I track my website with the zeal of a marketing firm. Statistics are often inflated, and I want real answers. The number of people reading what I write is quite low. I don’t want to confuse that with the number of people who have a headline in their aggregator, or get directed to my site because they’re looking for “free sex” and I have a page that ranks high on that search (it’s a fun outcome, but it’s not what I’m talking about here). Such hype is a clear example of the sales-pitch I’m arguing against.

“My blogging led directly to a quote …”

No. That’s misleading. I don’t want to be too harsh on you Tim, but the stark truth is that your being part of a loud PR flacking system is what led to that, not “blogging” per se. Please don’t stamp your feet here and proclaim “No, no, it isn’t so, it’s because I’m just so smart and clever and blogging is so great”. Sorry, I’ll have none of that, as I’ve seen the sausage being made. It’s because there’s a enormous noise machine pushing those views. And I made a deliberate choice not to be a part of it because I couldn’t stand the reactionary ugliness of it. Where’s my New York Times Op-Ed, huh?

“Seth apparently is, chasing the mirage of fame and fortune.”

More like “intellectual influence and making a nice living from it”, but that seems to be equally a mirage.

“totally misunderstand the mathematics of power laws.”

Oh, utter blithering nonsense. I have a degree in Mathematics AND a degree in Physics from MIT (true!). DO NOT lecture me on mathematics, unless you have more to back it up than a very silly idea that we can’t use English to informally refer to a section of a exponential curve because such a curve has a continuous value. If I write a paper on it, I’ll define it in terms of median value and such, OK? It’s the same thing as when someone says “Well, what’s “rich”, ’cause all Americans are rich compared to starving Africans”. (yes, I know some people do make that argument, it’s an attempt to blur the meaning – I’m not a Libertarian, remember).

“What’s different about the blogosphere is …”

Saying doesn’t make it so.

to be honest, i skimmed the Carr piece and found it sort of irritating. there are more ways to get a blog noticed than to have an “A” lister provide a link back. it almost seems as if they want success bundled up with a bright red bow and left on their doorstep by UPS! it just doesn’t work that way.

the instapundit case and the daily kos case show that people follow trends and fashions (wow, big revelation huh?) and they’ll go surf certain websites and read certain blogs for the same reason that people used to watch the popular TV shows — so they can talk about it with other people they hang out with!

if your goal is instapundit/techdirt level traffic and all you have is a “joe schmoe” blog you had better figure out a value proposition that will attract a readership — you have to be offering people something more than “hey, here’s my new baby pics” or “god, my boss is an ass” rants if you expect them to read your stuff. and then once you get publishing consistently, you need to work it baby…promote, promote, promote. there are blogs that teach you how — there is more to it than having instapundit link to you.

and i don’t understand the point of MikeT’s comment about the “power structure”. a smaller blogosphere does not imply less traffic for the A list blogs at all. if anything, it would the potential for more since there would be less competition for the available eyeballs to read it all.

Instapundit and others have been very dishonest about the power structure, though. It’s a way of convincing others to participate because most major blogs wouldn’t be that big in a smaller blogosphere. The reality is that you have to be unique, persistent and/or controversial to get any readers at all.

to be honest, i skimmed the Carr piece and found it sort of irritating. there are more ways to get a blog noticed than to have an “A” lister provide a link back. it almost seems as if they want success bundled up with a bright red bow and left on their doorstep by UPS! it just doesn’t work that way.

the instapundit case and the daily kos case show that people follow trends and fashions (wow, big revelation huh?) and they’ll go surf certain websites and read certain blogs for the same reason that people used to watch the popular TV shows — so they can talk about it with other people they hang out with!

if your goal is instapundit/techdirt level traffic and all you have is a “joe schmoe” blog you had better figure out a value proposition that will attract a readership — you have to be offering people something more than “hey, here’s my new baby pics” or “god, my boss is an ass” rants if you expect them to read your stuff. and then once you get publishing consistently, you need to work it baby…promote, promote, promote. there are blogs that teach you how — there is more to it than having instapundit link to you.

and i don’t understand the point of MikeT’s comment about the “power structure”. a smaller blogosphere does not imply less traffic for the A list blogs at all. if anything, it would the potential for more since there would be less competition for the available eyeballs to read it all.

Instapundit and others have been very dishonest about the power structure, though. It’s a way of convincing others to participate because most major blogs wouldn’t be that big in a smaller blogosphere. The reality is that you have to be unique, persistent and/or controversial to get any readers at all.