So after Scoble and I wrote about Google Reader stats yesterday, all hell broke loose - all the complainers rallied around the notion that the stats are somehow fixed. In particular, some of the feeds are included in bundles that users can add to the reader, jacking up their stats.
First of all, these blogs and other news sites did something interesting to get included in those bundles. Second, the effect is not nearly as great as everyone seems to think. Gizmodo, for example, is included in the technology bundle on Google Reader, but it has just 30,000 subscribers. Competitor Engadget, by contrast, has 345,000. So where did Engadget get those additional 315,000 subscribers? Perhaps they simply earned them.
It wasn’t that long ago that TechCrunch wasn’t on any list at all. We got big by writing about things we care passionately about and linking early and often to good stuff out there on the web, particularly other blogs. If you find yourself in a rut and turning into one of the complainers, ask yourself if you are writing because you want attention, or because you love to write. The ones with passion tend to last over the long haul. If that isn’t you, maybe start writing about something to actually care about. Complaining about not getting attention, or that the success of others isn’t deserved, suggests you have too much time on your hands. Try creating something instead of just tearing others down.
I think the problem is that because “subscribers” used to be a metric that required pretty much the highest level of involvement to even become one, it was about as pure of a measure as engaged consumption as you could get. But now that’s become more a “circulation” stat and less a subscription stat, it means something different. That is not to even say it means less. It’s great to have 1000 active subscribers from a 1000 overall circulation, but at the same time, you might rather have 500 active subscribers from a 50,000 overall circulation. One begats the other in most cases anyway.
This is something I’ve heard you say before, and Ryan Block also said (on a past episode of Digital Cafe, if memory serves) - that you do stuff because you love it and then magically money, fame, readership and link love all fall into your lap. It is insanely naive and misleading to those who aspire to be professional bloggers, writers, and podcasters.
Certainly you need to love it to do it in the first place, elsewise, why not just go do something you like doing better? I think that goes without saying.
Which is why it baffles me why everyone says it as if it’s the solution to becoming a well recognized, respected, (and thusly well-paid) blogger. It’s not!
This reminded me of what I thought was a Lincoln Quote: “You cannot streanghten the weak by weakening the strong.”
But it turns out I would have been misquoting him, if Wikipedia is to be trusted. (I do in this case.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._H._Boetcker
Ok, sorry, I didn’t mean to be so harsh on the reader stats. They’re just NUMBERS. The footbag thing clearly has to be a joke (as I post). But it was a bad call to get a bunch of subscribers for a manager’s site that runs ads.
Sorry
I haven’t made up my mind.
But I made a small cartoon:
http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2007/10/the-final-quest.html
Bye,
Oliver
“Try creating something instead of just tearing others down.”
Is this your way of making a stab at Mashable?
I actually enjoy the writing part of blogging. I have been writing daily, for practice, for over 18 years now. Some people are just impatient because that is not what they are blogging for. They have blogs for money, notoriety, or some other reason, but not writing. I can wait. I waited years to have anyone else read what I have written. I can wait more for traffic and subscribers.
interesting.