December 4, 2005

Amba gets a link from Pajamas Media.

Care to guess what that does to her Site Meter? Yeah, there it is, posing under the letters "osm.org." Amba checks out the Pajamas website for the first time and has the same reaction she had a while back when she took one look at a new store in her neighborhood, the one selling all the "choo-choo trains and monkeys and little boys and girls, all in that same bland, Scandinavian-Polish style."

15 comments:

DEC said...

Numbers seldom lie.

Aaron said...

I don't know. If she had been more of a whore in her review it might have blasted her numbers up and even gotten her a mention on wikipedia.

Ann Althouse said...

The interesting thing here is really that you can infer PJM isn't drawing much traffic. They don't have a Site Meter, but Amba does. The traffic she got from the link is the kind of traffic you'd get from a link from a blog with less than 1000 visitors a day.

Lou Minatti said...

I just don't have the heart to be snarky at this point. A lot of hard feelings were drummed up over this. This sucks because 99% of your readers enjoy reading all of the players involved.

reader_iam said...

Interesting ...

Listen, I think Amba may really be on to something here.

Maybe she--or you?--or somebody should sponsor some kind of gimmick in which those blogs who do get linked to OSM in someway can voluntarily track their traffic and punch in the numbers. Obviously, it would be better if some sort of point of reference was given, but that's not really necessary, I don't think.

It would be EXTREMELY interesting to see how widespread her experience is , don't you think?

(Of course, for "multicellulars" like me, I suspect the number of hits she got would be very welcome, but that's not the point.)

reader_iam said...

Slightly OT:

And, pray tell, if you know--inquiring minds want to know--what is it about the blogging/the web/the internet scene that spawns such terms as "link slut" and "link whore"? I mean, why not "link pimping," for instance (or maybe I just haven't come across that one yet--should Google it)?

Is the fact that we're using terms that in other arenas mostly refer to females related to that whole "the-blogosphere-is-mostly male" thing???

(And, yes, I do know that link slut/link whore are used in an equal opportunity way--it's just the genesis of terminology that's interesting me.)

reader_iam said...

Um. Gee. In the time it took me to post comments here and a couple of other places, I apparently turned into a "worm". Just to correct the record.

Ann Althouse said...

Lou: What's your point? The notion that we shouldn't talk about Pajamas, a huge elephant in the middle of the room, is absurd. If you're afraid of them, take heart. The point of this post is that their linking power is totally inconsequential. Buck up, old man.

amba said...

In the comments to my post, if I'm not mistaken, I think there's an allusion to bodily fluids.

Lou Minatti said...

Ann,

What's your point? The notion that we shouldn't talk about Pajamas, a huge elephant in the middle of the room, is absurd. If you're afraid of them, take heart.

I am surely not saying you shouldn't be talking about PJM, considering you have so far been proven 100% right about this venture. Nor am I afraid of talking about any of the involved parties. Like I said, up until recently I have enjoyed reading everyone. You, Roger, Charles, Glenn, the participants at LGF (who unfairly maligned you quite viciously), etc.

That was my point. I have enjoyed reading all of you, and now I feel like there are separate compartments. Ann is over here, and Roger is over here. This sucks, and I'll wager a hunk 'o cash that many agree with me.

I'm just a reader/hit/eyeball/stat and since I have no money involved with this it's probably best if I just shut my gob from now on and watch how it all plays out. But I'll still be reading all of you. :-)

The Mechanical Eye said...

That was my point. I have enjoyed reading all of you, and now I feel like there are separate compartments. Ann is over here, and Roger is over here. This sucks, and I'll wager a hunk 'o cash that many agree with me.

Very true. It undercuts what little there's left of the triumphant, the-future-is-now Wired rhetoric about the Internet being a universal uniter. Now it's all factional, your camp, their camp, "the other side of the blogosphere," old grudges, alliances, spite, etc. It's like an Italian government.

Well, at least Althouse raised the hackles of both LGF and Kos commenters, within a few weeks of each other. There has to be an award for that somewhere.

richard said...

I got a PJ's link for a post on the Harbin water pollution last week. When I get a link from Atrios, my daily traffic can easily hit 10,000. Instapundit once gave me 8,000. A comment in today's Slashdot (a comment!) gave me more than 2000 hits. PJ's gave me at most about 100 hits. I was absolutely amazed. Where's the beef? Is this whole thing a firggin' $7-million mirage?

Ann Althouse said...

Mechanical: The nasty commenters of the left were at Eschaton, not Kos. I had a Kos link in the same period, but it was a serious engagement with the issues around the Alito nomination. The idiotic comments I complained about were at LGF and Eschaton.

As to Roger L. Simon: he compartmentalized himself for me, when he called me on the telephone last August to bully me after I did a short post saying I preferred Blogads to Pajamas. No one has ever made such a bad impression on me in such a short length of time. As a wrote in an email to someone back then, he sounded like a bad actor playing the part of a stereotype of a lawyer, and he made no attempt to disguise the fact that it was all about money. When I tried to talk about other values involved in blogging, he hung up on me.

jim said...

About "he made no attempt to disguise the fact that it was all about the money":

Of all the blogs I used to read over the past couple of years and sometimes still check in on out of amusement, Roger Simon's put the most cookies onto my computer (an extraordinary number), followed by LGF. I stay in the center/center-right part of the 'sphere, so don't know about Kos et al, and perhaps some other center "bloggers" offend worse and I never noticed. Don't know whether Simon's cookie habit has abated or worsened, now that he's An Accidental CEO, but I still "clean up" after visits to any and all mystery novelists' sites out of habit.

Is the Pajamas' portal STILL "osmdotorg"? Embarrassing. I mostly feel bad for the good bloggers, a few of whom deserve book deals and our support, who have been roped into the syndicate as true believers, in hopes of hitting it big as opinion leaders and making real money at something they used to do passionately for relatively little remuneration. Unfortunately, playing The Pajamas Game won't end up helping them; the Ad-Venture will very likely end up becoming an enormous time and cred sinkhole for these members. Smart as they are, they've shown a huge blindspot when it comes to this particularly flawed business concept and principal hawking it, because they're desperately aspirational and in need of something to help them break out. Otherwise savvy thinkers didn't think through or care about how this biz as configured would impact their part of the sphere. And their silence and rationalization over what happened to Dennis the Peasant also makes these few deserving bloggers a lot less so.

Ann, you, Steve H. and a few other writers continue to command our respect in these strange blog days of "Shut up and go along".

Razib said...

i got a link from their front page on on their top stories a few days ago. i was surprised by how little traffic showed up. anyway, i know i got likes than 379 referrals, cuz that is the lowest # for my december referral ranking. i don't think i got more than 100, max. my site usually gets 3,000 uniques per day.