WRONG!

Check again Charlie and note your having thanked me for boosting the hits to Russia Blog.

After I answered this person’s questions in a straightforward manner, he/she/they proceeded to obsess over the finer points of Yuri’s education, and demanded that we do all of their Russian language research on Yuri’s CV for them – just as they previously demanded that we delete or rebut any comment they didn’t like posted on Russia Blog.

From the very get-go LR has twisted my words. When I told this person or persons that I couldn’t possibly fact check every single comment, this was distorted into an admission that I don’t fact check posts put up on Russia Blog. Basically, this person attacks our credibility while consistently distorting other people’s statements, all while remaining anonymous.

Let me explain why the arguments about comments and Technorati tags are mostly rubbish – even though we have had far more on average comments per post than LR does (out of all the LR posts currently up that do have comments, I count 5 and 7 as the largest numbers), but then again, he/she/they would just argue that this is because we use “commercial” means to generate traffic – though there is not a single shred of evidencefor this charge, it is admittedly pure speculation on LR’s part. Nonetheless, the main reason arguing about comments is futile is that you could have hundreds per post from two or three people going back and forth (many of Averko and LR’s posts had just these type of controversies) and some people do put like to use sock puppet comments. At any rate, most of the comments in our filter are deleted because they’re generated by spambots, and sometimes real human comments get accidentally deleted. The only comments besides LR’s (under various names) that I have deleted were either obscene, incitements to racial violence, or sock puppets complaining about one particular Russia Blog contributor that were irrelevant to the post.

Even if it were true that more blogs do link to LR, does that mean more people are actually reading LR or were these just links from single digit trafficked blogs no one has read in months? That is why Andy is right to point out that the Technorati stats are mostly meaningless.

Calling DI a “single issue organization” is simply false, considering that so much of the organization’s total budget ($1.3 million) comes from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation-funded Cascadia Center for Regional Development, which not only covers transportation in the Pacific Northwest but has also branched out to energy issues. The conference they sponsored in 2006 at the Microsoft campus included speeches by Senators Sam Brownback, Maria Cantwell, and former CIA Director James Woolsey. DI also has the Technology and Democracy Project with an office in D.C. pushing for telecom reform (basically making it easier to roll out broadband and opposing so-called “net neutrality”).

None of these issues has anything to do with the Center for Science and Culture, and all of my work at DI was for the Real Russia Project, the Cascadia Center, or the Technology and Democracy Project. So all of his/her points are irrelevant or ad hominem, which is par from the course from this person or groups of persons. We have no idea who funds LR or whether it is one or many people, though the timing of his/her/their emails suggests someone based in the UK or Europe.

Kim – that’s a load of old rubbish, and you know it.

Refusal to enter into an argument does no constitute an admission. Not everyone has the time, or the inclination to refute every charge that you throw out. While you may be indefatigable in asking questions, not everyone has the time, or the inclination, to answer them.

And, people also have the right not to answer them without guilt being inferred from their silence.

I think it is not always appropriate to compare sites that generate traffic commercially with those that use more organic growth, and probably have more repeat readers.

However, I haven’t seen anything yet to suggest that Russia Blog actually engages in commercial traffic generation.

I would think it should be relatively simple to establish whether Russia Blog does actually engage in commercial traffic generation – look for adverts.

As for biases, these come from a lot of sources. Whether Russia Blog’s authors, or parent organisation have a view on intelligent design is somewhat relevant (although, in my opinion, not all that relevant to their Russia commentary per se). The information is publicly available, so readers can find this out if they want. And, given that you regularly point it out, I doubt there is anyone in the Russia blogging community who is now unaware of the Discovery Institute’s views on the matter.

Given this, I think people can probably be relied on to draw their own conclusions.

No, you’re missing the point.

The fact that Yuri admitted he raises funds and spends money on the blog for “overhead” is secondary. He’s made NO ATTEMPT to deny that he enagages in commercial traffic generation, even though the charge is there in black and white. You know as well as I do that means he’s admitted he does it, just as I said. He brags that he’s going to go out and raise and spend more money. Note, too, that while he (falsely) accuses me of being funded he doesn’t dare to claim I spend money to generate traffic, because he knows damn well I don’t. My number of Technorati links is precisely commensurate with my traffic.

I’ve said clearly that there’s nothing wrong with spending money on your blog. What I’ve simply said is that it isn’t fair or appropriate to compare Russia Blog’s traffic to that of a blog which doesn’t rely on such techniques. That’s the point I’ve made in my post, and you can’t (and don’t) dispute it.

I’ve also said that receiving financial support can give rise to bias and agenda that the unwary reader must be warned about, particularly when the money comes from a single-issue political organization like Discovery Institute. You can’t (and don’t) dispute this either. I’ve never said that the existence of the money by itself impugns the quality of the “actual words that comprise Russia Blog.”

As for the quality of Yuri’s blog, I’ve made no secret that I think it’s the very worst in the blogosphere. It scandalously and irresponsibly mischaracterizes data and fails to provide adequate source material while pursuing a rabid partisan agenda. I’ve published several posts documenting the gross errors contained in Yuri’s reporting, one is currently running on my main page (and another is coming soon!). I’ve never said that Yuri’s blog is poisoned by money per se, I’ve simply said that the money gives rise to the possiblity of bias being the explanation for Yuri’s errors, which lead to poor quality.

And again, the number of links from blogs (and Google hits) received by Yuri, and the number of comments on his blog, is totally inconsistent with the idea that 2,000 people seriously read his blog every day (as opposed to being lured there for a few seconds through they use of advertising or key word techniques or publishing press releases any of the many other commerical tactics for increasing blog traffic). That’s the main point and again you can’t (and don’t) dispute it.

In my world-view, providing office overheads is not commercial, or artificial (whatever that might be) traffic generation.

And, as I’ve said before, even if Russia Blog has greater financial clout than other blogs – that still has no bearing on the quality (or lack thereof, depending on your point of view) of the actual words that comprise Russia Blog.

Not that I’m offended or anything, but I believe you owe me an apology. It’s very, very clear from Yuri’s comment that Russia Blog DOES in fact spend money to generate traffic artificially. His response is to justify it by claiming that I do the same thing, and to brag that he’s going out to raise more of it.

In future, I suggest you be a bit more careful about challenging the things I say. I don’t just throw things out willy-nilly.

My Russia Blog articles (like my last one on Kosovo) attracted a good number of quality posts in the respective Comments section following those articles. Articles which were often cited by other venues.

I’ll continue to provide such quality material, whether or not Johnson’s Russia List, Russia haters and some court appointed Russia friendlys choose to censor such Russocentric commentary.

Russia Blog and other blogs like Siberian Light do a great service by qualitatively providing what others don’t. To go against that is counterproductive.

Nice to see my periodically used “Cheers” ending put in use.

Cheers!

Mike

Thank you very much for your great research work. I won’t go into any arguments, just a few facts:

1) I have been very busy with fundraising in the last two months for my program which is called “The Real Russia Project” and does much more than a blog. Our next big conference will be held in Washington DC at the University Club on April 18 at 4:30 pm. The event name is “Russia: Friend, Foe, or What?”

2) The blog is still called Russia Blog. I just like the new banner and I will take your tip and add something about the actual blog name.

3) Discovery institute is a non-profit, and it takes the overhead cut for things like accounting, office space, IT support, etc. No one gives out money to anyone (at least in my world). Fundraising is tough, but I like what I’m doing.

4) Also the real stats of the blog for yesterday (March 7, 2007) are: 2,103 unique visitors to the main page, and other approximately 2,200 unique visitors to certain articles and archives. Our average is around 3,000-5,000 a day. Last month Russia Blog received 51,000 unique visitors. Our articles regularly appear in Google News. Just wait for a major piece by us and Google it up and hit the “news”.

LR – you have tons of some NGO or government money behind you. I respect the gig – great thing – looks like one hateful female, but in reality a full-scale production with serious funding. I’ll work hard to raise more funds so we could continue this game. As per funds: 100% of the money for the Real Russia Project comes from private individuals and investors in the Greater Seattle area.

Again, thank you Andy!

Cheers,
Yuri Mamchur

I think it’s fair to say that Alexa does have its weaknesses. A quick google search for “alexa reliability”, for example, brings plenty of results.

The general consensus, from my reading, is that Alexa is reasonably good for ranking high traffic sites, but less reliable when it comes to smaller sites.

But, in the absence of reliable statistics data for all blogs, its certainly better than nothing.