My Blog Got Reviewed, Holy Mackerel!
Some of the things I do when I first rise from my Sleep of the Dead is to check my email and the feeds on Google Reader. Lo and behold, I discovered that HMTKSteve of Ramblings from the Marginalized had written a review of my blog.
I'm not sure I agree with the "psycho" category assessment, but I guess it all depends on the perspective. All in all, I think it was a good review considering I didn't ask for it. There are many metrics that serve as indicators of your popularity with readers. Getting a positive review is one of them.
On another note, I noticed a sharp rise in traffic. Some of it is coming from the review. Some of it is coming from a post I made back in August that someone submitted to digg.
The vast majority of the traffic is coming from Google searches. Did someone open the floodgates? I like to think that I'm pretty observant and I haven't observed anything that would account for so many searches ending up here.
Again, the only honest response to all this that I can give is, "Holy Mackerel!"
Edit: I spoke too soon. Digg traffic has really picked up.
Edit 2: The digg traffic continuously picked up until digg's bury brigade buried it. It doesn't bother me. Diggers suck.
Edit 3: Read this (the comments too): The top 11 things I have learned from Digg. Smite me if you think he's not telling the truth.
Similar Posts:
I control the Google floodgates and have opened them upon you!
Yeah, right Steve. I have a brand new trans-pacific bridge for sale too.
I came over from my own site that has The Good Blogs widget on it. I noticed your headline blurb and wanted to check it out. Very cool site. Congrats on the review and the Google traffic.
Thank you. I just checked out your site. My, you've got a lot of doohickeys over there.
Nice review, headed over here from Steve's site.
I don't use digg, so I can't comment on the suck-factor of users there, but I'm curious whether the post from last August was something you would digg if you saw it elsewhere?
It seems that people are always slagging on the "bury brigade" on digg, but the more I think about it, it only seems to be a complaint when it's the complainers content that's being buried.
I imagine that keeping up with the flood of people begging their friends/readers/listeners to digg them for publicity's-sake would be quite a nightmare at times, and I imagine that burying things does at least as much good on the whole as it does negative to individual users.
I'm kinda halfway with you; digg sucks.
Well, jer, my comment that diggers suck have nothing to do with the bury brigade. I even see your point about the burying part, except that I have witnessed it for many posts that are not my own. Truth is, I wouldn't have dugg that post but I wouldn't have buried it. On digg, burying is for inaccuracy, spam, etc. not because you don't like it.
Diggers suck, period. All you have to do is spend a few hours reading the comments and you will more than likely agree.
I want to expound on the burying part. The burying would be okay if it was a democratic thing. It isn't. It's a bunch of users that are gaming the system. The burying is done to ensure that their submissions make it to the front page. If you see three submissions of the same news at the exact same time, two will get buried. They promote the submissions of their friends by burying, not by digging. Digg has a long way to go before people that have any real sense will trust it as an unbiased news aggregator.
I don't know about the Google floodgates, but he opened the plime ones upon me but good.
Anyway, I came from Steve's site.
Yep. He sicked digg on me today (yesterday, my time). I don't know why and I won't even try to guess.