Thursday, February 05, 2009

Scotland Minister has popular blog!

Did you know the Secretary of State for Scotland Jim Murphy has a blog? I didn't. It's amazingly popular too, why only last month it received a massive 5142 impressions. Factor in image loading and the like and you have a high traffic blog of mega proportions to be sure.*
* this is called sarcasm in case you didn't notice.

12 comments:

Roger Pearse said...

Don't sneer -- encourage them to do this.

big dave said...

well that is a lot compared to draper's labourlast

Anonymous said...

Sorry Dizzy, but without wishing to criticise can I remind you of your comments in January:

"Oh yes, and please stop throwing around figures like "thousands". They don't impress me, they don't make you big and special. No one is their traffic count. It's like the sad little online forum member who has the highest post count and thus thinks they are special because of it. It's largely meaningless.

Does the 25,000+ monthly readership of this site make me special? No. Do the 250,000+ absolute unique visitors in the last 12 months put me in an elevated position of authority? No. I'm just a bloke with a website that can happily walk along the street without being recognised because I'm still nobody. That's called being a "real" person Derek. It's great, you should try it some time."

http://dizzythinks.net/2009/01/fisking-dolly.html

dizzy said...

Err and that has to do with me taking the piss out of the traffic stats for a publicly funded website how exactly?

Anonymous said...

"No one is their traffic count."

Or did I miss the clause that said, but that doesn't count for publicly funded websites?

Your post didn't specify it was taking the piss because it was publicly funded, but solely because it had low traffic

dizzy said...

:rolleyes:

No, I didn't mention I was being deliberately sarcastic.

Anonymous said...

"Factor in image loading and the like and you have a high traffic blog of mega proportions to be sure.*
* this is called sarcasm in case you didn't notice."

Without wishing to sound like Tim Ireland (Oh shit, please no) but this reads like the mega proportions bit was sarcastic.

But, even if not, the fact remains that being sarcastic about a site's low traffic is still...a piss-take ... of a site's traffic.

The phrase; 'big hole and stop digging' are rapidly springing to mind :-)

dizzy said...

Yes, because the title was not sarcastic, nor was the entire tone :rolleyes: Nor is the fact that I have been writing for years about the complete waste of money that the Government spends on websites that no fucker looks at. There is a world of difference between that and a comment about the traffic stats of an independent website.

No spade, no hole. Just an anonymous troll with a sense of humour bypass.

Lord Snooty said...

Ahh, I think I get it. If a blog has more traffic than you, then 'level of traffic is not the point'; if they have less, on the other hand, you can take the piss out of them for it.

Perhaps I've had a sense of humour bypass too. Or perhaps you're a terrible hypocrite. Maybe just this once you could admit to being wrong and leave it at that?

dizzy said...

Ahh, I think I get it. If a blog has more traffic than you, then 'level of traffic is not the point'; if they have less, on the other hand, you can take the piss out of them for it.

If you got it you would realise that the level of traffic on a publicly funded host, that costs the taxpayer money is significant if no one is reading it. The level of traffic on a private independent website however is not really that significant because its no skin off anyone else nose.

Perhaps I've had a sense of humour bypass too. Or perhaps you're a terrible hypocrite.

Or perhaps you're a bit thick and can;t differentiate between private an public spending?

Maybe just this once you could admit to being wrong and leave it at that?

If I was I would, but as you conflating private websites and public websites I'm not.

Lord Snooty said...

Come off it! As another commenter said, you suddenly introduced this public/private distinction halfway through the thread as a way of defending your position. The taxpayer money issue is perhaps interesting but has very little to do with your original post. Anyway, it's no big deal, so I won't post again - I just chipped in because I too thought back to your 'debate' with Draper about traffic counts when I read this and thought you were being a bit of a hypocrite.

dizzy said...

Come off it! As another commenter said, you suddenly introduced this public/private distinction halfway through the thread as a way of defending your position.

Tag and search facilities of archive exist for a reason. The taxpayer has everything to do with my MO and anyone with half a brain that has been reading this blog for a while - as you have - would know that.