PZ Myers. 2005 Feb 23. Yay! I have a fan club!. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/yay_i_have_a_fan_club/>. Accessed 2008 Dec 01.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Yay! I have a fan club!
Should I be flattered or creeped out? My comments on the recent flareup of the blogger gender wars spurred the gang at Gene Expression to analyze my blogroll for gender bias. I'd thought about doing this myself a while back but geez, you know, I've got an awfully long blogroll, and I update it roughly weekly, and it was more work than I really wanted to do, so it's very nice of them to do it for me. And then they've gone and broken it down by my categories and presented the raw numbers and the percentages and so forth…you know, it really is verging on the obsessive and maybe I should be creeped out.
Anyway, the final tally is that of the 267 sites that were over there to the right on my blogroll, 58% are by men, 21% by women, and 21% "other" (group weblogs and unknown genders). They've got the complete breakdown, blog by blog, on their site (I don't know how good their analysis is, though—they didn't notice that my daughter is female, and have scored Eva's site and Skeptic Sneath as male or neither, to mention a few odd ones I noticed, which all appear to err on the side of masculinity. That damned gender bias is everywhere).
They seem to think my 58% male number is bad news, and that it somehow invalidates my comments, but I'm not sure why—I missed the part where I claimed to be a paragon of gender parity. Yes, the gender ratio could be improved; I'm working on it, and like I say, I tweak the thing practically every week. I also don't have much to which to compare these results. As long as Razib was checking out the authorship of those 267 sites (I'm impressed, I really am), it might have also been good to count up the sexes on some other site's blogroll. Like, say, Gene Expression's (boy, would I have been embarrassed if my blogroll was more sexist than theirs. There's a project for 'em. I won't complain if they take a few days to pack it with more women before counting, even.). Or a random feminist's site, like Feministe's. While I'm sure my blogroll can and will be improved, those numbers in isolation don't quite tell me how bad I am. Am I worse than Kevin Drum or Matt Yglesias?
But really, the bottom line isn't whether someone is free of all biases, since none of us are, but whether one is willing to work to correct those biases. I am. I encourage any blogger, man or woman alike, to send me links to their sites if they think I'd enjoy them—preferably to an rss/xml/atom file, since I build my blogroll from my newsreader's opml file—and if I find it informative or entertaining, I'll add it to the list.
Sorry, gnxp, I've already checked your weblog out, and didn't find it that interesting. Keep working on it! If you want to send me a self-addressed, stamped envelope, though, I will send you an autographed photo.
Posted by PZ Myers on 02/23 at 07:55 AM
Weblogs • Weirdness • 1 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
Weblogs • Weirdness • 1 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
-
While you clearly have a ways to go to work yourself into Feminist Heaven, PZ, I suspect that 21 percent female blogroll might just put you into the top quintile of bloggers as a whole.
- Chris (43% female blogroll)#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 02/23 at 10:35 AM -
My blogroll would be about 90% male. If someone can show me blogs written by women which are as good as Kevin Drum's, or Carl Zimmer's, I'll eagerly add them to my incoming RSS. Good blogs, like the Panda's Thumb, for some reason tend to be predominantly male, like the Panda's Thumb.
#: Posted by on 02/23 at 10:40 AM
-
I related this statistic from LiveJournal yesterday on Kevin Drum's 'Political Animal':
Gender
Are males or females more likely to maintain journals?
* Male: 1935560 (32.8%)
* Female: 3963946 (67.2%)
* Unspecified: 1800470
As you can see, there's more than just blogs out there, and there are a *lot* of females who do write/post/opine online.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 10:47 AM -
Well, if you'd all quit writing about this "science" bullshit, then you'd have more time to discover women bloggers. [snark]
Also, if all it takes to be added to more men's RSS feeds and blogrolls is pulling a paragraph from the NYT and then adding, "but Andrew says X" or "Josh says Y" then I'll get cracking. -
It's always easier to call someone a hypocrite than to refute his arguments. You don't have to pay so much attention to character assassination.
- Alon Levy (no blog, no blogroll...)#: Posted by on 02/23 at 10:49 AM -
Men are from Movable Type, Women are from LiveJournal.
(Boy, does that mean Six Apart is one sharp matchmaker or what?... :=)#: Posted by on 02/23 at 10:56 AM - What does that make us Expression Engine users?
-
What does that make us Expression Engine users?
More evolved life forms?#: Posted by on 02/23 at 11:10 AM - This is ridiculous. Why or why do people on some version of the left eat their own? I'm a feminist and most of the blogs on my blog role are from men and most of the comments are from men. A better exercise would be to go after anti-woman, biologically essentialist, and conservative content.
-
What these buffoons fail to realize is it's not the linking (or lack thereof) that is irritating. It's the claim that women's blogs aren't popular because something is wrong with them, while simultaneously refusing to even consider that something might be wrong with either the yardstick used to measure popularity or the (male) blogger claiming to be interested in inclusivity (while maintaining a low-female blogroll).
Since PZ's never done this (indeed, he has the admirable trait of treating all the people on his blogroll as _people_), to go after him for not having a 50-50 link split misses the point so badly that one must suspect that it is an effort to deflect attention away from the more important question of why liberal "feminist" male bloggers feel the need to paint women as inferior bloggers while claiming neutrality in the first place.
(One can say many things about right-wing male bloggers' relationships with women, but at least they never talk the feminist talk while walking the sexist walk. And they cheerfully admit their biases when called on them, instead of getting mad at other people (women) for daring to point them out.)
...
I'd also like to point out that these Gene folks left out my blog, which would slightly increase your female percentage, PZ. Makes me wonder who else on your blogroll they've failed to notice... and why... -
Good blogs, like the Panda’s Thumb, for some reason tend to be predominantly male, like the Panda’s Thumb.
The lack of female participation on PT is one of our concerns. We're not happy with the fact that we have only one active female author. Our problem is not in finding quality female bloggers, but in finding quality females interesting in addressing creationism in blog format.
There are several good female bloggers who discuss biology, but are for good reason drawn to discuss reproductive biology and reproductive politics.
There are also several good female biologists who combat creationism, but are not involved in doing it over the internet.#: Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on 02/23 at 02:04 PM -
I’d also like to point out that these Gene folks left out my blog, which would slightly increase your female percentage, PZ.
Well, duh. It's called Frogs and Ravens, and everyone knows girls don't like frogs.#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 02/23 at 02:15 PM -
i would be willing to bet money that PZ has a higher percentage of females on his blogroll than we do. i don't care. i normally link to people who comment on the boards, link to us, or request a link (and i'll be honest that i rarely read the blogs i link to). since our core readership is around 10-25% female, i wouldn't be surprised if the proportion of blogs we link to are female in that range (though i don't read more than 6 or so blogs on a regular basis so i don't "hat tip" many people).
i pay for the bandwidth. i own the domain. same with PZ, he should link to who he chooses to, bias shouldn't come into it because every visitor from another blog takes up his bandwidth and he is implicitly paying for their visit. same with every other blog on the blogosphere that's not sponsored by some organization. i don't read political weblogs much, but i have heard now and then that there is a bias against women. i have talked to female bloggers about this perception. perhaps there is bias, but since the blogosphere is decentralized, the only way to change it is blog by blog on a personal basis.
four of us split the duties of parsing PZ's blogroll. on a high speed connection it took about one hour each. so it would probably have taken 4-5 hours for PZ to do his own analysis, basically an afternoon. from then on he could set his own goals and targets if he so chose.
why does it matter what the composition of PZ's blogroll is?
1) he seemed to imply that there is a plentitude of great female bloggers, ergo, any underrepresentation on blogrolls was due to selection bias rather than a reflection of supply. i suspect that depending on the topic of interest it is supply. i'm not single, but several of my co-bloggers are, and we link to interesting women who frequent our comment boards ASAP.
2) the media often pays more attention to the pecadillos of conservative politicians than liberal ones. i think that's fair-conservatives set themselves up as relative moral exemplars because of the principles they espouse and rhetoric they engage in. that doesn't mean they have to be saints, but there is a line they can't cross. similarly, if you are a liberal, and you promote certain values of diversity and inclusion, but by your own actions you aren't inclusive yourself, well perhaps that needs to be pointed out to you.
3) i do not believe PZ is biased in the least against women. i also suspect that covert bias is minimal on his part. i think he links to his intellectual fellow travellers. that's normal. i think conservatives, men, geeks, trekkies women, interior designers, mechanics, musicians, feminists, etc. do the same. if there happen to be more conservatives or men blogging, then you can connect the dots in terms of how large these networks are going to be.
4) we might have made some errors. if you care to correct us, if accuracy matters a great deal to you, our tally is open to your examination. i am sure we made many errors, though i think the general result is probably robust. - p.s. two more things, until the frequency of political posts starting shooting up, i was a fan of PZ's site. and if you look at Truth Laid Bear's Traffic Ranking it seems like PZ is the highest ranked science blog on the list. so who he links to probably does matter more than is typical....
-
Interesting response. I do have two questions, since you seem concerned about this topic. Why PZ? Why _only_ PZ?
It seems to me, that if you were truly interested in addressing the issue of women's representation and popularity in the blogosphere, you'd be doing the same sort of dissection of every blog that posed the "Where are the women bloggers" question, not just the blog of one male blogger who called the whole equation into question. (And I don't think that PZ's gender is irrelevant here; if it's only women complaining, well then they can be dismissed -- if a man complains, well, that means it's not just about the women and their assumed flaws.)
I don't like wearing tinfoil hats (they crinkle!) but it's very tempting to assume that the reason why all or most of the heat and counter-attack is directed to those who challenge those flawed posts, and none to actually considering the merits of the posts themselves, is that the defenders have something at stake in the debate.
Instead of defending the likes of Kevin Drum, Matt Yglesias et al when they post something stupid like this, and dismissing their challengers out of hand, why not look at _both_ sides with equal scrutiny? The only reason I can think of to not do so is because of fear that the critics are right. Or fear of looking stupid oneself. And then the "puzzled" male bloggers would have to (*gasp*) put up or shut up.
So... any plans to look into the validity and blogrolls of the "something must be wrong with the women bloggers" folks?
No? -
It seems to me, that if you were truly interested in addressing the issue of women’s representation and popularity in the blogosphere,
but you see, i'm really not interested in that question. if i was single, i might be far more interested, as when i was single i was eager to get more female readers. i'm not single, and i my readership is already straining my bandwidth, so i'm not keen to diversify beyond what i have now. as for why i focused on PZ
1) his comment was forwarded to me
2) he is the top science blogger in terms from traffic from what i can see
3) if PZ, who unlike drum or yglesias, has taken a rather strident and uncompromising pro-feminist stance several times since the larry summers controversy and now the issue of blogrankings doesn't have a diversified blogroll despite his ostensible lack of bias, then one might question how much bias really comes into play.
4) time is finite, i really don't care that much about this topic, so i'm not going to audit every blog out there. on the other hand, there are people who do care, so perhaps they should take up the torch (*hint*). i've already stated that it took us about 4-5 hours to aduit 267 weblogs. if there are many blogging activists interested in this question, go for it, divying it up you could audit the "big boys" in a few days if you have enough people. as it is, it seems all you have are impressions and NZ bear's ecosystem. does more data hurt? ball's in your court if you think this is a problem (as i said, i don't particularly care much). - oh, and also, i simply wanted to provide a useful link to anyone who get's acccused by PZ of bias in the future. you might or might not think it is a valid talking point, but perhaps it might dampen down the righteous tone....
-
Thank you, razib, for confirming my suspicions.
I _thought_ that this was because you had a bone to pick with PZ for being an outspoken feminist, and a popular* male feminist no less, and not because you actually cared about questions of gender equity.
Very neat, btw, how you tried to deflect my critiques so that it's no longer about you, but about others' failures to do what _you_ implied needed to be done.
Clever -- but not clever enough.
*Popular, ironically enough, as defined by the very ranking system PZ raises questions about. Amusing! - The most interesting thing about this to me is the need to quantify things and then making a judgment based on that (likely) flawed quantification. I think the first posts by Rana and Jodi pretty much explain why I think precentage-of-blog roll is a fallacious factor in determining the feminist support of a blogger.
-
I _thought_ that this was because you had a bone to pick with PZ for being an outspoken feminist, and a popular* male feminist no less, and not because you actually cared about questions of gender equity.
he isn't civil to others. that's a problem. those is glass houses....
The most interesting thing about this to me is the need to quantify things and then making a judgment based on that (likely) flawed quantification.
ok, well then, my impression is that there is no bias in linking on the blogosphere against women. -
by the way, i freely admit that a head count is a very primitive way to figure anything out. that is part of the reason i did it: people tend to rely on head counts to make assessments of bias all the time. that neglects 1) the size of the pool and 2) the weighting of the individuals.
if you want to say that simplistic numerical metrics do not express the nuance and texture of a particular issue, i agree with you. but in public fora where people say there "aren't enough women in IT" or "there aren't enough women in science" it tends to be based on simplistic head counts. -
Ah, but see, razib, you were trying to present yourself as the voice of neutrality and reason when you posted about PZ.
Now you've just admitted it was for some sort of petty revenge. Seems that you've ceded the moral high ground -- if you ever had it in the first place. (So, need some windex for that glass house?)
You're just digging yourself in deeper and deeper, dude.
btw, it's exactly his incivility to fools and sexists that makes this a feminist blog -- not how many bloggers he did or didn't link. See, he understands that women are people, each judged on their own merits, not little numbers to tally up. You could make your entire blogroll 100% female, but that wouldn't turn your blog into a feminist one.
And, duh, that's part of PZ's point: using the ranking system -- and any other numerical rubric devoid of context -- is meaningless. Yes, numbers provide some sort of measuring system, but you have to know who came up with the system, why, and what it actually measures. It's you who thinks links = indication of feminist authenticity, not us or PZ.
So... you've revealed your true colors, while simultaneously proving PZ correct!
Wow! Who knew you'd do the hard work for me? - (Plus, then there's the fact that the data you're basing your claims on is (a)incomplete and (b)flawed. I took a closer look at your categories, and noticed at least five blogs by women you misidentified, and a few missing ones in addition to the ones already noted. (I mean, Cav Lec, home of one of the most outspoken women out there, is "neither"?) So, again -- this isn't about truth or accurate reporting of data; it's about slanting data to make PZ look bad so you can score points with your buddies. It's a shame you're so transparent with your intentions -- and that it took so much time to generate flawed data that misses the point PZ's making. Smarter monkeys, please!)
-
Now you’ve just admitted it was for some sort of petty revenge.
sure, sure, you are correct. as always.... -
So, again — this isn’t about truth or accurate reporting of data; it’s about slanting data to make PZ look bad so you can score points with your buddies.
well, we don't know 99% of the blogs, so we had to make judgements of the names or check their bios. the blog you mention didn't have either, so that's probably why it was placed in "neither."
for there to be a slant that would mean that made errors were made with a particular bias, i suspect the errors cancelled out.
but sure, you are always right, so what do i know. -
I'm glad you think I'm always right. I'm well aware I'm not, but I'm glad you think so.
I suppose that this means I'm right about _you_?
(fyi: Challenging a scientist and science-knowledgeable readers with an unscientific wad of incomplete and inaccurate data points isn't terribly effective.) - how big do you think the error bar is?
-
Oh, and about not being able to identify the author of Cav Lec's gender?
What about "email Dorothea" is so complicated?
As, I said, smarter monkeys, please! -
Generally, bloggers have "About" pages or colophons that say who they are. Some don't, of course, and if it's impossible to determine gender from reading a certain amount of someone's posts then one might have no option but to put them in the "indeterminate" category.
With that said, if one undertakes a research project of some kind, I don't feel it overly presumptious of me to suppose that doing so places a certain obligation upon one to make one's research as accurate as possible, within reason. Given that it took me all of two seconds (most of which was loading time) to locate the necessary information on Rana's about page (it was the "Jill-of-all-trades" bit that clued me in), it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that you should have found and included that information too.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 04:10 PM -
Honestly, I don't care.
My main point was that your data was _irrelevant_ to the issue at hand.
That it is inaccurate as well speaks to your credentials and skills (imperfect) but meaningless data is still meaningless, no matter whether it's perfect or not. Pointing out its inaccuracies also has the delightful rhetorical effect of putting you on the defensive.
So my criticism about your data was meant to undermine your credibility (and I think it has), not support my argument that you've failed to understand PZ's larger point, that you've failed to understand why he made it, and that your failure was in part deliberate, because you weren't serious about presenting an accurate picture in the first place. You wanted to make PZ look bad, and all you've accomplished was to make yourself look foolish.
That you did this with flawed data merely makes the polemical intentions easier to see; those intentions don't disappear if you clean up the data. -
Oh, that "I don't care" was addressed to razib.
(And this gives me the chance to correct my singular verbs for "data" to plural ones. See, I told you I'm not perfect!) -
As was my comment; there were no replies after #25 when I started writing…
#: Posted by on 02/23 at 04:23 PM
-
three final points
1) i assumed there were errors in the data, which is why i made it public.
2) the proportions are shifted in a strong enough direction that the +/- doesn't undermine the general conclusion. most of the errors were probably in the "neither" category, so unless there is a strong bias for females to obscure their gender identity, it shouldn't effect the final conclusion (n which case, if you assign *all* the neithers to females that still leaves in around 58-42 male:female).
3) PZ simply made the claim that nz bear's ecosystem has a biased algorithm. i haven't seen any evidence that he's tried to explore this hypothesis any further. -
Apples and oranges, dear razib. If PZ had made an argument about links as evidence of feminist cred, your stats on his links would be warranted. But he didn't.
If you want to challenge his claims about the ecosystem, you need to provide appropriate countering data. Data that proves the neutrality and accuracy of the ecosystem.
At least if you're serious about this.
As I said, the data you provide is irrelevant to the issues at hand, and all the froth you toss up as to its accuracy is just that -- froth.
(Is it just me or are there not parallels with the ID folks here?) -
Rana has already stated it: you have completely missed the point, and all your effort was wasted and irrelevant. I certainly don't think that the only fair distribution is precisely 50% male and 50% female (or 33% male, 33% female, 33% neither/dunno/both/whatever), or that I met this peculiar ideal that you invented. My criticisms of Drum and others were directed these ossified blogrolls they keep and this unthinking habit of not looking beyond a narrow few top-tier bloggers, and then blinking in surprise that there are these…women… out there.
That I don't meet some arbitrary head-count isn't the issue. The question is whether one is discombobulated by the presence of good, smart, aggressive women or not, or has some preconception that they are less noticeable or less competent or less talented or just plain less. I try not to make that mistake.
Even though you do, though, I'll still stand by my kind offer. Let me know where to send it, and that autographed photo will be in the mail. -
PZ, you're witty as always.
Razib, I'm not completely sure of the point that you're trying to make because your citicism of PZ looks a little unfocused, but I think I get some of it. Incidently, it looks like there is something personal against PZ, (as Rana noted) that is motivating your post (not that there's anything wrong with that
Rana, you're coming off as pedantic by focusing on the minutia and losing the big picture.
I read PZ's post, I read the linked post, and I read PZ's comment over at Kevin's.
PZ I think re: comment #35 you're moving the goal posts. You said none of #35 in your comments at Kevin's blog. Now that may all be well and good and #35 is your final position, but going only on the comments you left at Kevin's you implyed that men are actively biased against women, and that if a women designed ecosystem was established then women would zoom to the top. You said that didn't you?
I think Razib has ample ground to infer that each blogger is responsible for walking the walk, shall we say. By making the charges that you did you opened yourself up to Razib's inquiry. In reading his post, the question I'm left asking is what have you done to insure that women's voices aren't suppressed? According to his research you haven't done enough and you really shouldn't be leveling charges against other bloggers. Now, in #35 you state that they don't maintain their blogrolls, and I'm sure that you have good reason to believe that, but you certainly didn't write that in your comments at Kevin's blog. You can't invalidate Razib's critique by changing the conditions though you can clarify your new position (which, incidently, makes good sense).
As for Razib's second charge about gender parity, while it may sting, I think that there is some truth to it. If it's out of bounds to look at other issues in the Harvard case and we're held back 100% by discriminiation, then all the superfluous conditions that apply to this blogroll tempest shouldn't be considered. Now of course, this misunderstanding can be remedied by applying the same standards to both cases, and it looks like your comment #35 fleshes out your position, but that's only in response to the criticism Razib has directed at you, which true to form, you've handled in a good natured, and humorous way.
Are you on safe ground to be criticizing other bloggers? Apparently, you're not.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 05:32 PM -
Rana, you’re coming off as pedantic by focusing on the minutia and losing the big picture.
I'm glad I came off as pedantic, because that was exactly the effect I was going for.
As for "the big picture" -- this is larger than razib, PZ and Kevin Drum -- and since you yourself don't know that, I don't think you're in a good position to accuse others of focusing on minutiae.
The post Kevin wrote that set off much of this is the latest in a long line of similar posts (a couple by him last year, the rest by other self-proclaimed liberal male political bloggers). In each one, the question is posed as to why female bloggers are falling short of some sort of standard, a standard that typically has limited applicability (either because it is inaccurate, as is the case with the Ecosystem, or because it is a weird idiosyncratic standard, like defining political blogging solely in terms of Atrios-like bulletin posting on federal policy). The poster scratches his head, and decides that the reason must be that there's something wrong with women bloggers. All of this, moreover, is couched in terms of puzzled concern for the well-being of the women in question and the nobility of the poster for even bringing up the issue in the first place. Meanwhile, the poster makes no effort to remedy the "problem" he's identified, even when he acknowledges that solving it does lie at least partly in his power.
Predictably, women bloggers then point out all the holes, presumptions and flawed reasoning inherent in these posts, as well as the failure to act on the principles supposedly underlying them.
Yet the reaction of the original poster and his (almost entirely male) commenters is not a re-evaluation of the original argument, nor do any of these defenders of reason and truth think to apply those standards to the actual post they're defending. Instead, they employ a variety of tactics to dismiss and insult those who protest and challenge. The vast majority of these tactics involve deploying gender stereotypes against women -- we are shrill, bitches, need to get laid, are ugly, are man-haters, are unreasonable, are irrational, etc. -- no matter how polite or civil or reasonable we may originally have been.
This is where PZ's willingness to step in and challenge Kevin's facile assumptions throws a spanner in the works. He's male, and feminist, and known to be one of the more respected scientific bloggers out there. So he has broken ranks, and demonstrated that it's NOT a matter of "the women" being unreasonable and whiny while "the men" are serious and reasonable. It's a matter of a flawed, sexist argument being ignored and defended by people who, because so many are self-professed liberals or progressives, really should know better.
So trying to call out PZ on this for being insufficiently feminist is laughable.
And it demonstrates the exact same dynamic seen time and time in regard to the women blogger question. Instead of going to the instigator of the debate and challenging him, you place all the burden of proof on his critics, while conveniently ignoring the elephant in the room.
By doing so, you immediately call into question any claims you may be making as to your regard for things like fairness, accuracy, honesty, etc.
Thus you demonstrate that you, too, have missed the larger point. -
I appear to be a 'dunno', and that's with it right there in my name.
#: Posted by Feòrag NicBhrìde on 02/23 at 06:04 PM
- Has anyone ever tried the old "identical resumes" trick with blogs? Write identical blogs under different names, and then flog them to, say, all the flippery fish in the ecosystem - I'm not sure how you could do so without people cottoning on and ruining the joke before it's finished but it would be an interesting experiment. This discussion is so old and so tired; it would be nice to have some evidence to disambiguate between people's tendency to directly discount women's voices (selection bias), and the effects of biased algorithms and how the blogosphere works in terms of power-law distributions and systematically maintaining the status quo A-list regardless of who's in it and these putative supply biases and so on.
-
Rana - You forget to throw in the kitchen sink. I know the big picture, and I'm as upset by condescension as you, but that's neither here nor there.
No matter PZ's scientific reputation he wasn't relying on an scientific training when he made his statements. He was 100% political, OK, so let's stop puffing up his ego. He goofed, or to put it more diplomatically, he overstepped in his comments.
He's definitely sounding more reasonable now, but not in the comments that sparked this debate. I challenge you to show me how your portrayal of PZ in this last comment flows from his comments at Kevin's. They don't and you're bolstering PZ.
What I read from this debate is that PZ is being accused of hypocrisy, rather than being insufficiently feminist.
As for your claims about the nature of the debate, well, the debate has shifted, hasn't it? It's not about Kevin's post, it's about PZ's talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Like, I said earlier, I agree with you about the nature of the larger issue and the condescension that gets slapped at us, but this ain't that debate. PZ got cocky or angry at the comments he was reading and hit submit before he thought through what he wanted to say. Come on, female ecosystem programming, no way.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 07:18 PM -
Ah, but you see AmyJ, this _is_ a political issue, and PZ was perfectly correct in treating it as such. If Kevin had been offering his post in the light of scientific inquiry, it would have looked much different, and should have been responded to in kind.
It wasn't. It was profoundly UNscientific, and as such, deserved being called out for pretending that something like the accuracy of the Ecosystem was the real issue, when it wasn't.
This isn't about the Ecosystem, except in that it's low-hanging fruit and I'm not surprised that PZ chose to whack at it.
Therefore, to get mad at PZ for "talking out of both sides of his mouth" is doing the kind of nitpicking you accused me of, and to shift the debate in a direction you feel more comfortable arguing from, not a direct response to my point. That's certainly a valid rhetorical strategy, but don't pretend that the shift hasn't happened. Ditto for claiming that this is about hypocrisy and not about feminism, when it is precisely about feminism (why, if not, were the folks at Gene Expression spending all that time dividing up PZ's blogroll by gender?).
When he talks about biology and evolution and feminism, he does this both in terms of science and in terms of politics. Usually you can tell the difference easily; when he's meeting a scientific argument or making a scientific argument, out come the charts and multicolored diagrams and macro photos of interesting organisms. When he's challenging the arguments of people who claim to be "scientific" when they make what are political arguments in the guise of science, he responds by dissecting their rhetoric and logical fallacies, _not_ by throwing research data at them.
You're expecting a scientific answer to a political question, and in this case it's not appropriate. Because PZ is a scientist, he is qualified to make the distinction; Kevin's post, though it plays at science with its talk about the Ecosystem's ratings, is not scientifically valid. PZ pointed this out, correctly.
Moreover, I repeat my point. If matters of hypocrisy, or accuracy, or feminism are so, so important to all y'all posting indignantly here and at Kevin's blog, why aren't you going after Kevin? If you have, then you have my apologies, but if you haven't, then I reiterate my assertion that this is about trying to delegitimize a feminist voice, not anything about science or logic or the accuracy of PZ's assertions. -
Geez, Louise, you're like a hummingbird, zipping all over the place. Please stop spinning in circles. You wrote that "He’s male, and feminist, and known to be one of the more respected scientific bloggers out there." Now you're writing "this _is_ a political issue, and PZ was perfectly correct in treating it as such." Why bother bringing in PZ's vaunted scientific reputation then? That's what I objected to.
You wrote "to shift the debate in a direction you feel more comfortable arguing from." I'm not shifting the debate - you are. The debate issue is whether Razib was correct to imply that PZ is talking out of both sides of his mouth. That's the issue, not women bloggers. Women bloggers is the issue at Kevin's blog. Look at PZ's post - it's about his fan club.
You wrote "Ditto for claiming that this is about hypocrisy and not about feminism, when it is precisely about feminism"
You're making it clear that you can't hold two thoughts in your mind. Hypocrisy is the issue and the vehicle which displays it is women on the bloglist. That's why Gene Expression wrote their post. Can't you distinguish between these issues?
You wrote: "so important to all y’all posting indignantly here" and I have no clue as to who y'all means. I write for myself, who do y'all write for? You're not by any chance implying that commenters must agree with PZ against Gene Expression every time, no matter if PZ puts his foot in his mouth. Are you? Must I follow in lockstep and join this feud between these two blogs?
You wrote: "the accuracy of PZ’s assertions." Have you actually read his assertions? To put it undiplomatically, they're nutso. Go read them. Not comment #35, which is reasonable, but at Kevin's.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 08:24 PM -
. Because PZ is a scientist, he is qualified to make the distinction; Kevin’s post, though it plays at science with its talk about the Ecosystem’s ratings, is not scientifically valid.
please. one of the major problems with public discourse is people assuming that being a "scientist" means that one can comment with clarity and knowledge about any "scientific" topic. for example, biochemists, like michael behe, don't really have that much more authority talking about the latest developments in evolutionary biology than a lay person. organic chemists can't always communicate with biochemists. astrophysicists might not know much about electron valence shells.
kevin drum, who has a degree in math from cal tech, seems at least as able to comment on network dynamics as PZ, a biologist. - non-trivial correction, drum went to cal tech for two years and majored in math, but transferred to cal state long beach and graduated with journalism.
-
Nice of you to self-correct, razib. There's hope for you yet! ;)
I wasn't arguing that PZ has particular expertise in blog-counting software (though he might -- I don't know). You're the one trying to put that particular spin on that statement.
No, what I was saying is that he can tell the difference between a claim made in a scientific idiom by a scientist and a claim that is not.
Similiarly, I can tell the difference between a historical argument made by a historian and an argument that cites cherry-picked anecdotes from the past in an effort to prove something about the present. One warrants the full-bore challenge with footnotes and citations; the other does not. Sorry to disillusion you, razib, but it's pretty damn obvious to even a laywoman like myself that Kevin's post doesn't fit in the first category when it comes to scientific validity.
You're not trying to argue that are you? -
You’re making it clear that you can’t hold two thoughts in your mind. Hypocrisy is the issue and the vehicle which displays it is women on the bloglist. That’s why Gene Expression wrote their post. Can’t you distinguish between these issues?
Yes. But it appears you can't.
I've very carefully (and patiently) explained that this blogroll percentage thing is some rubric Gene Expression came up with to measure feminist cred. It stems from Kevin's odd little dance in which he notes that women bloggers are not often linked, but refuses to do so himself. You're projecting if you think this applies to PZ, who posted no such thing.
PZ's feminist cred comes from his frequent advocacy of feminist positions, his defense of his colleagues in science who happen to be women, his rejection of those facile bigots who'd like women to be barefoot, pregnant, and, above, all, quiet. It also comes from his refusal to make blanket generalizations about women in an effort to boost his hit count and make himself look all progressive and concerned.
So to hold him to some arbitrary, flawed, outside standard while failing to do so for the person who created that standard in the first place (Kevin) is stupid, and doing so makes you look like a fool with an axe to grind. A person is not a hypocrite if they do not act in ways they never espoused. (Go look it up if you doubt me.)
Again, I ask you, who is so worried about hypocrisy, have you asked Kevin about his? Isn't it *gasp* hypocrital to blast PZ for imagined hypocrisy while failing to challenge Kevin for his real hypocrisy?
Until you do, I can't take your criticisms seriously. In the meantime, I think you should go memorize the definition of "hypocrisy" before you go tossing it around so freely. -
Wait wait wait - "undergraduate degree from Caltech" == "non-trivial license to shoot one's mouth off on all things sciencey"?
BOOYA! -
You win, Rana. It's simply too frustrating trying to keep you on topic. I'm going back to being a lurker for I don't have the stamina, nor interest, in zipping around with you.
Your fawning hagiography of PZ is tiresome, unless this is your preferred debate tactic. But thanks so much for giving me the lowdown on how PZ is our champion. That's terrific, because as a woman it's beyond me to fight for my own beliefs. (end sarcasm)
You wrote: "doing so makes you look like a fool with an axe to grind" and I wonder if this too is something that you throw out when cornerd. First you accuse Razib, and now me. If PZ reads this and comes forth magnanimously and says that he should have chosen his words more carefully at Kevin's blog, are you going to accuse him of also having an axe to grind?
You wrote: "Again, I ask you, who is so worried about hypocrisy, have you asked Kevin about his? Isn’t it *gasp* hypocrital to blast PZ for imagined hypocrisy while failing to challenge Kevin for his real hypocrisy?"
What is it with you and Kevin? This post is about PZ's fan club. PZ is the one who came out blasting, not Kevin. PZ is the one who claimed that the rankings are the result of the bias of the programmer behind the ecosystem. PZ is the one who said that if a woman programmed a similar ecosystem it would result in women being in the top tier of the ecosystem. PZ is the one who wrote that all the issues we face in the workplace are the result of discrimination and he's arguing bias in this blogroll issue. Kevin didn't. PZ deems Kevin's blogroll insufficiently sensitive to women yet doesn't specify what standard would satisfy him. If it's all the result of male bias, then PZ has no excuse not to have half his blogroll being women. It doesn't matter what the population of women bloggers are, nor their expertise, nor other factors - he's made that clear, it's all discrimination. He's being hypocritical by holding Kevin and other bloggers to one standard but not holding himself to the same standard.
But I know that all of this means nothing to you because your mission in life is to diefy PZ and you'll not brook any possibility that PZ overstepped. So, you win, because I'm exasperated with your tactics. Congratulations, and I go back to simply being a reader because this commenting takes way too much time. My mistake.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 09:34 PM -
re: the mentions of Kevin Drum, here's an interesting post I read yesterday:
http://www.chrisnolan.com/archives/000696.html -
Wait wait wait - “undergraduate degree from Caltech” == “non-trivial license to shoot one’s mouth off on all things sciencey”?
well, just like being a developmental biologist gives you creds to talk about networking dynamics. -
well, just like being a developmental biologist gives you creds to talk about networking dynamics.
Being a trained forklift operator gives you sufficient cred to say that Kevin Drum has his head up his ass on this issue.
- Chris (Trained Forklift Operator)#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 02/23 at 10:05 PM -
Yes, Razib, and normally I'd go along with your basic stance - this argument certainly isn't one where science-fu has played a very large role - but if there's this much special status in it for me and not just for our good host, I'm going to have to disagree. Sorry.
If my arguments seem half-baked, it's because you've misread my infallible determination of which situations do and do not merit full-fledged rigorous treatment. Bow to scientists! Bow to scientists now! -
I came out "blasting"? Here's my complete comment from Drum's site:
The ecosystem is managed by a male, using some semi-arbitrary algorithm he cooked up. It favors people who link up in lockstep -- check out some of those sites in the top tier. Most aren't particularly interesting or special, but they do engage in a lot of mutual linkage.
It favors conservatives. It particularly favors unthinking conservatives. It is an extremely poor measure of the diversity of the blogosphere, but does reward same ol', same ol', backslappin', good ol' boy networking.
I guarantee you that if a blog like What She Said! assembled a comparable "ecosystem" using their own algorithm, you'd find a consensus measure of popularity that would be heavily loaded with women and liberals. You're assuming that NZ Bear's biases are not influencing the rankings, and that's simply absurd.
What's the complaint? It's true: NZ Bear's algorithms are clearly simple and not very accurate, and produces a list using some kind of weighting that he picked. It's easily gamed. It is most definitely not an objective measure of relative quality or even popularity.
Anyone could invent a different algorithm that would produce a different list. For instance, design one with an inverse weighting scheme that discounts links from heavily trafficked weblogs; make a number of links from diverse smaller weblogs more valuable in ranking than a few links from those top tier weblogs. That would generate a differently ordered list than one that weights traffic from the big nodes more heavily, or one that doesn't try to weight links. And each model has a perfectly legitimate rationale behind it.
I don't even know why you people are arguing about this. It's obvious. Any time you try to compress a multidimensional measure into a single linear parameter, you've got a zillion different ways to do it and a zillion different ways to skew the results however you want...oh, wait, now I get it. Now I understand why the gnxp crowd objected to my comments. Reification of artifical, abstract simplifications of complexity is your thing. Criticizing arbitrary linear scales is bad for the IQ business.
And sorry, Amy, but you are completely wrong. I am not hold Kevin Drum to a different standard than I hold myself. We all need to work on this stuff; slapping 50% women and 50% men on my blogroll (or Drum's) would not make bias go away, and I have never claimed such a thing. What does help is putting mechanisms in place to think and review. No one should want to be handed a position because of their sex--what's right is that everyone should have an equal chance to be evaluated.
Locking the status quo in place and deluding yourself into thinking that there is an objective justification for it is not a way to correct the problem, and that's what Drum was doing. NZ Bear's "ecosystem" is a simplified construct loaded with implicit biases, not a ruler. -
I hope I'm on your blogroll because my blog is decent, not because I'm female. I think there are more male blogs than female blogs which also skews the results.
I'd hate to see someone analyse my blogroll. I have more men than women on the blogroll.
It's pretty hilarious that people think my blog is written by a guy. Reminds me of the time that some idiots on the Bush2000 list accused me of being transgender.#: Posted by lloydletta on 02/23 at 11:25 PM -
PZ - Just so there's no mistake, I don't frequent Gene Expression, and am a semi-regular reader here, though I haven't really felt strongly enough before to want to comment.
Also, as I wrote earlier, I don't have a problem at all with your later clarifications on this issue, but I felt I needed to disagree with my host, and I had no idea that I would get so under Rana's skin by doing so. My apologies.
My point stands- the ecosystem can be gamed by anyone. It isn't a matter of good old boy tactics, and I reject the charge that a female coded ecosystem would see women dominating the new system. You were simply way over the top, and I particularly found offensive that a women would purposely design a system that hi-lights women's issues and blogs, the implication being that women can't write about issues that appeal to a general audience. If women want to dominate the ecosystem they can do what the boys are doing, whatever works to game the system. Nothing male, or conservative about it. No male bias - that's a cop-out.
Lastly, I find it objectionable that you assume the worst about the coder of the ecosystem and the top blogs, namely that they have a gender bias, and when I read your post this morning and followed all of the links, I discover that your blogroll is no different. Simply the gene expression blog made a better argument in this case.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 11:48 PM -
To determine whether author X is biased in favor of women or not, we need to do the following.
1) Measure the % of women who have blogs in X's subject area
2) Quantify the relative quality of female vs. male blogs (we may use the equality assumption if there is no easy way to do this)
3) Measure the % of blogs in X's blogroll, and compare it with (1) corrected by (2)
E.g., if X writes in an area where 25% of the blogger population is women, and he has 25% of women in his blogroll, then he is not biased: he just reflects the situation in his area. If he has 45% women and 55% men he is again not biased against women, he is actually biased in favor of women. -
PZ said (comment 53):
It’s true: NZ Bear’s algorithms are clearly simple and not very accurate, and produces a list using some kind of weighting that he picked.
NZ Bear doesn't use ANY weighting. You added this idea so that the contention that he inserted some secret nefarious bias would be plausible. Not very scientific, eh? More like a witch hunt, I would say. NZ Bear's algorithm is very simple and transparent, which is why he picked it: It's the number of unique inbound links.
He also ranks by traffic.
YOU are the one that wants to use some complicated weighting system in order to insert your own bias. Why don't you try it? I have a feeling that it won't achieve your objective.#: Posted by David Boxenhorn on 02/24 at 02:58 AM -
There's no such thing as no weighting. Of course he's weighting links: he's giving all of them equal weight. I'm also not proposing any complicated weighting system, and in particular, I'm not accusing anyone of "secret nefarious bias". As I plainly said above, any scheme that tries to put gnxp, pharyngula, and frogs&ravens on a linear scale is going to require assumptions and compromises. And it doesn't matter whether it's done by a conservative or liberal, they'll all have to diddle the numbers somehow.
He ranks by traffic modified by some odd stuff; you have to use sitemeter, which adds another condition to it. Sitemeter has its own weirdnesses. I've got my own network tools here and full access to my apache logs -- sitemeter undercounts inconsistently. You should know that logfile analysis isn't exactly a trivial thing, with lots of different programs out there, and the three I've used all produce different numbers from the very same logfile.
I'm not interested in putting together a ranking service. I wasn't interested enough to count heads in my own blogroll, remember? But you're quite wrong. If I put out a call for submissions to the Pharyngula Blogranking Protocol, I think it's obvious that the population of self-submitters here would be very different from the population if it were done at gnxp or at What She Said. -
Technorati, at this writing, shows 59 sites with inbound links to my blog. TTLB Ecosystem puts that number at 27.
Interestingly enough, the most important link in my Ecosystem ranking is from this site, and I'm not in PZ's blogroll - it (and Technorati) picked up on the "Frequent commenters" link, meaning that I inadvertently gamed both systems to obtain a valuable link from a highly respected blog.
(Is that hagiographical enough, PZ? Amy seems to think Rana's set the bar pretty high.)
One fact that rather leaps out: TTLB includes not a single LiveJournal link to my blog, and there are at least a dozen. I don't know whether this is a fluke, but you need not postulate a deliberate conspiracy on NZ Bear's part to create a huge undercdounting of women: all you need to do is decide for some reason that LiveJournals are not "real blogs" or encounter some technical obstacle to combing them for links. (For whatever reason, LiveJournals are pretty heavily female.)
In any event, the discrepancy between my TTLB total and my Technorati total, indicates that there is something other than straight data collection going on. Clearly more study is needed, preferably done by someone who (unlike me) gives a flying fuck what some neocon says about my blog.#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 02/24 at 09:18 AM -
Hey...you aren't on my blogroll?!?! That shouldn't be.
I took a look and found out why, though: I couldn't find a syndication link. A while back, I reorganized everything to use my newsreader exclusively to maintain the list of blogs I read (it's the most efficient way to scan a long list, and I really do at least skim every blog on the blogroll), which meant you dropped out. If you've got an RSS/XML/RDF/Atom link, send it and you'll be on there right away.
That's another example of unintended biases, by the way. It's also hard to find feeds on LiveJournal sites and on some sites that use non-MT/Typepad/blogspot software. -
My rdf file is here. Thanks, PZ.
#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 02/24 at 09:53 AM
-
My rdf file is here. Thanks, PZ.
#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 02/24 at 09:53 AM
-
Sorry for the posting glitch. First link has a typo. Thought I caught it in time to avoid the post.
#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 02/24 at 09:54 AM
-
PZ (comment 58):
He ranks by traffic modified by some odd stuff; you have to use sitemeter, which adds another condition to it. Sitemeter has its own weirdnesses.
There you go again with your insinuations! NZ Bear uses straight Sitemeter readings. It's true that Sitemeter has its own method of counting visits (since the World Wide Web is stateless, you have no choice but to invent your own method) but it is completely transparent and there is no reason to think it is male biased. Why is your unsubstantiated default assumption that it is male biased? And it seems that it has never occurred to you that NZ Bear used it for no other reason than that it is available!
Your default assumption that he is guilty of bias because he is male, itself reeks of bias. I might as well assume that same about you.#: Posted by David Boxenhorn on 02/24 at 11:36 AM -
Where did I say sitemeter had a male bias? I don't know what biases using sitemeter would incorporate. This is not an insinuation: it's a straight up fact. Using self-selection, using a particular restricted toolset, calculating values in particular ways...all impose biases on an outcome. And it certainly did occur to me that Bear selected it because it was available--that was my assumption. Availability is another factor that imposes a bias. And yes, being male biases things for all of us males, as does being female.
The problem here is obvious. You are reading too much into a word. I say "bias", and I'm thinking about unavoidable factors that influence results. You see me use the word, and you're thinking "Ah, he believes in nefarious, devious schemes calculated to cheat!"
Get over it. Any weird freight like that added to what I've said is your invention, not mine. -
Where did I say sitemeter had a male bias?
Well, Mr. Myers, if you were not talking about male bias, then why are you changing the subject? No one here is interested in discussing random bias.#: Posted by David Boxenhorn on 02/24 at 12:55 PM -
Goodness. So now defending a person against unfair attacks is deifying them? Interesting.
fwiw, AmyJ, I spent this much time here largely because I had a dull day at work, and because it is entertaining to me to force people to reveal their underlying axes that they try to grind. I am also amused by people who accuse others of hypocrisy, bad arguments, inability to understand the situation, and lack of focus while demonstrating those same traits themselves.
You keep accusing me of "flitting" and of misunderstanding things, and so on. Yet you yourself try to make the debate into something it's not (including misreading what PZ meant by "Fan Club" -- hint, he was being sarcastic, and it involved the Gene Expression folks), fail to respond to my challenges on that count, and keep trying to dodge my main point -- it isn't about the blogroll count per se; it's about using inappropriate data to accuse of PZ of hypocrisy while ignoring hypocrisy on the part of the person he challenged. So my posts were (a) establishing context, (b) pointing out the inappropriateness of razib's data, (c) tossing in some additional questions about that data's accuracy for the hell of it, (d) noting that this is not simply about PZ's blogroll but about the larger question of how a blogger demonstrates feminist sympathies, (e) and finally, questioning a person who _claims_ that she's only interested in rooting out hypocrisy -- in a situation where hypocrisy is _not_ present, and while ignoring a situation where it _is_ present.
Shorter version, since you seem to need one (I thought you were smarter than this -- sorry):
Razib accused PZ of hypocrisy, using a standard that PZ himself called into question. His data was not relevant. There are other standards by which to judge whether PZ lives up to espoused feminist values. PZ meets those standards. He is therefore not a hypocrite.
Kevin Drum, who reopened a known can of worms, identified a problem that could be solved by linking to more women. He claimed to be worried about this problem, suggesting that he'd like it to be solved. He then fails (and has failed) to act on his own suggestion, even though it would be a simple thing to do. I'd argue that this makes _him_ a hypocrite, though I'd be willing to yield some ground on this.
Even shorter version: Kevin was probably hypocritical. PZ, who critiqued him, was not. Attempts to apply Kevin's standards in order to prove that PZ's a hypocrite are interesting but not relevant. Attempts to brand PZ a hypocrite while ignoring Kevin's probable hypocrisy are also interesting, but also irrelevant, except in as how they reveal the biases of the accuser.
Is that clear and simple enough for you?
On a related issue: yes, the Ecosystem does not count links and hits reliably. I average around 200 hits a day, according to Sitemeter (which TLB claims to draw from, yet none of that information shows up in the ecosystem's description of my blog, something I've never understood). I know for a fact that I have at least a hundred people linking to me (because they are all on my blogroll; Technorati would claim that I have 218 inbound links from 111 sources, but given that that number never changes, I have doubts as to its accuracy), yet the Ecosystem has my links and linking blogs at about 47.
The Ecosystem may well work for a certain subset of blogs, but it's not reliable across the board. Thus any claims about blogs in general cannot be effectively defended by recourse to the Ecosystem alone. -
For the record (http://www.truthlaidbear.com/EcoFAQ.php):
What links does the TTLB Ecosystem count?
All links from a scanned weblog to any other weblog (i.e., links from a weblog to itself are ignored). This includes links within posts, and 'permanent' links in a weblog's blogroll.
Does the TTLB Ecosystem scan all pages of a weblog?
No, only the front page.
Does the TTLB Ecosystem handle Blogrolling.com blogrolls?
Yes. Even if you are using the Javascript implementation of Blogrolling.com, the Ecosystem is designed to retrieve your blogroll when it scans your weblog.
And if you want to participate in the Sitemeter rankings, you have to make your stats public.
There's nothing mysterious about it. (Technorati is another matter...)#: Posted by David Boxenhorn on 02/24 at 02:59 PM -
It was particularly interesting to me to see how AmyJ interspersed her argument - much of which was well-written and persuasive – with particularly gender-loaded criticism of Rana. "fawning..." "losing the big picture..." "you’re like a hummingbird, zipping all over the place. Please stop spinning in circles."
Contrast this with her beginning comment to PZ, who was her putative target of criticism:
"PZ, you're witty as always."
I'm old enough and have known enough women to not be surprised that some women reserve their real venom for other women, while remaining cordial and professional with men even when they disagree strongly. Still, it was amusing to me to see a new variation on the sixth contributor to this hypothetical blog post.#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 02/24 at 05:58 PM -
While it is silly to compare gnxp to PZ's blog (since one is a group blog while the other is sole proprietor), i do have some statistics.
From my MBTI poll last month, gnxp has a solid 26% XX commentor/readership. Of the total 72 teammembers with posting accounts 8 are XX, or 1/9. Of the last 15 entries, including the tributary scifi blog, three are by XX authors. Given the proclivity of my sex to be mouthy, I think this is accurate.
Chris Clarke: You speak truth. On a recent visit to Drum's site I was nic-jacked, told i must be attractive to be so well treated by the XY, and called the "Uncle Tom of the Women" by "Nancy".#: Posted by jinnderella on 02/24 at 11:02 PM -
David -- thanks for posting that quote. I do have some questions, still, especially about this part: "What links does the TTLB Ecosystem count? All links from a scanned weblog to any other weblog..."
This is odd, because it implies that ranking is determined not by who links TO a blog, but by how many links _originate_ from the ranked blog. If so, it's not an indicator of popularity so much as of one's fondness for outlinking.
Even if we interpret this as a statement that ranking is determined by iincoming links, there's a problem with that assertion that links from _any_ other weblog are counted. This, in my own case, is patently false. What it probably should say is "All links to a scanned weblog from any other _scanned_ weblog." That is, the Ecosystem does list blogs that link to me that are already in the Ecosyste (but, again, not all of them) and it doesn't notice many that I know for a fact have linked to me (because I've seen their blogrolls).
Moreover, it is inconsistent in counting the number of links I get from any particular blog. If a blog links to me twice, shouldn't both links count? If not, shouldn't it then be one link per blog for all blogs? But that's not what's going on. Some blogs count only as one link, even though they've linked to me more than once, while others' multiple links _are_ all counted.
All of these discrepancies make me less inclined to trust the Ecosystem as a yardstick for blog popularity in light of that quoted explanation , not more.
(It may be, in part, to a problem handling blogroll links vs. in-post links. Maybe.) - Chris, I noticed that gendered rhetorical dynamic too. Believe you me, I was trying very hard not to use gendered dismissive language in my own responses to her. (It was tempting, I admit!)
-
This just in (via Sean): ranking blogs based on the number of incoming links may in fact produce a ranking that favors conservative blogs.
#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 03/11 at 04:48 PM
-
I notice that they specifically show that there are different ranking schemes that generate different arrangements of the top-ranked weblogs.
I am vindicated. -
Rana - Notice that the TTLB Ecosystem is run by one N.Z. Bear, himself a Republican or Republican-sympathizer. This suggests one of three possibilities:
(a) the TTLB ecosystem can be expected to match the Republican blogosphere linking system already in place;
(b) Republican bloggers have figured out how to game the TTLB ecosystem, even though it's neutral; or
(c) the Republican Noise Machine's pre-blog habit of promoting young talent and crosslinking to create the echo chamber applies naturally to blogspace and coincidentally games a sstem which ranks blogs by inbound links.
Of the three, I think it's mostly (c), with a bit of (b). If N.Z. Bear set up a system to match the Republican interlink/echo chamber habit, but allowed anyone to register (which is the case insofar as I can tell), it should be gameable if the left were willing to game it. Same with Technorati, which absolutely does not seem to be Republican-run. This general critique applies to the left generally, not just blogspace.#: Posted by paperwight on 03/11 at 05:44 PM -
Tonight on the Thread That Would Not Die: Bloggers game TTLB Ecosystem. Film at 11.
#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 03/21 at 07:25 PM
- This is absolutely no surprise. In some sense, we all game the "ecosystem": anything where we automate linkage, a blogroll, a header, whatever, it's all feeding into the link-counting protocol. Weblogs that put up links on the main page to referrers, commenters, trackbacks, etc. all amplify input to NZ Bear's system. That's why I was incredulous that people actually thought it remarkable of me to point out that the ecosystem codified bias. Of course it does.