techPresident - Elizabeth Edwards - Comments

Sitemeter, Shmitemeter...how about Compete's #s?

Micah L. Sifry — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:51:39 -0400

If you read the comment thread here
you will see that Patrick's had a busy evening defending his analysis of how Sitemeter tracks traffic.

But let's look at Patrick's larger conclusion. If he's right about visit inflation on DailyKos, then maybe the left blogosphere isn't that much bigger than the right blogosphere. (And maybe advertisers should spend less money on the left's big sites, right?)

But while Patrick argues that his analysis suggests that Kos's readership is perhaps only twice the size of Michelle Malkin's, take a look at the head-to-head, apples-to-apples, comparison provided by Compete.com: It suggests that Kos had nearly three times as many unique visitors as Malkin in August, the last month tracked: nearly 500,000 compared to about 180,000. (On the other hand, Compete also suggests that Kos had a total of 1.8 million visits that month, a daily readership of about 60,000. Malkin's daily readership is estimated at almost 26,000 by Compete.)

The bottom line: all these numbers are fuzzy. What probably matters more is what people do on and through these sites. I don't think anyone would argue that in that department, the DailyKos community is far larger and more impactful than any other political site.

Sitemeter is right

pb — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:12:24 -0400

See detailed analysis here.

Patrick Ruffini is misunderstanding the difference between what SiteMeter shows you on a summary page, and what is counted as a visit or a hit.

Do you really think Rebecca's comment was off the cuff?

Morra Aarons — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 11:01:58 -0400

I don't know...but I don't know her! I was amazed at the firestorm it generated briefly- but more disappointed, really, in how the press spun the story as "Mommy Wars."

Behind the Scenes, Media & Mommybloggers

Sarah Granger — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 17:44:38 -0400

It's also interesting how the bloggers respond behind the scenes on these topics. As one of the SVMoms contributors, I saw the public and the private discussion on the topic. I actually would've expected more private discussion, but things took a turn on the blog when Rebecca took back some of her remarks. Then she and Elizabeth Edwards made up, saying they had learned from each other.

Mommybloggers have gradually gotten more attention by the media over the past few years, but this is the first time we've been looked to for political commentary in a national election, so I think many people are just learning how fast their words can spread online when they write an off-the-cuff post in 3 minutes and publish it as Rebecca did.

fair enough

Morra Aarons — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:09:13 -0400

Thanks Jeff.

I love the post and linked

Jeff Commaroto — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:47:09 -0400

I love the post and linked to it from my site BUT I do want to note one thing. The Obama's have denied that Michelle was talking about Hillary Clinton in that exchange and Jennifer Hunter who originally suggested the line "could be INTERPRETED" that way has since explained how she came to that conclusion and noted she did so without ever checking to see if that was the intention.

The story was picked up immediately by Drudge with that assertion attributed as fact and made the news rounds without anyone checking into it. I only note it because you said " In this comment, she was targeting Hillary Clinton" but you should probably attribute it by saying "In this comment, many believe she was targeting Hillary Clinton" rather than maintaining it as a fact.

Other than that, very good and thought-provoking piece.

Live results from meetup campaign

jpa — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:16:06 -0400

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/meetup/standings

Joshua:

jpa — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:13:28 -0400

Ron Paul consistantly wins online polls that are fraud proof. Here is the poll from Freedomworks (a respected conservative action website) where Ron Paul won 56% of 16,000 votes that were valididated through email.

http://www.freedomworks.org/newsroom/press_template.php?press_id=2285&is...

*No one* has come forward with actual proof of fraud. The Ron Paul grassroots campaign is online, organized, and active. We have 38,000 meetup members already. It is very easy to get the word out for any major online poll.

OK

Tex MacRae — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:15:40 -0400

Thanks.

My response

Joshua Levy — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:01:50 -0400

In my response to your first comment, I linked to the most recent post from Margolis. If there's an issue with Margolis' handling of the poll, that's an issue you have to take up with him. I'm simply reporting on the issue itself.

link from May thread

Tex MacRae — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:40:47 -0400

This is the link you have in your post above:

http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/archives/004907.php

Not:

http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/archives/005053.php

August

Joshua Levy — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:37:36 -0400

The post I linked to above is, again, here: http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/archives/005053.php

Good grief

Tex MacRae — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:31:02 -0400

Did you notice that the only link you provide for Margolis' whining is from May? Got anything current that hasn't been repeatedly debunked?

Post about Benton

Joshua Levy — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:04:00 -0400

The post is here.

By linking to Margolis' post I'm not making a judgment about Paul or his supporters. Valid or not, online Republican straw pollsters have consistently complained about Paul supporters gaming their polls. It's worth mentioning.

Ron Paul out of GOP poll

Tex MacRae — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:56:31 -0400

1) I don't see anything about Jesse Benton in the link you provided. Would you please point me to the actual accusation?

2) Isn't it a bit irresponsible to repeat this innuendo with no proof? We've heard Ron Paul supporters called "spammers" repeatedly, but it's rarely anything more than someone with an online poll who doesn't like the outcome.

I call on Mr. Margolis to provide evidence of his accusations.