Publishing 2.0 - Latest Comments in Blog Feeds Have Garbage Subscriber Just Like Magazines

Re: Blog Feeds Have Garbage Subscriber Just Like Magazines

Tom — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:27:13 -0000

But who are we too complain? You write yourself it's an old game played by Magazines and newspapers for decades. Still advertisers advertise in those same magazines, newspapers... so why wouldn't it work for blogs [they pump up their numbers a little, artificially, advertisers advertise on their blogs, people buy the advertising stuff; it's a working cycle]. And now and again a bog will go too far, just like papers get punished sometimes (they can not inflate too much you know; blogs will have to know their limits as well).
As long as advertiser and "publisher" can agree on a price to advertise; nothing is wrong.
It's the market, silly!

Re: Blog Feeds Have Garbage Subscriber Just Like Magazines

Mike — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:56:07 -0000

Not to mention all the blogs that I have subscribed to, that I am actually interested in and that I just don't have time to read.

Re: Blog Feeds Have Garbage Subscriber Just Like Magazines

Hans de Kraker — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 03:01:19 -0000

I would have to agree with KirkB. What use is there for this counter? I am not a fanatic blogger - but am an ardent blog reader. I don't care about counters at all.

Same on Linkedin and people advertising in their username the thousands of contacts they have. What is the purpose other then revving the engine and burning rubber.

The only ones that should pay attention are the marketers and advertisers who are sold eyeballs. Don't mind that role reversal for a change.

Cowboys will get caught out sooner or later.

Cheers

Re: Blog Feeds Have Garbage Subscriber Just Like Magazines

VOTW — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:22:37 -0000

Great...maybe the fact that I don't have a lot of feed readers means that my readers are very serious and use to come directly to my blog......or maybe nobody cares about my blog.

Re: Blog Feeds Have Garbage Subscriber Just Like Magazines

Online Market Research Company — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:31:32 -0000

Perhaps, Google has solution for it, as they have only allowed people in given news to comments rather than opening up to everybody.

Re: Blog Feeds Have Garbage Subscriber Just Like Magazines

Pedro de Souza — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:14:43 -0000

It's impossible to read everyday all the posts in all the blogs we subscribed. First lesson for bloggers should be: write just what is important, don't write for wriiting, your blog will join the trash bin. Lack of space is a plus of tradicional media.

Re: Blog Feeds Have Garbage Subscriber Just Like Magazines

Scott Lawton (Blogcosm) — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:00:31 -0000

@Scott Karp,

As an aside: the reason I'm pushing back is because I have high standards for "blog journalism", and I think you (and Pete) do too.

Proactively getting your blog added to a default feed list is a different matter entirely

I disagree, but in any case: with zero evidence that any of the 91 blogs did so, where's the "scathing expose"?

Re: Blog Feeds Have Garbage Subscriber Just Like Magazines

battery acer — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:56:44 -0000

I can't agree more.
The practice is especially rife in e-newsletters - publishers has software to track how many people are opening emails - but they report how many are sent out.

Re: Blog Feeds Have Garbage Subscriber Just Like Magazines

Scott Karp — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:30:00 -0000

@Scott Lawton,

You're right that all these third-party data sources are flawed -- but sitemeter, for example, miscounts everyone in the same way. Proactively getting your blog added to a default feed list is a different matter entirely -- sure, a small percentage of default subscribers may convert to real subscribers. Some people scammed into subscribing to magazines end up subscribing. That proves nothing.

There may not be any true "scandals" yet, but Pete's data shows how slippery the slope is. Taking subscribers in bulk from third-parties is what got magazines and newspapers in a heap of trouble. That comparison to blog feeds is just to striking to ignore.

Re: Blog Feeds Have Garbage Subscriber Just Like Magazines

Scott Lawton (Blogcosm) — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:22:55 -0000

@Scott Karp: thanks for engaging; that's one of many reasons I love blogs.

So, if I know my (page views) are inflated by (undeclared robots) and I provide Sitemeter stats to advertisers ....

So, if I know that the Technorati 100 counts all sorts of things that aren't links in posts ...

Er, no, I don't think that providing objective (if flawed) third-party data (or internal server logs) is "pumping up". Every data source has flaws, including the ones that companies pay big bucks for.

Nor would I fault a blogger for trying to get on a default list, not least because some of the "incidental" subscribers will become real readers and commenters.

Pete did a great service by finding some very specific problems with a small number of blogs. I won't be surprised when I see genuine scandals around bloggers who cross very bright lines in order to artificially boost their numbers. But neither you have provided any such evidence.

Re: Blog Feeds Have Garbage Subscriber Just Like Magazines

Scott Karp — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:40:59 -0000

@Scott Lawton,

So if I know my subscriber numbers are inflated by my feed being on default feed lists, and I display my Feedburner feed count without any caveats or footnotes, then I'm not really "pumping up" my numbers, right?

Right.

Re: Blog Feeds Have Garbage Subscriber Just Like Magazines

Scott Lawton (Blogcosm) — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:24:21 -0000

scathing expose on how blogs can pump up their feed subscribers by getting on feed reader services’ default feed list

Er, what evidence did Mashable include that blogs intentionally "pumped up" their numbers?

Pete gathered some great data on what appear to be Google errors, but drew lousy conclusions.

Re: Blog Feeds Have Garbage Subscriber Just Like Magazines

free market research tool — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:55:19 -0000

I think Google has solution for it , where it only allows people in news to comment. Perhaps that is the solution?

Re: Blog Feeds Have Garbage Subscriber Just Like Magazines

Doug Cress — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:30:27 -0000

As one who works in new and traditional media...

Inflating readership is the status quo in both mediums. If you don't fudge your numbers, you're fighting on an uneven plane.

The practice is especially rife in e-newsletters - publishers has software to track how many people are opening emails - but they report how many are sent out.

Re: Blog Feeds Have Garbage Subscriber Just Like Magazines

vince bank — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:06:05 -0000

Great post Scott: I was in newspapers and was knee-deep, daily, in circulation wars and the trash that comes with that game.

I hope bloggers can steer clear of this but as you point out, many of us will learn the hard way.

Re: Blog Feeds Have Garbage Subscriber Just Like Magazines

Trudy W. Schuett — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:24:37 -0000

I work in a library, and we routinely get two or even three copies of some publications when we've only subscribed to one. We know what they're up to, and our patrons don't complain because we give away the extra copies.

I've often wondered though, why it is major national publications would sink to this kind of quite-obvious fudging of their circulation numbers. Don't they think their subscribers notice?

Re: Blog Feeds Have Garbage Subscriber Just Like Magazines

jonathan — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:16:51 -0000

does compete count visits from rss readers
http://siteanalytics.compet...

Re: Blog Feeds Have Garbage Subscriber Just Like Magazines

bernard lunn — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 07:13:34 -0000

Scott, your post is very timely. I know a couple of "people formerly known as Bloggers" who are wrestling with these issues.

Re: Blog Feeds Have Garbage Subscriber Just Like Magazines

allen stern — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 03:42:56 -0000

Great points Scott! We had the same issue with Sunday coupon runs - this was with newspapers not mags but the same issue nonetheless!