Jason Calacanis proposes a new A-List -- the Blog 500 -- because a/ he is "sick of the Technorati 100" and b/ he "created what became an absurdly powerful 100 list with my last company, Silicon Alley Reporter, I’ve seen the controversy, venom, and power such lists can create. I’ve got some mixed feelings about them truth be told. These lists are really powerful at building an industry. They help define emerging spaces, and they get new players press, readers, and clients (i.e. advertisers). So, a good list is good, and a bad list is—well—bad. We have a bad list now and we need a good list. "
Hmmm. Sounds like Jason simply wants the benefits of being the media company with the most popular list.
He then goes on to list what's wrong with the Technorati 100, falling into a common error along the way:
4. It's [technorati ranking] based on the number of links for all time.
Well, I thought was the case until quite recently, but it is actually based on a relatively short window: a hit parade approach. As Adam Hertz put it in email recently, "Technorati bases its authority calculations on the number of current incoming links and sources, rather than the cumulative counts throughout history. So for example, if someone linked to you in the past, but the post containing that link has scrolled off the bottom of that person's blog, we don't count that link in the calculation of your authority." It's not even a specific number of days worth! They have the historical data, as I
reported here, but they don't display it anywhere.
That also means that Jason's second bullet point about Technorati is also wrong. Technorati is constantly updating, based on recent links being created.
So it seems that what Jason wants is really what the Technorati 100 (or 500) is already. As someone commented to his post, he should just give the $10,000 he offered as an incentive directly to Technorati.
I personally want something completely different, as I outlined earlier today in my RankOut piece (see Mary Hodder on The Paris Index, And Why RankOut Would Be Better): a means where everyone can generate their own top 100 list, or a whole bunch of lists, depending on the topic, the community of interest, or the purpose for rank ordering blogs. And then Jason could define his own criteria for ordering, and his Blog 500 would be just one among thousands of blog lists.
1. Jason on August 8, 2005 05:59 PM writes...
>> it is actually based on a relatively
>> short window: a hit parade approach.
>> As Adam Hertz put it in email
>> recently, "Technorati bases its
>> authority calculations on the number
>> of current incoming links and
>> sources, rather than the cumulative
>> counts throughout history.
This might be true of hte *index* but it is not so when it comes to the 100 list. In fact, the 100 list has not been updated in a long time.
clearly the link not on people's home pages are counted... you think boingboing.net has 15,000+ links from the top level of sites?!?!?! no way.
also, this has nothing to do with our position on the list. it has to do with havin an accurate and more comprehensive list. the poor job technorati has done actually helps keep our largest blog up top (engadget).... we might do worse if they did it based on the past year--who knows.
Permalink to Comment2. Jim Kukral on August 8, 2005 10:33 PM writes...
Wrong or right, Jason, you're doing what needs to be done, which is keeping this business of blogging moving forward with new and fresh ideas and discussions.
Everyone has an agenda Stowe, doesn't mean they are always evil. Self-serving maybe, but evil no.
In my opinion, lists are big popularity contests. Good for about nothin' really.
Permalink to Comment3. Stowe Boyd on August 9, 2005 05:51 AM writes...
Jason -
I have seen some movement in the T 100, but not much. Seems like most blogs reach some sort of homeostasis -- hovering around some point. Get Real has been hovering around 3000 on Technorati for months, sometimes more, sometimes less.
But the critical question I will direct to the Technorati folks, because I simply presumed that the T 100 were being managed the same as all the other Technorati rankings. More to follow.
Permalink to Comment4. Stowe Boyd on August 9, 2005 06:03 AM writes...
Jim -
I don't think what Jason is suggesting is evil. I consider Jason a friend, so I wasn't trying to attack him. All I suggested is really in line with what he wrote: he had success devising a top 100 list for Silicon Valley Reporter, and he'd like to do it again, for obvious reasons. Fine. He maintains that the T 100 is a "bad list" and enumerates various points -- some of which I don't think are correct -- and suggests we need a "good list". Fine. I am all for a good list, too. I just don't agree with the principles driving his concept for a good list.
Permalink to Comment