dagblog - Comments for "The Blurring of the CIA and the military: recent analysis"

Well I thank you for

AmericanDreamer — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:20:24 +0000

Well I thank you for replying. And I hope that you find what you are looking for. I have to think it is out there somewhere on the net and if anyone is capable of finding it, I'd say it's probably you. Best, AD

I'm intrigued by the fact

artappraiser — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:40:23 +0000

In reply to Nice work, artappraiser,

I'm intrigued by the fact that so far you have not chosen to comment in the thread.

I didn't answer you because I wasn't up to getting into it as it regards meta and I really don't wish to discuss it much. I am still hesitant to do so now, but what the heck. I don't want you imagining again that I have some special resentment towards you.

Just so happens I made a quick comment on another thread, by Dickday, around the time it started happening, and the reply to me from someone on that thread really really turned me off. It didn't upset me, it was more like this: wow, last straw, really this place is not for me, how clueless can I be to continually post here--for the most part, the audience is simply not interested in the same things I am, and what I like to do and say actually irritates some of them. And there was another reply from one of the proprietors of the site that just struck me dumb as to not being on the same wavelength as my interests and I thought: why continue to participate so much, it's not a good fit, it's just dumb of me.

Before that I was planning on making a "WTF?!" comment here on this thread, but by the time I came back, it was clear that the hits were coming from bots of some kind.

It's not at all a case of this thread going "viral" as you put it in your query to me on another thread. If you look at the " tracking" tab on this thread, you can see it's repeated IP addresses. So it really has nothing to do with me, it probably has something to do with some of the links or keywords. (Aside to David Seaton: if you ever come back to this thread: sheesh when are you going to learn that hit counters are not the same thing as number of readers?)

Subsequently when lurking, I saw that there is 0% interest by others in posting or discussing the kind of info. that interests me and without other input, it just reverts once again to very much being another "angry outrage at Obama vs. his defenders" site.*

I don't really find it useful or a wise use of time to read that day-in, day-out for months on end. Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge others who have a passion for spending their time that way, it's just not for me most of the time. It's the same discussions over and over and over and over. Mildly interesting if someone with some savvy introduces a new twist on the same old, but still mildly interesting. I also happen to find it very damaging to an understanding of what's going on in the world to skew one's news reading so heavily that way; it's like listening to a political spinner whispering in your ear 24/7 and tinting everything a certain color.

It's funny, I really would find it far more interesting to see someone with the knowledge necessary (I don't have it, Genghis?) dig into and investigate the reason for the enormous number of bot hits on this thread and why they happened (especially as there is the possibility that it might have to do with the intel agencies,) than read yet another thread of opinions about Obama or the tea partiers. But clearly the two latter topics are the main ones people want to talk about here. I find it a bit more tolerable right now partly because some of the more passionate are on hiatus and the more analytic are more prominent. But that doesn't really change the part about the audience having clear preferences here.

*Except Donal, of course, who happens to be passionate about another topic that only mildy interests me--green energy--and one that doesn't interest me at all--tennis. Then there's those basketball posts in season (not just yawn how about active dislike)....

Nice work, artappraiser,

AmericanDreamer — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:46:22 +0000

In reply to The Blurring of the CIA and the military: recent analysis

Nice work, artappraiser, regardless of the reasons for the huge number of hits. Even if some or many of them do not reflect individual humans reading the post, obviously many of them reflect just that. What you wrote about is a very good and important topic and you added a lot of value for folks thinking about these issues by pulling together the information you did.

What do you make of the extraordinary number of hits for the post? Are you surprised? How do you feel--any different? I'm intrigued by the fact that so far you have not chosen to comment in the thread.

So.... what are you saying,

quinn esq — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:35:11 +0000

In reply to All the agent ip addresses

So.... what are you saying, Genghis? You don't understand why ArtA is being hit on so repeatedly?

Man, that is some kind of obnoxious.

Sounds to me like someone's getting a little threatened, with is reigning hit champion "Who Hijacked Yahoo" only at 88,299... and ArtA's little gem closing fast.

This site just get crueller and cruller.

Mmmmmm..... cruller.

Where was I again?

All the agent ip addresses

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:13:32 +0000

In reply to I was wondering if they were

All the agent ip addresses are from google. One forum user suggested:

One your competitor or potential advertiser was extracting keywords from your site using a Google tool:
https://adwords.google.com/select/KeywordToolExternal (AdWords)

http://www.google.com/sktool/

I ran a test search from the AdWords and confirmed that the ip was indeed the same as one of the ones that targeted this blog: 64.233.172.1

Of course, when you manually use the tool, it only generates a single hit. Some software app must be using the tool to hit the site repeatedly. I surmise that it's some search engine marketing app that's trying to calculate keyword value, but I still don't see why it would do so repeatedly.

It is always fun to see the

David Seaton — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:55:05 +0000

In reply to So you do write for hits! I

It is always fun to see the numbers mount... just a rush. Also, it means that Google treats you in a different way if many people link to you. And Art's post is about a definite subject, not a search engine fly trap.... it will be interesting if this effects the ratings of Dagblog (all the rest of us)

Shoot, you can probably get

we are stardust — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:47:32 +0000

In reply to I think we all like some

Shoot, you can probably get hits just based on the title of a piece. Many sites don't even display reads or hits; I've never noticed that My.fdl does. The number of hits, IMO, is the blogging equivalent of a drug. Comments are the food; the only way you learn from readers. Guess it must depend what a writer's purpose for blogging is.

I think we all like some

Donal — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:09:49 +0000

In reply to So you do write for hits! I

I think we all like some feedback that a piece is successful, meaning that it is being read. I don't think hits are the perfect measurement, because who knows if people actually read or just scan two lines and move on. But hits and comments are all we have.

So you do write for hits! I

we are stardust — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:03:43 +0000

In reply to Last Count: 51556 readsArt,

So you do write for hits! I remember some here suggesting that, and didn't quite get the drift. Dunno what it gets you unless you sell ad space.

Last Count: 51556 readsArt,

David Seaton — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 06:43:37 +0000

In reply to The Blurring of the CIA and the military: recent analysis

Last Count: 51556 reads

Art, bubba, you have hit a homerun, with a series of quotes... I am eating my liver out.