In Which I Continue to Live in the Shadow of Others’ Fame

Some of the stats for this blog:

Sigh…

Many people have asked me for advice about blogging. Here’s the best I can think of: Name your blog “Emma Watson Richard Dawkins”. It is sure to drive traffic up. If you do this, be sure to link back to me to share the traffic love, uckles?

Advertisements

12 responses to this post.

  1. what’s wrong with people thinking you’re Richard Dawkins’ secret love child?

  2. hehehehe… It is just funny. What the hell is their obsession with Emma Watson/Richard Dawkins? Still, funny that people should come to this blog thanks to that entry.

  3. I had a similar episode for a few months wherein most of my traffic was from people doing a googleimage search for “dead tiger”. Nice, eh?

    Currently the top search term seems to be “anarchy” for some reason. Better than its predecessor anyway.

  4. Posted by Skep on September 27, 2008 at 9:32 am

    [sigh] – yes, something I raised back in August. This is the issue that I think really should be addressed by people who claim that their blog is popular ‘x=average traffic!’ and that they’re really ‘getting the message out about skepticism/young women/minority/atheism/elephants!’

    Because you really can’t say that, when the message appears to be primarily drawn upon how much ‘hot dead tiger’ you have. 😦 😦

    I think I mentioned a possible survey, talking to your target audience directly, all of that. But I seem to be ‘just a party-pooper’ when I mention strategies and addressing the real-world problem of ‘how do you know you’re really having an impact beyond a pre-existing group who might be the wrong age, gender and maybe even not online for much longer than a glance (no tiger? What a waste of a click).

    Guess the only suggestion I have left is use your recent opportunity to speak to your public as a chance to mention your work and ask those after your presentation who are readers as to what draws them to it or what they would like more of? And approach those who are not subscribers and what would they want.

    Hopefully not ‘dead tiger’ or ‘popular actress becomes wiccan atheist and so burn books by JK Rowling’.

  5. Oi, Skep. If you have any real point to make know where to make them.

    This is my personal blog. It’s where I come instead of screaming and throwing things if I’m angry, with the occasional under-developed deep thought or two. At best it’s aimed at sharing some of my ideas.

    This blog is not Teen Skepchick.

    This blog is.

    You are welcome to make comments there whenever we make a post which you feel will be detrimental to the goal of getting young girls interested in skepticism and helping them understand what skepticism is.

    We are planning a series of “back to the basics” posts on basic precepts of critical thinking which may or may not count as an idea of how we’re going to do what we’re trying to do to you.

    But look, I make a post about search engine terms that my blog is getting and you suddenly go off about how therefore the only thing we’re doing on Teen Skepchick is repeating the words “Emma Watson Richard Dawkins” or “dead tiger” to get traffic? The fact that such a comment isn’t being made on the blog you are criticising for lack of direction doesn’t do much good for you, methinks.

  6. Posted by podblack on September 29, 2008 at 2:29 am

    “…ou suddenly go off about how therefore the only thing we’re doing on Teen Skepchick is repeating the words “Emma Watson Richard Dawkins” or “dead tiger” to get traffic?”

    Didn’t say that. Not at all.

    I wonder why you’re thinking that, perhaps you should read it again… really doesn’t do much for your profile as a critical reader, honestly. :<

    Look carefully at the last part, as I don’t give points to you without constructive elements. Get someone else to read it, who isn’t going to knee-jerk like many unquestioning side-liners who flock around online women as if they’re big bodyguards trying to impress you with their internet testosterone-levels. They might see.

    If you’re going to raise the issue of traffic HERE, expect comments HERE. Otherwise, you’re contradicting yourself, aren’t you?

    In face, why bother writing at ALL anywhere if all you really want are people who nod, pat you on the head, call you (at worse) a good-little-girl-pretending-to-be-a-Dawkins (doesn’t it make you wonder? If they’ll forget all about you when you are less ‘cute’, less of a novelty and more distracted by your schoolwork or do things that detract from their view of you… not a pleasant backlash and one that you might have heard in some feminist literature).

    I don’t treat you as ‘cute’ or even ‘teen’. It’s actually a compliment, surprise!

    Look at it from the view of your harshest critics. Let me know honestly when the overt endorsement of drinking games, the Gregory Walsh interview where it is claimed to be inevitable that skepticism will lead to atheism and whether ANY significant evidence beyond under 30% female readers, as said in the New York Skeptics lecture – that you’re not just talking to primarily male audience of an older age. And whether you know that isn’t being echoed here. Or in any of your efforts?

    I think you’re already making the steps that you can’t even admit yourself – you ARE posting up evidence on how you don’t seem to be making much of a change in traffic (let alone ignoring that teen-girls really shouldn’t be emulating drinking games, all-night partying at a conferences, overt sexual calendars – your teachers seen the site?) … really doesn’t do much good for you, methinks, unless you address that seriously too.

    And yes, naval-gazing, self-reflective claims that don’t focus on what your blog/s are meant to achieve your goal/s (really – ‘back to the basics’ WILL make that change? You’ve talked to young women? Teachers? Gone to their preferred sites and seen how to draw them over?) – you’ve already started to question.

    I do wonder if you are that afraid of being questioned that you cannot respond without jokes, your fans leaping onto flame or even be unable to read the constructive elements.

    In the end, you can ignore, have seriously warped-male fans abuse people who ask ‘are you sure?’, misconstrue my meaning and ignore the whole comment if you wish.

    But I say again for one more time. Start thinking. Start thinking that perhaps the stereotype is going to be so much harder to ignore when you build it up on shaky ground.

    And yes, there is a lack of direction that any site can have, when there isn’t a solid base to begin with, that genuinely reflects what you claim you want. Your traffic is indicating that. And you posted it yourself, didn’t you?

    Maybe there’s hope in the end if you are starting to reflect on what your site is showing you’re achieving.

    You might even look at research, talk to teachers about what is involved in the basics of advertising, education, target audience, what sites are popular, whether a blog in itself is the best medium after all – let’s face it, you are presenting a speech, aren’t you? Is that a better use of your time in terms of a target audience?

    Or maybe you’re just ‘cute’ in a minority group, a fish in a little pond. :< Either way, I can see I got you thinking. Maybe not READING – but thinking.

    Funny, maybe I’m not so ‘dumb troll’ after all.

  7. First of all, maybe you should criticise the blog you are talking about… on that blog.
    Secondly, it’s not like I have never reflected on this at all. We talk about Teen Skepchick all the time in Skype conferences. We pass along ideas for flyers and the like. Start groups on social networking sites. Etc. Just because you don’t see us doing it doesn’t mean we aren’t doing it.
    Out of curiosity, how many posts on Teen Skepchick have you read?

    Because you really can’t say that, when the message appears to be primarily drawn upon how much ‘hot dead tiger’ you have.

    If you’re going to raise the issue of traffic HERE, expect comments HERE. Otherwise, you’re contradicting yourself, aren’t you?

    No. This post wasn’t about traffic. It most certainly wasn’t about the traffic for Teen Skepchick. I honestly have no idea how many views Teen Skepchick is getting. Ask Rebecca Watson.

    In face, why bother writing at ALL anywhere if all you really want are people who nod, [ad hom removed]

    If that were the case why would I bother leaving comments on so that you can tell me that I’m not so cute? Of course, I don’t see how cuteness has anything to do with this. Have I done a post recently involving me calling myself “cute”?

    Let me know honestly when the overt endorsement of drinking games, the Gregory Walsh interview where it is claimed to be inevitable that skepticism will lead to atheism

    I think you’re already making the steps that you can’t even admit yourself – you ARE posting up evidence on how you don’t seem to be making much of a change in traffic (let alone ignoring that teen-girls really shouldn’t be emulating drinking games, all-night partying at a conferences, overt sexual calendars – your teachers seen the site?) … really doesn’t do much good for you, methinks, unless you address that seriously too.

    Because, you know… Teen Skepchick has loads of posts about drinking, and partying.

    As a matter of fact I did show the blog to a lot of my high school friends (both girls and boys) when it started out, and before you started commenting, particularly trying to show it to the ones who were theists to see what reaction I’d get from them. It was positive feedback, but the boys thought some of the topics didn’t relate to them enough. Of course, teens aren’t great with constructive criticism… neither are most people.

    and whether ANY significant evidence beyond under 30% female readers, as said in the New York Skeptics lecture – that you’re not just talking to primarily male audience of an older age. And whether you know that isn’t being echoed here. Or in any of your efforts?

    We haven’t made the claim yet that we have over 30% female readers, we are a new blog. I have heard from loads of parents of young girls, though. Do I have statistics? No. Do I think it’s worth bothering to get statistics for this when we’re just a few months old? I think probably not. Maybe after our first year we’ll do a poll to get some demographics so you can be content.

    As for whether or not telling me that I’m not cute got me thinking… eh… not really… How cute I am is not something I usually think about. “Cute” is not a term I use to describe myself. I use cute for kittens and bunnies.

  8. Posted by skous on September 29, 2008 at 3:58 am

    Jeez, Kylie. Lighten up. Don’t go after Elles because of her association with Skepchick.

    Tim Farley will be sad, though. I think he thought that giant messages based on little information was a gift reserved for just him.

    Anyway, before you bust on Elles for her audience (or, say, create a logical fallacy about Skepchick readers in general because of a third-hand report about the demographics at one NY Skeptics meeting), maybe you should look at your own house. I just now checked out podblack.com, and counted the number of comments on the posts on the first page. Here’s the data:

    # posts: nine

    Number of comments (total): four

    Number of comments from podblack: two

    Just a suggestion, but you might be the wrong person to be cracking on anyone about audience.

    (Okay, back to Elles! Goodnight all!)

  9. Posted by Rev. Reed Braden on September 29, 2008 at 6:49 am

    Nope, podblack, I think you’re just a dumb troll. You’re just a dumb troll who writes really long (tl;dr) comments.

  10. Kylie, you should be ashamed of yourself.
    If you have an issue with Skepchick (and we all know that you do), then you should bring it up there.

    Going after the youngest member of the team is just…well, sad, pathetic, and very very creepy.

    Elles is perfectly capable of defending herself, and has done so handily here. But she shouldn’t *have* to defend herself here.
    I assume that you still teach–how would you handle it if some strange woman was working out her past issues with another group with one of the students in your charge?

    I really hope you’ll get help soon.
    And I suggest that Elles just put your IP in the moderate list, so she can get on with her PERSONAL blog.

  11. BTW, top search terms at my blog:

    *green frog
    *bird porn
    *crotch lice

    Sigh. I suppose it’s good that at least one of them is insect related…..

  12. The top search term for my blog in the past week:

    *anonymous hackers
    *4chan dramatica
    *anonymous scientology documents

    Oh, well…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: