December 06, 2004

Gatekeeper validation

Lis Riba wrote a recent post that I found very interesting in terms of data about getting posts read. Describing some original research she posted herself, On blog popularity (my emphasis):

I blogged it, but that wasn't enough for me.

I thought this was big news and wanted to spread the story.

So the next thing I did was go to the big name blogs. ...

I probably spent the better part of two hours sending emails and posting comments around the blogosphere.

Hits to my weblog soared. I was getting as many hits per hour as I normally got in a typical day [graph] ...

Except, I loathed the process! Notifying other bloggers of my find was boring and repetitive. I wanted to go out and conduct further research, move the story forward. But I couldn't do that while I was spending my time publicizing my existing post. I felt like I was stuck in a standstill. Does that make sense?

Yes. Greatly.

Note, someone can write an absolute gem of a post. Original, top-quality work. But ...


To get any reputation-credit at all from my being an expert witness in the Nitke v. Ashcroft case, I've had to flack, flack, flack, and I'm not skilled at it - "boring and repetitive" is just the start.

Or, in a word: Gatekeepers.

But I bitterly repeat myself.

By Seth Finkelstein | posted in cyberblather | on December 06, 2004 11:59 PM (Infothought permalink) | Followups
Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog (Wikipedia, Google, censorware, and an inside view of net-politics) - Syndicate site (subscribe, RSS)

Subscribe with Bloglines      Subscribe in NewsGator Online  Google Reader or Homepage


And now I, hopelessly self-referentially, link to my own response to this in my own new blog.

The short version:
Take heart! Blogs are irrelevant anyway!

Posted by: Paul Gowder at December 7, 2004 01:22 PM