PubSub: You Get What You Pay For

ScottThanks for the advice about us putting up some kind of discliamer on our site. I took your words to heart and did something about it.Besides the disclaimer that has on the bottom of every SiteStats page since day one..."LinkCounts are based on the content of a site's feed(s). Some feeds only publish summaries (or even just headlines) that do not contain links. We are constantly working to improve the resolution and accuracy of our published statistics. At times we may feel that our changes are significant enough to warrant reprocessing of some or all of our historical "raw" data. These changes will most likely result in the removal and regeneration of our published historical data."...we have added a link to an FAQ that I wrote last month that is intended to help users with any further questions they may have about our stats. You can find the link to the FAQ as the fifth bulleted item over the table with all of the statistics. Thanks again.Steven Cohen

The blog in question (crisismediarelations DOT blogspot DOT com) has been removed from the list, as per Constantins instructions.Steven

I really appreciate what you've done, Constantin, and your reasons for doing it. You've helped out PR bloggers tremendously.But, since rankings aren't the purpose of the list, I would recommend that PubSub REMOVE the rankings until they can do more to demonstrate that they care about accuracy.

Constantin, there is no problem between us, nor do I have a beef with Steven.When this whole issue surfaced this morning, I went to check the PubSub list. Yes, I check to see if I have been added. No, I have not, and that's not a driving concern of mine. Steven e-mailed me a couple of weeks ago, and I understand the delay.As I was scrolling down the list, I saw on that had a name that looked interesting. It was the porn-spam-thing that I pointed out. It was the first one that I checked, and given the pace of other projects this morning, it was the last.Please don't take my comments as trashing the system. Neither you nor Steven have misrepresented the resource to me at all.I pointed this out in the comments today because apparently there are people getting wrapped up in the results. Whether it's obsession over link-rank, or calculating the XX/XY ratio, people do care.We're cool...

Constantin, we love you, and we know it's not your fault. But if they can't do better than this, what's the point?Scott, I'm unhappy too about this problems - and I think Steven has explained what is causing them. What's the point, you ask. For me, the point of having this list is another way of making people aware that there are a lot of different voices in the PR blogosphere, and that there is a dynamic in this community. Sure, the mechanism is imperfect, like any other way of ranking blogs. But it might be more appealing for some people that are not so much into hierarchical lists, or don't necessarily want to play with OPML files.The list -for me- is not about rankings, or influence; in fact, when the list was launched, I posted about what the list isn't:Please note that the list doesn’t provide “the top PR blogs” or my “top picks of PR blogs“; what I provide is a directory of weblogs, and I try to make it as comprehensive as possible. I’m not ranking the weblogs; PubSub’s algorithm is doing the rankings - and they can change daily.I’m not a fan of rankings, especially when it comes to the blogosphere, and when ranking is seen as the equal of influence. Blogging is about individual voices, different ways of thinking, personality, personal experience, and more; if we’re reducing all this variety and wealth to a simple number, we’re missing the core of blogging. Blogging is not athletics; we can have more than one “winner”.Moreover, the relationship between ranking and influence it’s not simple; top blogs are, of course, influential - but for whom? And how? (I read Z-listers that are, for me, more influential than the A-listers — because each one of us has a personal A-list).What this mean is that I’m inviting you to use the PubSub’s PR Community List in a way that will serve you well: be aware of the “top blogs”, but please try to discover new voices. Appreciate the top 1%, but also pay attention to the blogs that have the biggest LinkRank gain; you have an excellent chance to find ideas that you’re going to miss otherwise. Pay attention to the top influencers, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that only those at the top of the list have this quality. Finally, use the rankings wisely; they’re important, but they’re just a part of a bigger picture. My opinion, of course.

Ike, I'm really surprised by your comments. You're right: the blog that you singled out -- crisismediarelations DOT blogspot DOT com -- shouldn't be in the list, and I can't figure out how it got there. I checked my correspondence with PubSub and, indeed, the blog was in the initial OPML file I sent them at the end of September 2005, but it's not in the current PR Blogs List I maintain on Bloglines (you can check that in the OPML file). I hope you're not suspecting me for adding porn blogs to the list. What probably happened is that the blog was a legitimate blog at the time when it was added to the list; I probably checked back later - and deleted the blog from my list, but I forgot to request Steven Cohen to delete it from the PubSub list. For that, I apologize.I don't think for a moment that you picked that example "at random". I understand that you're upset because your new blog hasn't been added yet to the list, but you're unfair - and to imply that the list is plagued by this sort of problems is flat wrong.I was hoping that your first reaction at finding such an anomaly in the list would be to alert me and ask me to correct the mistake; after all, the list is a resource for all of us. Sorry to see I was wrong.

Scott, on the inlink side of things, have you tried another counter/monitor like the sitemeter.com (free) to help reconcile the missed traffic info? At least you may be able to better tell where the referral links are coming from and if they jive with what PubSub says.

Steven:Frankly, you should put this kind of disclaimer on the PubSub site rather than just posting them in blog comments when someone complains.Sorry if that seems harsh -- but if you present yourself as an authority, you have to be able to back it up, and not just say it.Yeah I know -- someone adulterated my Cheerios this morning.

Ike: Well...let's just say it would be of less urgent concern. :)

Dude. To be honest, if you were near the top of that list you'd be gloating.But I absolutely agree with you. The metrics are skewed horribly. There are spam-porn-link blogs on that list with a single post that have a ranking.I know that moderated lists take time, but my humble little blog has been on a waiting list for entry. Again, not an issue with speed or time, because I am not a priority. But allowing do-nothing leech blogs to absorb the link love is embarrassing.Check out crisismediarelations DOT blogspot DOT com. I picked it at random, and it was the first one I looked at.Fascinating reading...

I forgot to include my contact info, in case you need itSteven CohenPubSub Concepts, Incscohen@pubsub.com

Hi Scott:Thanks for your comments about our LinkRanks. We have been getting a few messages from faithful users over the past few days regarding this exact issue, which has to do with a problem with our rolling historical data. This data is maintained in separate tables to help off-load our database. Somehow an error has snuck into those tables. We plan to rebuild those convenience tables from our daily information and the error(s) you are seeing with historical counters should go away. We have been working on the issue for the past few days.Also, we are currently experiencing high loads as a result of explosive growth. Thus, some inlinks and outlinks may not show up as expected. We are working hard to solve the problem and expect to have it resolved as quickly as possible.Please note that outbound links and entries have very little to do with your overall LinkRank. That said, we strive to be as accurate as possible with our data.Thank you for your patience and your continued use of PubSub.

Very true! And as you said, T/rati's far from perfect too.

Pissed might be too strong. I just hate when people put themselves out there as an authority on something, when they don't do the work to back it up. I've written about the limitations of Technorati as well.Presenting yourself as something you're not is kind of a pet-peeve theme for me -- whether we're talking politics, PR, Ben Domenech, Strumpette, or Web 2.0.

SB, your posts are usually witty, funny or both...or neither :-), but this one sounds like you're pissed? Does anyone ever read the PubSub PR list rankings? And if they do, do they take them seriously? I'm not sure if it's a case of 'putting up' with it? :-)