Blogger Stephen Smoliar And His Critique of NetNewsPublisher
December 23, 2007
posted a comprehensive reply on his website The Rehearsal Studio When we read the reply we were impressed with the time and thought he put in and asked if we could republish his post. He has graciously allowed us to. The post does not sing the praises of our web site but it does raise some interesting points about editing and the way polls can be manipulated.
——————————————————————————————————-
Interesting News (if it’s News)
Bearing in mind that I still hold to the precept that blogging is not journalism, I have to confess that I was curious about a post on Net News Publisher under the headline, “‘Long Shot’ Kucinich Leads Among Online Independent Voters.” Posted by “admin,” this jumble of assertions, which probably did not go through any fact-checking process, is a perfect poster child for advertising the value of good editing at a time when we are still be deluged by Web 2.0 evangelism. Nevertheless, the headline fascinated me so much that I could not resist dusting off my editor’s visor (metaphorically) and trying to figure out for myself if there was actually signal in all the noise. It turns out that there is signal; but you have to read pretty closely to learn that the post is based on the results from a poll conducted by an organization called IndependentPrimary.com. There is nothing scientific about this poll. If you want to participate, you just sign up on the Web site (using the hyperlink I attached to IndependentPrimary.com); and, as far as I can tell, that is all it takes for your voice to be heard.
The result Web page for this organization provides the evidence behind the headline. Among those who declared themselves as Democrats (80,153), 76.7% (61,477 respondents) “voted” for Kucinich. There was also a Republican poll with only 25,269 participants, a whopping 93% of whom selected Ron Paul. In both parties none of the other would-be candidates could muster a double-digit standing (i.e. 10% or higher), meaning that, while the sample itself may not be statistically representative, the results are statistically significant. (If you think that what you just read is a candy-coated way of saying garbage-in-garbage-out, you probably have a good point!)
The Net News Publisher post cites three other polls, each of which may be flawed in its own way. One was conducted by Democracy for America (DFA), whose slogan is “Social Progress; Fiscal Responsibility; Grassroots Activism.” Their account of their poll leaves a bit to be desired:
Last month over 154,000 of you voted in the largest primary poll of 2008. The poll made clear two striking facts: A 78% consensus for the top three progressive candidates of Edwards, Kucinich, and Obama¹. And 95% of DFA members voted for someone other than the media’s frontrunner.
Once again, the question of sampling has been totally disregarded; but in this case the question of statistical significance of results is not as decisive. The superscript refers to the Web page with the numbers. Kucinich is still at the top with roughly 11,000 “votes” putting him ahead of Al Gore. The way you get that “78% consensus” if to drop Gore from the options and rebalance the percentages over the reduced sample.
Then there is the group called Progressive Democrats of America (PDA). They have provided the most thorough account of their results in a PDF file. The problem here is that their membership is only 80,685; and only 15,810 of the members voted. So we have lots of tables all with lots of relatively small numbers. With these limitations, their own account of the results is about as acceptable as one could anticipate:
Not surprisingly in a field of eight contenders, no candidate came close to gaining a majority of the total vote in PDA’s recently completed presidential straw poll. But two candidates–Dennis Kucinich (41%) and John Edwards (26%)–combined for more than 2/3 of the total vote. Over 15,000 PDA activists voted in the presidential straw poll. Full results here.
After Kucinich and Edwards, only one other candidate-Barak Obama (13%)-made it into double digits. All the rest were in single digits: Hillary Clinton (9%), Bill Richardson (5%), Joe Biden (3%), Chris Dodd (1%), Mike Gravel (less than 1%). In contradiction to media reporting on the primary race, PDA’s results parallel those of DFA, Daily KOS, the Texas Democratic Party and others whose polls show very weak support for Clinton among the Democratic base.
Finally, The Nation conducted its own poll, presumably among its readers. I have not yet tried to track down these numbers. I do not recall seeing them on my RSS feed. My guess is that the sample would be somewhere in the same league as that of Progressive Democrats of America. Here is the summary from Net News Publisher:
And, in a poll conducted by the progressive The Nation magazine, he [Kucinich] won with 35% of the vote. Obama came in second with 24%, and Edwards was third with 13%.
Now I personally have enough interest in Kucinich and many of the principles he is trying to promote that nothing would please me more than to find him pulled out of the slough of statistical insignificance. I only object to extricating him with methods that justify ranking statistics as worse than damn lies! What depresses me is that these are results that take place out there on the long tail, which means that one only reads about them on that same long tail. Viewed from the other end of the telescope, this means that these results do not “count as news” at the editorial desks of the mainstream media; and, critical as I am of how the mainstream media tries to shape our thoughts, rather than report on them, the statistical methods behind those polls may be sufficiently weak to justify the editorial decisions.
This brings us back to my original theme. The blogosphere is a great place for the stuff that Abraham Lincoln had in mind when he said, “This is the sort of thing that people who like that sort of think like.” Call it an echo chamber or a vanity mirror; just do not pretend that it is journalism. Whatever the media business may be doing to undermine the role of journalism as a public trust, there is still a critical mass of practitioners out there trying to carry the flame. We should not abandon them just because we can find places on the Internet where we can read things that make us feel better.
Help Promote Your Site With RssHugger
December 11, 2007

Site developer Collin LeHay from WordHugger has launched rssHugger. You can add your RSS Feeds of your blog to this site in the hope of generating traffic. Basically you create backlinks using your RSS Feeds.
Why use it?
- It’s relatively new and could be the next big thing.
- If the site does well the Google PR on your site will hopefully go up.
- If you write an article about them they will let you join for free.
- It has great potential to generate interest in your site.
“rssHugger is a new website developed to help bloggers promote their blogs, and to help visitors discover new blogs that write about subjects that the readers are interested in. Through the power of the internet and viral marketing, rssHugger looks to bring blog writers and blog readers closer together. If you own a blog, you can get your own page on rssHugger for 10 years for giving an honest review of the site on your blog. If you want to join rssHugger but do not want to review our site, you can pay a one time review fee of $20. rssHugger will be the first ever quality, spam free, and viral rss directory strictly for bloggers. To learn more about what rss feeds are or how owning an rss page can benefit you.”
Study Shows Google Favored Over Other Search Engines By Webmasters
November 16, 2007
Web site policy makers who use robots.txt files as gatekeepers to specify what is open and what is off limits to Web crawlers have a bias that favors Google over other search engines, say Penn State researchers whose study of more than 7,500 Web sites revealed Google’s advantage.
That finding was surprising, said C. Lee Giles, the David Reese Professor of Information Sciences and Technology who led the research team which developed a new search engine-BotSeer-for the study.
“We expected that robots.txt files would treat all search engines equally or maybe disfavor certain obnoxious bots, so we were surprised to discover a strong correlation between the robots favored and the search engines’ market share,” said Giles of Penn State’s College of Information Sciences and Technology (IST).
Robots.txt files are not an official standard, but by informal agreement, they regulate Web crawlers-also known as “spiders” and “bots”-which mine the Web 24/7 for everything from the latest news to e-mail addresses. Web policy makers use the files found in a Web site’s directory to restrict crawler access to non-public information. Robots.txt files also are used to reduce server load which can result in denial of service and shut down Web sites. But some Web policy makers and administrators are writing robots.txt files which are not uniformly blocking access.
Instead, those robots.txt files give access to Google, Yahoo and MSN while restricting other search engines, the researchers learned.
As an example, some U.S. government sites favor Google’s bot-Googlebot-followed by Yahoo and MSN, according to the researchers.
While the study doesn’t include explanations for why Web policy makers have opted to favor Google, the researchers know the choice was made consciously. Not using a robots.txt file gives all robots equal access to a Web site.
“Robots.txt files are written by Web policy makers and administrators who have to intentionally specify Google as the favored search engine,” Giles said.
That finding is described in a paper, “Determining Bias to Search Engines from Robots.txt,” given at the recent 2007 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence in Silicon Valley. Besides Giles, the authors include Yang Sun and Ziming Zhuang, IST graduate students, and Isaac Councill, an IST post-doctoral scholar.
Not every site has a robots.txt file although the number is growing. Of the 7,500 sites analyzed by the researchers, about four in 10 had a robots.txt file-up from less than 1 in 10 in 1996.
That growth, which the researchers anticipate will continue, was one reason for the study.
The researchers didn’t know what they would find when they set BotSeer on the loose to look at and index the content of the robots.txt files of the Web sites which spanned several market segments including government, newspaper, university and Fortune 1000 companies.
“Our intent was exploratory-to see if there was anything interesting,” Councill said. Consumers with a soft spot for Google aren’t affected by the bias. But consumers who prefer other search engines may be at a disadvantage.
“With the preference, Google can index some information which other search engines can’t,” Giles said.
SEO- 9 Ridiculously Easy Steps to the Top 10
October 10, 2007
Search Engine Optimization companies are making a fortune by doing the menial work that is overlooked by many designers. It is ridiculously easy to do most of the work done by most SEO companies, all you have to do is create good habits. Read more
Blogs; What Good are They Anyway?
September 30, 2007
Blogs; what good are they anyway? Well, actually blogs are both fantastic whether you are running a business website or you are simply using blogs for fun. In terms of business, blogs can prove to be a supplemental form of advertisement and you will find them to be a unique device that you can use to keep in contact with your clients. Further, in terms of personal use, blogs are definitely an excellent way to stay in touch with your family and friends, even if they are across the globe. Best of all, blogs can often be established for free and can easily stand on their own, without an existing website to support them. Read more
7 Tips for Effective Reciprocal Linking
September 29, 2007
By Michael Fleischner | Marketing Expert, Internet Marketing Secrets* Reciprocal linking…does it work? Yes it does. One can debate the value of reciprocal linking compared to other linking strategies. And without a doubt, one way links far outway the value of a reciprocal link. However, if done correctly, reciprocal linking can be a powerful SEO strategy for your website. Read more








