harsh screed only applies to a very, very small portion of actual Blogcritic members, it does apply in abundance to a the vast majority of bloggers.
I quit my blog because it became a tedious grind, I was tired of the trolling and unwilling to accept the occasional praise, but most of all I realised that it robbed me of something very precious - MY FUCKING REAL LIFE.
I am all for blogging, mind you, I think it's a great medium for the novice to the expert writer, but this whole culture that has developed around it (which was inevitable because we are as a species are rather simple and predictable) is annoying and absurd. Junior high was more interesting and enlightening.
I mean for crissakes, some of these bloggers think they are demi-gods in their teenie, tiny sphere. That is a bile-inducing, nauseating thing to watch.
THAT alone is why Blogcritics is so unique and well-done - no one is the "primadonna blogger" and it only exists as a result of the cooperation of the whole and the force and will of someone who doesn't try to be some kind of egohead.
So, by not winning, in a way, that means we are winning - in the words of someone famous "any club that would have me is a club I wouldn't wish to belong to" or something like that.
Sorry RJ for my lengthy spew - but it needed to be said.
11 - bhw
Also, the people who come to Blogcritics who are also a "blogcritic" aren't a bunch of thumb-sucking, navel-gazing, nose-picking, ass-grabbing, hand-screwing, auto fellators - they are people looking for interesting content about culture - rather than one over-inflated, bloated ego, meglomanical asslicker's personal opinion on any stupid thought that comes dribbling out of their pea-sized brain.
Hey, speak for yourself, sweetie.
;-)
12 - Mark Saleski
ok, i voted again today. that'd be the 5th time (i think).
man, some of those other nominated blogs are borrrrrrrrring!
seriously.
13 - Dawn
Well, I did preface it with "this may not apply to you" :)
14 - Temple Stark
How about vote swapping. Vote for Polstate here and I'll vote for Blogcritics.
Oh wait, I already did - but only three times.
VOTE FOR POLSTATE :)
15 - Jim Carruthers
If you need some sort of certificate about how you're the "bestest", there are numerous clip-art templates available.
Is there money in this? How much? And what do I get?
Otherwise just piss off with this waste of time. What is this mania in the States with awards and justification for being useless?
You do things because they are worth doing, not because you expect to be recognized. If you are doing what you do mainly for recognition, you must have some sort of decaying inner life. And no, they don't make an ointment for that.
So, unless you are going to pay me, I won't be participating in this horrid sham.
16 - HW Saxton
Good points all,Jim. Very Buddhist like,
philosophically speaking that is.
17 - Jim Carruthers
Most of my teachings about the Buddha come from Lobsang Rampa, who teaches us about the path by making it all up.
And the Tibetian Book of the Dead is your best defence against evangelical hicks (chases them away real fast, I tell you what). That, and Tiger-Crane Style King-Fu and the five point palm-exploding heart technique.
18 - Phillip Winn
Jim, I know that neither Eric nor I give a flaming cat's tail about the contest, except that nobody likes coming in last place. That's all we ask, is that we not be in last place.
Heck, with as many contributors as we have, it shouldn't be an issue, but whatever.
19 - Dawn
Now Jim, while I agree with you about the whole "rotting inner life" thought about all the other bloggers who think their virtual poo poo doesn't stink - I agree with Phillip - there isn't one good reason we can't make a reasonable showing - you know, enough that says "we aren't a bunch of losers" but not to the point where it says "WE ARE DESPERATE FOR VALIDATION, PLEASE LOVE ME, GOD PLEASE SOMEONE LOVE ME FOR CRYING OUT LOUD" like some other so-called "culture blogs".
All I am saying, is give peace a chance.
20 - Steve S
I don't think winning is about validation (unless you are Joe Scarborough or Ann Coulter ranting about the Passion of the Christ and the Oscars)
Winning though, would increase traffic, wouldn't it?
Like I said before though, it seems the political left isn't blogging anymore, but the political right is, and that might be why all the high scorers are right wing sites. When I go to atrios or someplace like that, atrios is still putting up news but the comment section now reads like high school gossip. It's not even about the threads anymore.
It might be late in the game now, but I still think that bc's support needs to come from the music/video people. They seem to dominate the topics now.
Perhaps if they were reminded that increased traffic to this site (by winning) would increase traffic to their own sites..??
I go to two other group blogs (both gay related, neither nominated) and the level of conversation I'm coming across, all over the blogosphere is pretty much in line with what Dawn is saying and with what Mac Diva said before she left (she lamented that there wasn't enough intellectualism EVERYWHERE in the blogosphere). Damn, I was a commenter forever, when I got my own blog it seems like everybody else bailed out. Now it's nothing but gossip, chit chat and time wasting. Is there some trend here that's bigger than this site in general? It seems so.
21 - Jim Carruthers
What I want to know is why are we competing in a worthless contest which is a useless metric? Advertisers don't give a rat's ass about awards or votes, because they are meaningless, which is why so many advertisers create awards and contests. They are good for gathering mostly meaningless data, but useless for actually doing promotion or setting rates. They don't generate traffic, nor do they validate it,
From a marketing point of view, such contests denigrate the value of a site's content, and they don't build a unique selling proposition, because the brand basis is so diluted.
But if you want to be Homer Simpson winning the best Nuclear Power Plant Model contest for children, go ahead. I won't go all Grimey on you.
22 - Dawn
When you put it that way Jim, I can't say as I disagree with you - this contest doesn't really MEAN anything, whether we were to win or lose, but if you are nominated for something because you are recognized for having done a good job, I guess it's human nature to want to at least do well.
What I am growing to loathe about the blogosphere is that it is less about an exchange of ideas than a gossip session or a therapy session between the blogger and their adoring fans.
example:
Blogger: "I think the sky is red"
commentors: "Oh yes, it is the most lovely hue of maroon."
"You are the most observant human being who has ever spoken in the history of alltime forever and always.
blogger: "Yes, I know, tell me more."
Commentors: "WE LOVE YOU MORE THAN LIFE ITSELF."
Blogger: "You don't really mean that do you."
Commentors: "Oh yes, we do."
Voice of dissent: "Um the sky is actually made of particulate matter refracting off the earth's atmosphere and that gives it the appearance of a blue through the wavelengths the human eye can see"
Blogger: "You trollish asshole, how dare you question me. Sick 'em adoring masses."
Commentors: "Burn the witch, Burn the witch how dare you question our beloved master, you will now die ARRRGGGGGHHHHHH!"
And then the four horses of the apocolypse appear and the world implodes in on itself.
Or something like that.
23 - Jim Carruthers
Actually Dawn, Ed McMahon and Publisher's Clearing Whorehouse discovers blogs and tells you that you are a winner over and over and over ...
Since it has been established for several years that traffic for web sites obeys a power-law distribution (based on Christaller's geographic models from the 50s) any number of sweep-stakes are more than pointless.
Now if somebody could give me winner of the past two years in this category, and the change in their traffic in the next six weeks of the award, and how much differential there is from their median traffic for the year. Well, that might be something.
Hello? Anybody?
Yah, I thought so, just bullshit all the way down.
24 - Steve S
well, in regards to the example in comment 22, I've actually never encountered anything so pathetic (until yesterday on another group blog).
Jim, you say that awards don't increase traffic, if they truly don't, then they are pretty meaningless, like the gold watch your corporation may give you on retirement (along with a notice that your benefits will expire soon). To me, they would be about increased traffic rather than a pat on the back.
I think the fact that there are enough of us who continually come to the site and post/comment regularly would be the biggest pat of all. But not like in a pathetic way like Dawn describes, because we certainly don't all pander to each other here. More like a family/community way because we all enjoy the content.
25 - Jim Carruthers
Steve, the point isn't about what I claim, but what the awards folks claim. If your award increases traffic (or if you may pay real money, in which case, yes, just give'er) then give evidence. Otherwise, you are just bullshit.
But it seems the dexter tendency seems to think the entire point of existence is to just participate in contests without any expectation of performance, consequences or results. Because you aren't supposed to pay attention to actual metrics. Just the pageant.
Ohh, look shiny!