38 Responses to “Rankings”

1. 1 J.P. Carter  on Dec 2nd, 2003 at 3:56 pm

   I agree that ranking is a poor measure of a blogs quality. There are simply too many factors that can influence the amount of links a blog receives (hosting a contest, for example) to make it a useful indicator. On the other hand, there are numerous blogs that are well worth reading but ranked low on most popularity indexes.

   The problem, though, is that there are simply too many blogs and few useful tools to discern the quality ones. I started blogging two months ago and within the first day I found the top four blogs you mention (blogs4God, Josh Claybourn, etc.) precisely because other people had noticed them, linked to their site, and helped them move up in the rankings. Relying on other people’s taste may not be the best means of finding blogs, but there are currently few alternatives.

   I would suggest that instead of relying so much on ranking systems, we do more to promote the blogs that we do read. You are an example of a blogger who enhances the “community” by recognizing others. You often link to the blogs that you’ve found interesting and by doing so you help others gain an audience.

   Blogging is not a zero-sum game. It has the potential to form a true community but we have to culitvate it and treat is as such in order for it to survive.

2. 2 phil  on Dec 2nd, 2003 at 4:23 pm

   Let me add my “I agree” with you both. Are rankings and hit counting the new my church gets more bums on seats than yours..

   Like Church growth I don’t mind growth in readership or more hits if people are interested in what you are posting. But, I feel a little icky about the attempts to get more hits by posting stuff designed to get more yahoo or google hits. I dont know perhaps different blogs have different agendas.

3. 3 Bene Diction  on Dec 2nd, 2003 at 4:41 pm

   JP:

   Thanks. But some bloggers can’t really link up to others much, can they?

   If you blog about technical things….do you care about non-tech blogs? Probably not, and you probably aren’t going to go out of you way to link outside your area of interest.

   Like it or not, the subdivision of god-blogs world wide is small and the norms vary from the Pereus study.
   Looking at 100 random blogrolls was a bit discouraging.(I’ll post that soon).
   I agree that community doesn’t just happen, it has to be built.
   I know for a fact after reading 1000 blogs the past few months and blogging this long, that quality has nothing to do with rank. There is excellent content out there.
   What I don’t know is how to encourage bloggers and readers to move a bit past their comfort zone and give others a chance. Blog on!

4. 4 Missy  on Dec 2nd, 2003 at 5:06 pm

   Okay, this is my 2 cents. And that’s about all it’s worth.

   I have no clue how ranking or any of that really works. I’m not listed in any web “directary” or anything, because I don’t know what they even are. Kevin set up my blog. All I do is type. I can’t even make a link show up in my stories.

   Consequently, I don’t give a flying flip where I’m “ranked”. As for reading other blogs–well, I have a few I read and I look at their links, as well as the people who comment on my site (or on the sites of blogs I read). And if someone who I respect as a blogger–like you Bene, mentions a site as being really good, then I go check it out.

   So, like I said, this was worth about 2 cents. Maybe. Of course, this is just the confession of a computer illerate. One of the main reasons I blog is that I have way too much to say and this is the best way to say it without annoying people too much.

5. 5 Bene Diction  on Dec 2nd, 2003 at 5:23 pm

   Missy:

   The vast majority of bloggers are ‘computer illiterate’, including me.:^)

   The average reader won’t know about the EcoSystem or WLW if they tripped over them. But bloggers know or learn because they are there to be found.
   You represent a minority in this sub-division, but your blog is a good read. I wouldn’t know that from a ranking system. BTW your Dobson posts are a hoot. Blog on!

6. 6 Richard Hall  on Dec 2nd, 2003 at 5:57 pm

   You’re right BD - you can only know a good read by reading. I’m not impressed by the rankings as such, because it isn’t the ones “at the top” that are always the most engaging. On the other hand, it is good to know that I’ve been linked by others and it’s always an encouragement (aka ego boost!) to discover that someone new has linked me.
   WLW is an intersting list, because my recollection is that it wasn’t really intended to be a ranking at all, but literally a list of whose linking who on the blogs4God list. (I find it surpisring that b4G has only 203 unique links, given that b4G has over 900 blogs on its list.

   I suppose the truth is that all ranking systems are flawed in some way and there’ll always be some people prepared to “cheat” to make themselves appear higher up the list than they “ought” to be. In the grand scheme of things I don’t suppose it is really important, but I’ll admit there have been occasions when i’ve found such things just a tad irritating for no reason that I can adequately explain. It is easy to get caught up in rankings (and traffic stats for that matter) and lose sight of what it’s really all about.

7. 7 Bene Diction  on Dec 2nd, 2003 at 6:17 pm

   Hey, who isn’t grateful for a link?

   I know Dave King didn’t set this up as a popularity contest, it’s not in his nature.
   He did a lot of work, and got very little credit.

   One thing that concerns me is that as religious journalists get wind of this blogging thing, it will be, “where’s the beef?!?’

   I’m already seeing that at WORLD’s blog column.
   It’s a shame. They are missing out on some great blogs.

8. 8 Richard Hall  on Dec 2nd, 2003 at 6:34 pm

   But as JP said - there are too many blogs to keep up with. The blogs I read regularly are those by people I’ve come regard as friends, albeit at a distance. The downside of the sort of engagement (if that’s the right word) I enjoy is that there’s a limit to how many you can engage with.

   I think rankings can be quite fun - I especially enjoyed BlogShares, and it’s a pity it’s had to close down.
   The democrat in me would like to see a ranking system based on popular nomination and voting. I might think about that one…

9. 9 Bene Diction  on Dec 2nd, 2003 at 7:02 pm

   Richard:

   Yes, there definitely are…..
   Gathering stats took longer than I thought it would because I got reading, and reading some more, and used up time I didn’t really have.

   If religious publications or journalists cover blogs, I’d like to believe they have an obligation to go a bit beyond the obvious since they get a paycheque. But I strongly suspect that is wishful thinking.

10. 10 Christopher  on Dec 2nd, 2003 at 7:12 pm

    I don’t check my rank. I very rarely check my logs or stats, that stuff really doesn’t concern me. When I was interviewed for a magazine about my blog, I was asked how many visitors I have is a day or week. I had no clue!

    I’ll always take a link when I can get one, but what I really look for are comments. I love them! That’s one of the big reasons I blog. It tells me that this person took the time to read what I wrote and then when to the extra effort to share what they think. In fact, I get a little sad when I go through those comment dry periods.

11. 11 Rev. Mike  on Dec 2nd, 2003 at 7:18 pm

    I don’t pay attention to rankings, per se. I am curious to see how many people are reading, and I’m generally curious who is reading. That’s the only reason I have the SiteMeter link. I put my TTLB EcoSystem status on the website pretty much for its humor potential — as a “Crawly Amphibian” I’m certainly not biting on Glenn or Andrew’s ankles, and there’s a certain humbling effect to be derived.

12. 12 Laura  on Dec 2nd, 2003 at 11:27 pm

    I liked Jordon Cooper’s idea of a blog being someone’s ‘front porch.’ It’s not a contest, it’s community.

    Like the person who said it above, I mostly read the blogs of people I consider friends now. I’d like to read more, but there’s only so much time.

    One thing that I do find frustrating about blogging is that I see so many humorous or touching stories on blogs that I think should reach a wider audience. Jonathan’s ‘Pooh Day’ post was just one.

13. 13 Neely  on Dec 3rd, 2003 at 2:48 am

    The toughest thing to discern about linking however, is who is genuinely linking to blogs they enjoy reading and who is linking to other blogs simply for the sake of boosting their rankings? It paints a muddy picture of the purpose of linking, doesn’t it?

    I like what you and Darren have been doing as of late. The study of blogs should become a field in itself - perhaps blogology (cool, I invented a new word!)? It’s been lots of fun reading these posts and I want to thank you for taking the time to go through all this work for your readers. I’ve learned so much!!

14. 14 irene  on Dec 3rd, 2003 at 4:40 am

    Rankings and stuff like that are food for the ego. If we truly wanted to build community then the rankings wouldn’t matter. But as bloggers we think that if someone listens to what we have to say, that would prove that we have something worth saying. You know what I mean? It’s like looking for validation. So when people link to us, as Richard says, it’s a tremendous boost to the ego
    I’ve been through the obsessive checking my blog’s stats every hour thing and it really worried me at the time because I knew it wasn’t healthy. Nowadays I try to just write and not worry so much about losing or gaining readership.

15. 15 saint  on Dec 3rd, 2003 at 7:55 am

    Yes I am in two minds about this. On one hand I feel guilty for not listing *all* my regular reads on my blog (like Irene Q!) to show my support and yes I check sitemeter to see who’s visited and have found a few good blogs that way (actually I prefer webstat which just shows me the countries of who’s visited…don’t ask me why that’s a buzz).

    But at the same time, I don’t care about where my blog ranks and trying to boost rankings sounds like so…anti-blog. I’m just sitting in cyberspace just telling what I see. Link to whoever captures my thoughts on the day - even if they happen to be an A-lister or what I call the ‘professional blogger’. Anyone can pull up a chair and tell me what they see too.
    Which is why, I, like Christopher, enjoy comments more than anything.

    And I don’t mind not having any central repository for blog reviews or whatever. Part of the fun of stumbling across cyberspace.

    I think Maud Newton said it better. You lose something about blogging if you start making ‘claims’ on other people’s blogs - either those of others or even your own - in whatever way: rankings, reviews or otherwise.

    As a Christian that still doesn’t absolve me from ethical blogging but it is part of the ‘democratic’ and ‘random’ and ‘personal’ aspect of blogging.

16. 16 J.P. Carter  on Dec 3rd, 2003 at 8:52 am

    There is something in each of these comments that I agree with. Yet there remains an underlying current that bothers me. There is, of course, no “one-size-fits-all” approach to blogging and every blogger has their own reasons for the choices they make. While there are areas and topics that “god blogs” should avoid, there is no “right approach.”

    Nevertheless, I think we have to be careful in how we view links, rankings, and site visits. When it comes down to it, these are simply numbers that reflect whether or not we have an audience. It is rather elitist, and a bit hypocritical, to have the attitude that we don’t care how many other people are reading our blogs. We could just as easily send an email to the people who read us if that were the case.

    Of course, some people seek attention for its own sake. People have been willing to belittle themselves on reality TV shows for years so we shouldn’t be surprised when people do whatever it takes to gain attention in the blogosphere. But that shouldn’t keep us from giving these “tools for audience measurement” their due consideration.

    I do find it encouraging to hear Christian bloggers speak of “community” though there are pitfalls in such discussions that we should avoid. I believe we have to be careful of drawing too far away from the mainstream issues of the blogosphere by labeling these issues as trivial. Otherwise we may simply be building our own cultural ghetto on the Internet.

    While taking into consideration what types of blogs we have, we should look closely at the type of readers we are attracting. If the only people that are reading our blog are other “god bloggers” then maybe we are failing to reach out to others.

17. 17 irene  on Dec 3rd, 2003 at 10:31 am

    J.P.’s comment made me think, especially when he said it’s a bit hypocritical to state that we don’t care how many other people are reading our blogs.

    Of course I want to be read, but the number of readers shouldn’t be an issue; far better to have somehow impacted one person with my words than to have 10 visit and go away unmoved, or simply thinking, “That was a good post.” I want to have an audience, not for the sake of having one but in order that somehow I might encourage someone who’s also on the journey, or give a glimpse of God to someone who doesn’t know Him. In that sense, ranking — or the size of an audience — shouldn’t become a distraction.

18. 18 Karen Marie Knapp  on Dec 3rd, 2003 at 7:34 pm

    Just FYI: there’s a technical glitch in Who Links Who affecting the two “Dappled Things” blogs. The “Dappled Things” with 53 links [http://donjim.blogspot.com] is a major reference blog in the St. Blog’s area and is linked by dozens in their blogrolls. But it does not show in WLW because there’s a much newer blog of the same name that really does have only three links; when you click on the high-ranked “Dappled Things” line, one sees the links for the newcomer “Dappled Things.” I reported this to IdeaJoy, and I hope he fixes it soon. I like to see who’s linking the blogs I find enlightening, sometimes I find new great places that way. Not being able to see Fr. Jim Tucker’s links is frustrating!

    karen marie

19. 19 Bene Diction  on Dec 3rd, 2003 at 8:21 pm

    Thanks Karen.
    I’ve been using The Praise of Glory St. Blog’s list for my meandering because it remains up to date, and I bounce off it often from relapsed catholic or my favorites.
    I didn’t know there was another St. Blog’s list at another Dappled Things. Blog on!

20. 20 Darren Rowse  on Dec 3rd, 2003 at 8:36 pm

    great post again Bene,

    very stimulating stuff.

    I am not a big fan of rankings systems - however I’m a big fan of Who Links Who, the Ecosystem and Technorati. I check them every week or so not to see my rank but for a number of other reasons.

    1. I’ve found hundreds of new blogs through. When I go to WLW and the Ecosystem I generally head to the bottom of the page and work my way up. Often its there that the I find the most brilliant thinkers and writers and on a few occasions found lasting friends.

    2. They are a great way to keep conversations alive. Unless people have Trackback it is sometimes hard to find out who has commented on their own blogs about what you’ve written. I find my stats packages only pick up some of the referals and miss others. The above tools point me to people who’ve linked up and added to my own thoughts. I learn a lot from what others say about my writing, for me this is what blogging is all about.

    So for me the ‘ranking’ thing is neither here nor there really for me. If WLW and the Ecosystem didn’t arrange things in order of ‘rank’ I’d still go there and use the tools.

    There are obviously limitations of ‘ranking’ people - I suspect one of the reasons I am higher on WLW than I used to be is that I comment a fair bit on people’s blogs which often comes up on a sidebar under ‘Recent Comments’.

    I do like getting links and hits - but for me blogging is much more than that.

    Got to run, lots more to say, but real life calls me

21. 21 Karen Marie Knapp  on Dec 3rd, 2003 at 11:50 pm

    Bene,

    Not another St. Blog’s List, but two “Dappled Things” registered in Blogs for God, therefore in WLW, and WLW apparently can’t tell them apart!

    karen marie

22. 22 Jared  on Dec 4th, 2003 at 12:51 am

    Bene, can you explain that list a little further? I’m not sure what you mean to point out by it.

    I am surprised to find my personal blog on there (Mysterium Tremendum) but not the blog I share with The Thinklings. The Thinklings has been around a lot longer and is definitely more “popular.” So how would MT show up as a Top 15, but not Thinklings?
    Unless I’m reading the point of that list incorrectly . . .

    To answer a question I think has been raised:
    I don’t link to certain blogs to raise my own profile. My blogroll at Mysterium Tremendum is about 9 blogs or so long. It only contains the blogs I personally visit regularly and really, really like. I have no other purpose in listing them (other than hoping my readers, few as they are, will be inclined to check them out too).
    I do have a few “biggie” bloggers in that list — Dave Heddle and Darren Rowse are two that come to mind. But I don’t link to those biggies to get my profile up; I list them because I read them and they’re two of my favorite sites.

23. 23 kevin  on Dec 4th, 2003 at 2:36 am

    I’ll be honest. It’s a big ego boost to see the numbers go up. I don’t do it “for” the numbers - I write because I can’t not write - but I also work to increase readership. I pay attention to what sort of site changes increase visits. I code the site to be google friendly.

    On another note, I keep a few sets of links. There are those people with whom I want to relate. And then there are sites I visit/read every now and then. I find new reads through two sources:

    1) Other blog posts. When a blog I read writes about another blog, I follow the link.

    2) My site referers. If I see incoming visitors in my site logs, I’m going to check you out.

    It’s funny. I want to be an “a-lister”, and yet, I don’t visit/read/link any of the lists.

24. 24 Bet  on Dec 4th, 2003 at 6:47 am

    Sorry, but I didn’t know there was another Dappled Things when I named my blog. I’m the newbie, and by the time I found out there was another blog with the same name, I was sorta attached to Dappled Things. It didn’t occur to me to check that when I named mine! Who knew there’d be two of us? Then I figured we probably wouldn’t have the same audience of readers and I hoped it wouldn’t matter.

25. 25 Bene Diction  on Dec 4th, 2003 at 7:14 am

    Hi Bet:

    Nothing to be sorry about at all.
    Blogs with similar names happen a lot.
    Karen Marie Knapp of From the Anchor Hold is very saavy about the St. Blog’s lists and blogs and explained above. Thanks Karen!
    A link scrapper such as WLW works off the portal and doesn’t distinguish nuances because it isn’t a person. Welcome to the blogosphere!

26. 26 Bene Diction  on Dec 4th, 2003 at 7:54 am

    Jared:

    I don’t know how to explain Who Links Who with any technical expertise, I’ve asked Dave King of Idea Joy to help me answer your question.

    I explained Who Links Who in one of the god-blog demographic posts. Here is how I understand it.
    It was orginally set up for blogs4God to give people signed up at the portal an idea of who is linking to them. It lists the blogs at that portal.
    The Thinklings is there with 3 links from other portal blogs.

    I was trying (am trying) to point out that it isn’t and was never meant to be used as a ranking system for new bloggers. Nor is it meant to be an accurate measurement of inbound links for older bloggers.

    You’ll also notice if you’ve blogged for awhile that many god-blogs you read aren’t listed at WLW/portal at all. There are varying reasons.

    I admit I’m taking a very convoluted path on my way to the last post in this series. You’ll notice that a couple of my posts around this issue aren’t labelled god-blog demographic posts.
    Thats because I’m trying to keep personal observations I’ve made as a blogger doing this research out of the main stats.
    I pointed out earlier I’m not a statistican or academic and I’m not technically minded, I’m a very ordinary blogger, who is bringing a journalist mindset to the god-blog demographic posts.

    My hope is that others with better skills will improve on the information I’ve gathered, and do as you have done, provide input, ask questions etc.
    Did that help at all?
    Was this explanation as clear as mud? :^)

27. 27 Jared  on Dec 4th, 2003 at 9:45 am

    Thanks, Bene.
    Actually, I understood the point of Who Links to Who itself; I was just unclear on what you were pointing out with your list.
    I think I (mis)read that you were pointing out that non-A-list blogs were in the top “linked to” list for whatever reason. If that understanding is correct, then I was surprised that my fairly new and not well-travelled blog MT ranked higher than my old(er) and fairly well-travelled blog Thinklings.

    Am I still not getting it?

    (Sorry if I’m not.)

28. 28 Bill  on Dec 4th, 2003 at 10:05 am

    One point of confusion between Mysterium Tremendum and Thinklings is that we share the same root (http://thinklings.org) since MT is a “sub-blog” we setup for Jared.

    This confuses things on the Ecosystem too because I believe Thinklings gets the credit for every link made to Mysterium Tremendum, which is no bueno. I guess I need to look into that.

    And - I’m not surprised to find Mysterium Tremendum higher than Thinklings on this list - Jared’s being too humble - he has a great blog!

29. 29 Bene Diction  on Dec 4th, 2003 at 10:12 am

    By jove, I think you’ve got it.
    It appears from the comment thread you weren’t the only one surprised, and please don’t be sorry. I’m really muddling through some of the things I’ve discovered too.

    It’s all Bills fault.:^)
    I don’t know that we have an “A” list of god-blogs, nor should we go there, as others point out.
    What purpose would it serve?
    If we used inbound links as criteria for an “A” list, where would we get that info?
    Having also been sub-domained twice; NZ Bear, WLW, Daypop, Blogdex and Technoriti bot-scrappers gave this blog an inaccurate inbound count.

    LivingRoom pointed out something that raises a question, bots also don’t differentiate with Recent Comments on the sidebar do they?

    We all have our favorites, and thats a different kettle of fish. Blog on!

30. 30 Darren Rowse  on Dec 4th, 2003 at 4:57 pm

    I’ve been chewing over some of this for a while and still don’t have any conclusions - but am kind of feeling ‘who cares’ (well I am today anyway). I think we can get so worked up in analyzing this stuff and forget to actually get on with what God might be calling us to do.

    Don’t get me wrong - this study is interesting and even helpful, but perhaps we should just go back to some of the words of Jesus (sorry….I am a minister of sorts…I’m paid to do that) and get on with making disciples.

    Love God, love other as we love ourselves. I wonder if we just did this with our blogging whether we’d actually be closer to working some of this stuff out.

    Just a thought

31. 31 Jared  on Dec 4th, 2003 at 5:23 pm

    Okay, now I’m really lost.
    I agree with Darren that the things he mentions are what really matters. But I guess I’m unclear as to how this post is contrary to “loving God / loving others.” I thought it was just a reflection on a technical issue.
    Arrgghhh! I feel totally stupid right now.

32. 32 Bene Diction  on Dec 4th, 2003 at 5:46 pm

    Darren and Jared:
    Gentlemen, the post isn’t intended as either/or, both are being addressed. No one needs to apologize for being a minister and no one needs to feel stupid.

    I think there are technical issues to be looked at. I also think there are issues of intent to be looked at.
    Take what you need and give what you can in this discussion….
    I appreciate what both of you have been bringing to the table. Blog on!

33. 33 Darren Rowse  on Dec 4th, 2003 at 9:59 pm

    sorry - i shouldnt have left the last post - i wasn’t trying to say that Bene’s study is not loving or anything, in fact knowing Bene’s heart I know that this post is trying to get us to think about how we can be more supportive and loving as bloggers.

    All I was saying is that its easy in blogging to get caught up in self analysis, importance etc…..

    i can’t express myself today…..grrr….words are not coming out right…

34. 34 Owen  on Dec 5th, 2003 at 12:11 am

    I don’t vote. I don’t rank. I don’t want to be ranked. Heck, I don’t even post a counter any longer. Ironically, I now spend time writing and as a result some people stop by and read. I have no interest in being anyone’s subjective blog of the momment; even when it is kind it is meaningless as an evaluation of content or style. I do link to others and it is always cool to find that I’ve been linked by another blog. Links are much different than ranking.

    ranking rankles,
    live without it and,
    thrive!,
    O

35. 35 Susan  on Dec 11th, 2003 at 1:55 am

    So why do people blog? I’m trying to fiture out the motives behind everyone that’s blogging. What will they get if their ranking position is getting up? Money? fame? self worth? love? or is it because they come here as they can’t find a place elsewhere? It must be something quite strong to push them keep reading and writing and spending time with.

1. 1 LivingRoom >> A space for Life Trackback on Dec 3rd, 2003 at 8:44 pm
2. 2 LivingRoom >> A space for Life Trackback on Dec 3rd, 2003 at 8:44 pm