website statistics

Archive for the 'Site Traffic' Category

Huffington Post Appropriating Others’ Content is Nothing New

There’s been plenty of discussion over the past couple days about Huffington Post’s habit of posting articles that consist of the first few paragraphs of someone else’s story sans commentary and then linking to the full piece. This was first raised by Whet Moser at the Chicago Reader, who noticed that HuffPost Chicago (a first attempt at thinking locally, hence its “beta” designation) was doing this to previews of local concerts. In some cases, by copying just the first few paragraphs, HuffPo had reposted the entire article. This is because, as Moser put it, “that is the whole article, dumbass” [italics in original]. For example, click through the thumbnails below to screen shots as provided by Moser:

   

This has resulted in some serious discussion at Techmeme, as it should be, but my question is: What took so long? I covered the launch of Huffington Post when I was writing the Blogometer at National Journal’s Hotline two and a half years ago, and kept a close eye on the development of the site. If you recall, the site was the subject of some some scrutiny and fun-making ahead of its launch. Huffington’s venture survived the early gibes, long enough at least to attract new ones.

Maybe six months in, I noticed that headlines on the front page linked to just the kind of pages now being critcized. I never wrote about it, but I did bring it up to my boss, who also thought it strange. While Moser has stumbled across a particularly egregulous example of the practice — and in fairness, HuffPo’s Jonah Peretti claims it was an editing mistake — they’re already pushing the envelope of what’s acceptable. And in this case, I think even Sam Zell would have a point.

Bloggers are frequently given to quoting long stretches of others’ writing, but as fair use guidelines usually require, they do so for purposes of adding commentary. HuffPo does not, which raises the question of how much Huffington Post is an authentic blog and how much it is a media company appropriating others’ credibility.

Also raising this question is the new book, The Huffington Post Complete Guide to Blogging. Here’s the cover, available from Simon & Schuster:

Notice anything? Like, say, a complete lack of original blogging voices? Craig Newmark is the lone individual whose reputation was first made online, and even then his rep is not as a blogger but as the founder of Craigslist. Huffington Post built some credibility over the past few years, with myself and other informed consumers of news, by giving a bigger soapbox to lesser known talents such as Jason Linkins and Lee Stranahan. I’d say HuffPo has done them a lot of good, and they would say the same.

But then there are those like Walt Moser and Monica Kendrick, the author of the review noted above. In both circumstances, HuffPo falls short of being a democratizing force in the media. In the dichotomy between its famous and non-famous contributors, HuffPo is trying to have it both ways: they will elevate new writers, but only so far. And the same is true of its bid to provide a new way of experiencing the news: sometimes, all that means is appropriating yours.

The Most Comment-Spammed Blog in America

All irritation at being notified of new comment spam is equal, but the amusements to be found in some spams are more equal than others:

The last time I wrote about comment spam was in April, when I received maybe five to ten such submissions per week. In the final months of 2008 that number is up to something like five to ten per day. There’s no good reason why this should be — as you may have noticed, the second half of the year has been observably less bloggy than the first, and notwithstanding a few spiky links from big traffic-drivers, the daily visitor count has been at best unpromising. So why the surge?

My guess is that unsophisticated pliers of the trade have become a little more sophisticated, and so must be trying — and failing — more often and in greater numbers. I don’t think these are the Russo-Turkic schemers akin to Jonathan Franzen’s Gitanas Misevicius. Much of that, I believe, now defaults to spam filters.

Instead, these comments make it all the way to the moderation queue and seem to come from native English-speakers who have a website to promote, know a little bit about how search engines work, and aim to elevate the PageRank of their meager obsessions (or unwitting clients) in the sections of a blog they found on Google or Technorati. My blog, in fact.

And sometimes they come back. Earlier today, an algorithmic process denied a now-deleted comment access to my latest post, about the Phillips Foundation’s Journalism Fellowship Program. It went something like:

Grants to become a journalist, what’s next, grants to become a lawyer?

Not exactly a constructive comment, but snarky enough to wave through… except for the business e-mail account and URL of said business pasted into the address field. And the business? A Welsh company selling organic meat (a tautology, if you ask me) on the open Interwebs.

I hadn’t even noticed it until I received an angry e-mail from the bon mot’s possessive owner, someone whom I’d wager fits the above description. In the interests of unusually equal amusement, here’s the e-mail exchange in full:

In retrospect, I believe he was genuinely confused by the phrase “SEO strategy” — after all, if he wasn’t, he probably wouldn’t have left a comment in the first place.

P.S. And to my erstwhile correspondent: If you leave a comment this time, what the heck: I’ll give you one free non-piscatory fish out of the Akismet spam filter.

Update: In case you’re wondering, “I love reading Blog P.I. because…” is the default opening line if you start from the Contact page. And speaking of defaults, I wish WordPress wouldn’t promise that the “blog admin … will be able to restore it immediately.” I’ll decide when I’m able to restore it.

N.B. The title is a reference to DeLillo’s Most Photographed Barn in America. Beyond the explicit nod to “The Corrections”, I count at least three more literary references that I swear were not premeditated.

Welcome Back, Henrik: More on Sarah Palin and Wikipedia

One of the best homebrew Wikipedia tools around is the Wikipedia article traffic statistics tool maintained by a young Swede who goes by the name Henrik on Wikipedia. At least it was, until Henrik announced he was going on vacation in July and the statistics fell into quick disrepair. Many began clamoring for his return (including yours truly), and some concluded that he wasn’t coming back.

Luckily, this past week, he did. Whereas many Wikipedia editors announce that they will be on leave and then continue to edit, this guy took his vacation seriously. And from what I hear, the Europeans do take some long vacations.

So if you’ve never seen this tool, I thought I’d take this day of much discussion about Sarah Palin and Wikipedia to compare two snapshots of Henrik’s tool for the main Sarah Palin article. First, the chart for May. Each bar represents one day, and the number with each counts raw page views. So how many views is that?

35,563 total. Not bad — in fact, that’s more than twice number of page loads at Tim Pawlenty’s article that month. I am not, however, suggesting we start using this like a futures market; the tool is highly sensitive to news articles that will send droves to Google with a particular keyword in mind, and then many of them to Wikipedia. So how many visited Palin’s article in August?

Notice how you can’t see those bars almost at all until the spike at the end of the month? Some of those slivers toward the end are 14,000+ views. The biggest day was somewhere around 2.5 million, for a total of 4,220,407 views for the month. Barack Obama’s page received a relatively meager 1,377,462 page views for the entire month (if only this tool had existed when Obama announced in Feb. 2007) and John McCain’s page received an even smaller 988,944. And both presidential nominees received a significant boost that day and for a few thereafter. How about Joe Biden? Better than the top of each ticket, but still about half of his rival undercard. This proves nothing except that Sarah Palin’s entry into the race drew a tremendous amount of attention, but we already knew that.

Now that the tool is back, I will plan to make use of these charts every once in awhile. Close readers will wonder if this is the Wikipedia feature I hinted at a few months ago, and others may wonder if I’ve given up on writing All the Rage for this month. The answer to both is no, so hang tight. As to whether this blog is now simply about Wikipedia… the answer is I don’t think so.

O Captain! My Captain! Rise Up and Read the Blogs

On Saturday, John Fund wrote a story in which he inadvertently referred to a certain well-known political blogger as:

…Ed Morrissey of the conservative blog Captain’s Quarters…

This prompted Morrissey to joke:

I’ll have to get John to update his Rolodex.

On Saturday, a Los Angeles Times op-ed by George Washington University proefessors John Sides and Eric Lawrence began:

Daily Kos. Little Green Footballs. Talking Points Memo. Instapundit. Firedoglake. Captain’s Quarters. These are among the thousands of political blogs that are increasingly a factor in U.S. politics.

If you see where I’m going with this, you are probably someone who is a constant reader of conservative blogs. If you don’t, then you probably are not.

Here’s where I’m going: Twice in two days somebody with access to the mainstream media, from just outside but interested in and conversant with the blogosphere, has failed to recognize that Morrissey shuttered his Captain’s Quarters blog almost five months ago, and has been writing for Michelle Malkin’s Hot Air ever since.

It’s almost the inverse what I’ve said about how MyDD didn’t miss a beat when its top two writers decamped for a new website: as long as it continues to fulfill its mission, many casual readers will barely notice, and will be unlikely to remove it from their bookmarks. In this case it seems that casual observers of the blogosphere are so familiar with Captain’s Quarters that they assume it must be going strong, and it will be ever thus.

In a sense, the blog appears to be influential even when unread. More accurately, Captain’s Quarters simply has strong brand equity. Morrissey’s considered, even verbose explications of the latest political developments from a realistic (though not a “realist”) conservative viewpoint maintains a presence in the mind of even very occasional readers, even if the blog itself is no longer maintained, or present.

That’s not to say his impact has diminished: in fact it may be greater than ever. And so this presents a good opportunity to run another site traffic comparison, counting unique visitors, via Compete:

Captain’s Quarters vs. Hot Air on Compete.com

When Morrissey pulled up stakes, he took his entire readership with him. They didn’t have much of a choice, as typing in the old captainsquartersblog.com URL will swiftly deposit you at hotair.com without displaying so much as a redirect page first. In fact, initially it seems Hot Air grew by an even greater number of visitors than were lost at CQ, even counting the growth in traffic Morrissey experienced in his last month blogging solo. This rapid growth has leveled off and even dipped slightly, but it’s clear now that Hot Air is twice as big as it was before. The move appears to have paid off exactly as they hoped.

I confess that back in February I was personally skeptical of Morrissey’s decision, based primarily on the fact that he was giving up such a strong brand to go join a stable of bloggers under someone else’s shingle. I’m glad now that I didn’t write about it then. But even if Hot Air had received only a modest bump in traffic, the joining of forces would probably have still been a good idea, at least for Morrissey.

Now, if the worst that can be said is that some small number of readers are still thumbing through his archives, perhaps under the impression that he is still updating posts as “Captain Ed,” then that’s fine. It even helps us spot the ones who aren’t really paying attention.

Open Left and MyDD, One Year Later

This week marks the one-year anniversary for Open Left, a spinoff of the original netroots blog, MyDD. As far as I can tell, the date was not observed on the site itself, but then Chris Bowers, Matt Stoller and the rest are busy running a political website. Blog P.I. though is pretty much just about political websites, so I thought it would be interesting to compare Open Left with MyDD, and see how the two sites have fared in the year since they went in different directions. Via Compete:

Open Left and MyDD site traffic comparison via Compete.com

Here’s how I’m reading this: Open Left had a strong first two months, rising quickly to match the long-running MyDD in overall traffic. Yet MyDD’s traffic was only slightly affected, if at all. How could this be? Naturally, site traffic isn’t a zero sum game, and it’s probable that a reader of one is a reader of both. But it took Open Left a bit of time to pick up readers, while I’ve long been of the belief that as long as MyDD adequately covers its subject matter, Democratic campaign and Hill staffers will never remove it from their bookmarks.

Then MyDD achieved some separation in the fall, which initially I’d attribute to growing interest in the presidential contest. One of the main reasons Bowers and Stoller left was to focus on the progressive movement writ large, rather than the horse race — so it is understandable that it would not be the go-to site in the heat of the primaries. And then starting in December, MyDD really began to take off. While some of this is probably attributable to still more interest in the nominating contest, I’d wager the sharp spike owes to site founder Jerome Armstrong (along with Bowers/Stoller replacement Todd Beeton) taking the site in a strong pro-Clinton direction. This distinguished it from most lefty blogs, which ranged from avidly pro-Obama to mildly pro-Obama (as I’ve discussed before, Open Left was at best tepidly pro-Obama).

Odd, then, that interest peaked in late January/early February, as the nominating contest was only just getting under way. Open Left suffered a drop in traffic around this time as well, suggesting a broader trend. Traffic slowing just when things got interesting? Maybe it is more interesting to the outside observer, where the same thing is frustrating to partisans who expected to have a nominee. And then as Obama inched closer to the nomination, the interest of Clinton supporters remained flat, while the leftosphere overall turned to matters of organization rather than elections. This part, I concede, is the most speculative; I admit to being a little baffled by this section of the chart.

And now? Well, the last month shows another slip in traffic for both, with MyDD staying slightly ahead. I wouldn’t be surprised if this continued for another month. August is slow in politics, even in election years, and even in the blogosphere.

But it seems clear that despite being an expansion team, Open Left is in the same league as MyDD. Then again, it seems no matter how big you get, there’s always someone bigger than you:

Firedoglake, bigger than MyDD and Open Left, via Compete.com

Digg Buries Daily Kos

This submission to Digg from Daily Kos “went popular” today, which is to say it made the front page:

Digg Buries Daily Kos

So it wasn’t “buried” per se, in that the story has not (as of about 8:00 p.m. Thursday) been demoted from the front page, and almost surely will not be. Last I checked, it was #10 out of 10 in all categories. The article submitted was a user diary by someone calling themselves environmentalist (like e.e. cummings or k.d. lang), cross-posted from the long-running mid-tier leftroots blog Unbossed.

The first Digg commenter said:

It’s a scam engineered by big oil interests to dupe the $4 per gallon weary public. Drilling/plundering our coasts for about 19 billion barrels of oil is akin to placing a Band-Aid on the hemorrhaging wound that is our oil-dependent, wasteful lifestyle.

The comment received +31 “diggs”, that is to say a net total of 31 votes in agreement. So far so good. But out of the ~430 comments added to this story, the top-rated comments fell somewhere between ~+150 and ~+50 diggs. Here is the first sentence of each, in descending order.

+151 diggs:

I hate to play devil’s advocate but here I go. (personal note: I am not a Republican)

+107:

Buried for being misleading bullshit.

+68:

If we began drilling offshore, oil prices would actually fall, because speculators trading in oil futures would bet on prices to be lower in the future.

+66:

Both candidates are forwarding two different ideas, but they are by no means mutually exclusive.

+59:

I should have guessed this was daily Kos bullshit.

+51:

Thanks, DailyKos, for continuing to put forth the stupidest ideas on the internet.

Anyone who follows the two websites knows that Digg and Daily Kos are both very pro-Obama. But apparently they are not pro-Obama in quite the same way. Better yet, Ron Paul’s volunteer army of paranoids seems to wandered off somewhere else.

As for the title and the caveat above, well, that’s not the only way Digg can bury Daily Kos:

The Fall of the Report of Drudge

This morning I spoke to a group of journalism interns at the Washington Center for Politics and Journalism, along with David All. Now in its 19th year, the program run by Terry Michael is a special one for me: it’s what brought me to Washington in the first place. I’m not sure whether I’m a success story or a cautionary tale, as I’ve heard Terry ruefully note how many of his alumni eventually leave traditional journalism. Alas, I’m one of them.

In any case, it was a freewheeling discussion of digital politics, broadly defined. With a keyboard and projection screen at our disposal, we rambled from David’s YouTube projects for Rep. Jack Kingston to the website of my employer (and this site’s host) New Media Strategies. At one point, the question arose of Matt Drudge’s influence in the past compared to RealClearPolitics. We didn’t know the answer, so I went to Alexa (an imperfect tool, but more accurate the more traffic a site gets) to get an idea:

Alexa Traffic Ranking: Drudge Report vs. RealClearPolitics

Wow. Now that’s a mighty steep fall for a website that once almost brought down a president, yadda yadda yadda. Now, I’m sure his influence remains greater than his traffic; after all, Washington journalists are still reading his website out of sheer inertia. As recently as September 2006, “Gang of 500″ coiner Mark Halperin said “Drudge rules our world,” which pretty much sums it up. Meanwhile, RCP has had a strong 2008, even if their traffic only spikes around the elections (David noted the first, biggest spike was election night 2004 when the site was a destination for leaked exit polls).

Back in the office this afternoon, I decided to look up another site often compared to Drudge, especially at the outset in early 2005. This one surprised me even more:

Alexa Traffic Ranking: Drudge Report vs. Huffington Post

Surprising? Yes, at least if you remember how ubiquitious the Drudge Report once was. But let’s take a few things into consideration: for one, there is much, much more content on Huffington Post. The above chart is measured in page views, and every time someone clicks from the front page of HuffPo to Eat the Press or Nora Ephron’s latest Dear Jane letter to Hillary Clinton, that counts as another. Drudge meanwhile has just one page, and if my clicking habits are representative of others’, the tendency is to click on a story, hit the Back button, click again, go Back, etc. On many browsers, each subsequent view may draw upon the local cache and not register another hit for Drudge. Then again, he’s enabled that insidious technique known as auto-refresh, so if you accidentally leave his page open for any length of time, it will reload however often

    var timer = setInterval(”autoRefresh()”, 1000 * 60 * 3);
    function autoRefresh(){self.location.reload(true);}

is. Another thing to consider: Huffington’s numbers are nowhere near Drudge’s at the peak, and it’s highly unlikely she ever will — unless maybe she manages to bring down another President Clinton. (And I wouldn’t count on it.) Like M*A*S*H vs. American Idol or Star Wars Kid vs. Leave Britney Alone, there is too much competition for eyeballs, with the advent of cable television and YouTube respectively, for new programming to outperform the old.

And, clicking around a bit more, I realize I am not the first to note Arianna’s upset: Kara Swisher at All Things Digital first noted it about two weeks ago. But you know how it is. Too much demand on our attention to see everything we’d like.

P.S. Come on, Alexa. Why can’t I embed more than one of your charts on a page? The screen caps look terrible when I shrink them them to fit the column width.