Comments on: PubSub: You Get What You Pay For http://www.ideagrove.com/blog/2006/03/pubsub-you-get-what-you-pay-for.html The Idea Grove is a full-service agency specializing in public relations, marketing and Web design. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:07:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Steven http://www.ideagrove.com/blog/2006/03/pubsub-you-get-what-you-pay-for.html/comment-page-1#comment-1290 Steven Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:52:00 +0000 http://www.ideagrove.com/weblog/?p=869#comment-1290 Scott<br/><br/>Thanks 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.<br/><br/>Besides the disclaimer that has on the bottom of every SiteStats page since day one...<br/><br/><i>"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."</i><br/><br/>...we have added a link to an <a HREF="http://sandbox.pubsub.com/blog/?p=41" REL="nofollow">FAQ</a> 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. <br/><br/>Thanks again.<br/><br/>Steven Cohen Scott

Thanks 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

]]> By: Steven http://www.ideagrove.com/blog/2006/03/pubsub-you-get-what-you-pay-for.html/comment-page-1#comment-1282 Steven Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:54:00 +0000 http://www.ideagrove.com/weblog/?p=869#comment-1282 The blog in question (crisismediarelations DOT blogspot DOT com) has been removed from the list, as per Constantins instructions.<br/><br/>Steven The blog in question (crisismediarelations DOT blogspot DOT com) has been removed from the list, as per Constantins instructions.

Steven

]]> By: Ike http://www.ideagrove.com/blog/2006/03/pubsub-you-get-what-you-pay-for.html/comment-page-1#comment-1279 Ike Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:45:00 +0000 http://www.ideagrove.com/weblog/?p=869#comment-1279 Constantin, there is no problem between us, nor do I have a beef with Steven.<br/><br/>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.<br/><br/>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.<br/><br/>Please don't take my comments as trashing the system. Neither you nor Steven have misrepresented the resource to me at all.<br/><br/>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.<br/><br/>We're cool... 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…

]]> By: SB http://www.ideagrove.com/blog/2006/03/pubsub-you-get-what-you-pay-for.html/comment-page-1#comment-1280 SB Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:45:00 +0000 http://www.ideagrove.com/weblog/?p=869#comment-1280 I really appreciate what you've done, Constantin, and your reasons for doing it. You've helped out PR bloggers tremendously.<br/><br/>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. 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.

]]> By: Constantin Basturea http://www.ideagrove.com/blog/2006/03/pubsub-you-get-what-you-pay-for.html/comment-page-1#comment-1278 Constantin Basturea Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:22:00 +0000 http://www.ideagrove.com/weblog/?p=869#comment-1278 <em>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?</em><br/><br/>Scott, I'm unhappy too about this problems - and I think Steven has explained what is causing them. <br/><br/>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 <a HREF="http://www.bloglines.com/public/prblogs" REL="nofollow">hierarchical lists</a>, or don't necessarily want to play with <a HREF="http://www.bloglines.com/export?id=prblogs" REL="nofollow">OPML files</a>.<br/><br/>The list -for me- is not about rankings, or influence; in fact, when the list was launched, I posted about <a HREF="http://blog.basturea.com/archives/2005/11/07/pubsub-pr-community-list/" REL="nofollow">what the list isn't</a>:<br/><br/><em>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.<br/><br/>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”.<br/><br/>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).<br/><br/>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.</em> 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.

]]>