5/27/03 | updated 7/19/03
On May 27th 2003 I sent a note about Blogger Babble to several lists that I belong to. The responses I got were fascinating. My emails and the responses are below.
On July 19th 2003
I read an article in Spiked (published on July 15th( about this very
issue:
For a link to the article
and my letter to the editor go (where else?!) to a note in my blog.
The emails below or similar ones were sent to:
webcommunities@yahoogroups.com
SOCNET@LISTS.UFL.EDU
tweber@wsj.com [Tom Weber, WSJ]
Scienceofnetworks@Yahoogroups.Com
reputation@yahoogroups.com
FWETALK-BayArea@yahoogroups.com
FWETALK-SoCal@yahoogroups.com
softwareproductmarketingdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
From: Cynthia
Typaldos [mailto:cynthia@typaldos.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 5:55 PM
To: Web Communities
Subject: Bloggers
add Babble
Today I looked -- via Google -- for a credible source (e.g. university publication) on the relatively newly discovered "power law" comparing it to the "bell curve". I used these search terms: bell curve internet traffic power law. Try it yourself --
I find it disconcerting that approximately 6 of the top 20 Google links are from bloggers. Prolific bloggers to be exact.
Will Google's usefulness be drowned in by babble?
Cynthia
From: Cynthia Typaldos
[mailto:cynthia@typaldos.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 4:28 PM
To:
softwareproductmarketingdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [spmdiscuss] market/ bell curve vs.
power law
[...]
The most interesting thing about this topic is when
I searched for a credible source of info
most of the stuff that came up at the top in a Google search were blogs! Something has gone terribly wrong with
Google's reputation system when what an individual
says, and a bunch of his/her friends point
to, ends up at the top of the stack over a research paper from an academic institution. I finally gave up
trying to find one, although I know they exist
because I took a class on Networks at
Stanford in the winter and this was one of the covered topics.
Google is in trouble...now wonder they bought
Blogger...they need to separate out the riff-raff
from the raff-riff.
Cynthia
-----Original Message-----
From: Davies,William
[mailto:wdavies@theworkfoundation.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 9:44
AM
To: 'cynthia@typaldos.com'
Subject: RE: [reputation] Bloggers
add babble
Cynthia - Glad to have been of such help!
do reference me by all means, but you may want to link to our blog where i originally posted the article http://www.theisociety.net/archives/000612.html#000612
Have a look around our blog it may interest you www.theisociety.net . We're a think tank specialising in a few of these issues.
Will
-----Original Message-----
From: Cynthia Typaldos
[mailto:cynthia@typaldos.com]
Sent: 28 May 2003 17:46
To: Davies,William
Subject: RE: [reputation] Bloggers
add babble
Thank you! What a fascinating article! It does explain everything very concisely.
Also, I learned so much by sending out my post that I want to write up what I learned...guess where?..in my blog. May I credit you as the person who pointed me to this article?
Cynthia
-----Original Message-----
From: Davies,William
[mailto:wdavies@theworkfoundation.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 1:25
AM
To: Reputation
Subject: RE: [reputation] Bloggers
add babble
"Will Google's usefulness be drowned by babble?"
Well not for long. As this article reveals http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30621.html , Google is about to section off blogs into a separate search engine for this very reason.
From: Cynthia
Typaldos [mailto:cynthia@typaldos.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 9:23 PM
To:
softwareproductmarketingdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [spmdiscuss]
Interesting bet regarding the importance of Blogs
Bob,
Thank you! This is incredibly interesting! For two reasons, clearly there is going to be some kind of dramatic change as bloggers become even more numerous. A vision of the Titanic hitting the iceberg comes to my mind.
Of course, as people say in the link you provided, Google could change its search algorithm although I'm not sure how easy that is. Interestingly, I believe all of this was possible before, thru websites. Blogs just made it easier. It shows how once a product gets to a certain level of ease of use, it can spread and dominate, even if the product isn't very good (e.g. Blogger). But until that threshold is reached, not much happens.
Two more thoughts come to mind after perusing the Google Bet below:
1) I'll bet that it will be impossible to have an original idea again. No matter what you think of, someone else will have thought of it first and documented it in their blog,
2) Just because a bunch of people say it's so, doesn't mean it is. Gravity, alien abductions, and religion come to mind. The scientific method of experimentation doesn't go away, and neither does a well written document, unbiased, based on provable facts become less true just because a bunch of bloggers say otherwise.
Thanks again!
Cynthia
From: Bob Nilsson
[mailto:bob.nilsson@attbi.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 8:52 PM
To:
softwareproductmarketingdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spmdiscuss] Interesting
bet regarding the importance of Blogs
Cynthia,
You might be interested to see this posted bet by
Dave Winer http://www.longbets.org/2
at the Long Bets site (http://www.longbets.org/). The bet is,
"In a Google search of five keywords or
phrases representing the top five news stories of 2007, weblogs will rank higher than the New York Times' Web site."
According to Winer, "My bet with Martin Nisenholtz
at the Times says that the tide has turned, and in
five years, the publishing world will have changed so thoroughly that informed people will look to amateurs they trust for the
information they want."
Based on your experience, 2007 may be coming faster
than Dave Winer realized.
-Bob Nilsson
-----Original Message-----
From: Social Networks Discussion
Forum [mailto:SOCNET@LISTS.UFL.EDU]On
Behalf Of Woodlief, Tony
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 11:57
AM
To: SOCNET@LISTS.UFL.EDU
Subject: Re: Bloggers add Babble
Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that bloggers have weighed in on a topic relating to web traffic. In other words, your sample may be biased. Google searches of "steady state theory" (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&newwindow=1&q=steady+state+theory) and "structural functionalism" (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&newwindow=1&q=structural+functionalism), for example, show that the experts (i.e., those with appropriate letters after their names and some form of university affiliation) are not drowned out by bloggers on every topic.
I think it is true that bloggers deserve blame for everything from poor grammar to bad logic to dissemination of uncredited, incorrect information. Unfortunately, the same can be said of university publications. It may be unwise to dismiss all bloggers out of hand, even if most of them do not have tenure at a university. Some of them are very good at 1) pointing out critical omissions and errors of logic and fact in major media outlets; 2) explaining complicated economic and scientific concepts to laymen; and 3) offering cogent points of view that are underrepresented among the anointed experts. In fact, a look at some of the bloggers listed in your search revealed fairly intelligent explanations of the topics you were searching. If your goal was to find "certified" sources, you could add "-weblog -blog" to your search. You would still be left with several non ".edu" citations, however. Perhaps a better solution than segregating the weblogs would be to segregate the university-affiliated sites?
Tony Woodlief
-----Original Message-----
From: Social Networks Discussion Forum
[mailto:SOCNET@LISTS.UFL.EDU]On
Behalf Of Andrew Hyatt
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 1:29 PM
To: SOCNET@LISTS.UFL.EDU
Subject: Re: Bloggers add Babble
***** To join
INSNA, visit http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/
*****
Bloggers can of course have worthwhile
content. I believe the root cause of
this problem is Google's ranking scheme, which relies on a sort of link
centrality measure. Bloggers are
compulsive linkers to other bloggers, so this tends to result in high ranking
for them. Google changes their ranking scheme every month, so probably they
will try some sort of adjustment to decrease the ranking of bloggers. Whether
they can do this and maintain the quality of their results remains to be seen.
-----Original Message-----
From: James Holland Jones
[mailto:jameshj@stat.washington.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 3:30 PM
To: cynthia@typaldos.com
Subject:
google searches
I think part of your problem may have been choice
of search terms. The phrase "Bell
Curve" is sure to elicit the wackos.
"Symmetric distribution" is surely the idea you are trying to
get at, no? Compare
the results of the following two google searches:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF8&q=power+law+symmetric+distribution+internet+traffic&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=power+law+bell+curve+internet+traffic&btnG=Google+Search
--
James Holland Jones
Research Scientist, Center for Studies in
Demography and Ecology
Post-Doctoral Affiliate, Center for Statistics and
the Social Sciences
B-5-L Padelford Hall
Box 354320
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195-4320
Phone: 206-221-6874
Fax:
206-221-6873
url:
http://www.stat.washington.edu/~jameshj
-----Original Message-----
From: J. Christopher Ramming
[mailto:chrisramming@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 5:25 PM
To: scienceofnetworks@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [scienceofnetworks] google and blogs
> I find it disconcerting that approximately 6
of the top 20 Google links are
> from bloggers. Prolific bloggers to be exact.
>
> Will Google's usefulness be drowned by
babble?
>
> Cynthia
I've heard some rumors that google is artificially boosting the rank of blog sites, but I haven't found any substantiation
for it. On
the other hand, a quick search or two did turn up the following:
http://www.longbets.org/2
http://lists.elistx.com/archives/interesting-people/200302/msg00091.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Foulds [mailto:mfoulds@attglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 5:28 PM
To: cynthia@typaldos.com
Subject: RE: Bloggers add Babble
Hi Cynthia
I understand your point was about blog
dominance of Google, not necessarily about finding better refs. Nevertheless, I
tried your search terms on Scirus and got much more credible references:
Hope this helps, and thanks for
prompting the idea to search - this is an area of interest to me, and I hadn't
bothered too much with the web.
Regards
Michael
Foulds
-----Original Message-----
From: premiumadvice
[mailto:news@premiumadvice.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 3:54 PM
To: reputation@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [reputation] Re: Bloggers add babble
What is the difference between a blog and a home
page? Anyone can be a published author
on the web. I don't understand why a blog should be automatically graded as having a lower reputation, just
because its a blog.
----Original Message-----
From: Cynthia Typaldos
[mailto:cynthia@typaldos.com]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 8:58 AM
To: Jon Lebkowsky; Reputation
Subject: RE: [reputation] Bloggers add babble
I wasn't complaining. I found it disconcerting.
I plan to post all of the responses to my original
email...lots of useful information and insight.
Cynthia
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Lebkowsky
[mailto:lists@weblogsky.com]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 2:39 PM
To: Reputation
Subject: RE: [reputation] Bloggers
add babble
Cynthia, you might have done better if you had restructured
your search: "power law" + "internet traffic" + "bell
curve"
I don't agree that blogs are
babble, and the fact that six of the top twenty were from bloggers tells us
nothing - does the fact that they posted to a blog mean that they lack
expertise? Or are you complaining because they weren't strained through the
appropriate media or academic filters? That can be a plus, you know.
William,
I wouldn't assign much credibility to Orlowski's piece.
----Original Message-----
From: Todd Boyle [mailto:tboyle@rosehill.net]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 9:37 PM
To: Jon Lebkowsky; Reputation
Subject: RE: [reputation] Bloggers add babble
Well said, Jon.
I'll go further to say, weblogs have some very interesting potentials
that will not really manifest until there are somehow, better reputation
metrics. Obviously, many outcomes in
the material world depend on this whole domain of image, reputation, influence,
etc. It is in the nature of things
that those entrenched in favorable positions are not going to agree with any
semantic or protocol that reduces their advantage. One might say, they prefer to have a thumb on the scales. The whole subject of reputation is so
completely buried under so many thumbs you cannot even see the scales.
So, we're living in this era wherein bloggers get
recognition by many weeks of Iraq protests, many people would drive by and honk
their horns and you literally could not even tell whether they were hawks or
doves,
Todd
-----Original Message-----
From: gk at
rapoport dot sociology dot columbia dot edu
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 8:34 AM
To: Cynthia Typaldos
Subject:
Re: [socnet] Bloggers add Babble
Cynthia,
Google's usefulness depends a lot on the
user. If you are specifically looking
for a university publication, you can get
narrow down results by modifying your search like
this:
"power law" "bell curve" internet traffic -weblogs
-blogs site:edu
Meaning: don't show pages that have words 'weblogs'
or 'blogs', and search only within .edu domains. Or change the last one to site:ac.uk to look for British sources,
etc. The word order matters for sorting
the results.
Actually, the above query finds too few
pages. If you drop "bell
curve", it improves. You might
also try calling it a
Gaussian, or normal distribution.
A useful bag of tricks is Google Hacks by Tara
Calishain and Rael Dornfest (perhaps you've heard of it):
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0596004478?vi=glance
Best,
George
-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Vielmetti [mailto:emv@umich.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 6:16 PM
To: Cynthia Typaldos
Cc:
Edward Vielmetti
Subject: RE: Bloggers add Babble
On Tue, 27 May 2003, Cynthia Typaldos wrote:
> I've got them both and read Linked. I also took a class at Stanford called
> "The Science of Networks".
Do you know if there's a syllabus for this class
online somewhere? I'm trying to keep up
with my reading on the topic
too and find it hard to track down every bit of
useful information.
> My point was that the bloggers, several of
whom I actually know, are all
> linking to each other and making themselves
disproportionately important.
I often find the blogosphere to be a bit of an
echo chamber - it's not really right that a discussion splattered across a
dozen web sites ranks higher than the same text
all compactly on one page.
To be fair, your search was pretty broad, and it
didn't have the sort of jargon in it that characterizes academic prose.
Citeseer does a very fine job in real-time
citation analysis and other bibliometrics and focuses very narrowly on
referencable acadmic papers so they have a smaller and less noisy set of data
to work from.
Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Vielmetti [mailto:emv@umich.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 5:59 PM
To: Cynthia Typaldos
Subject: Re: Bloggers add Babble
Cynthia -
Two good books are
- Duncan Watts "Six Degrees"
- Laszlo Barabasi "Linked"
If you just search for "power law" in Google
you get as a top hit something from citeseer, which is in general a better
database to hunt through for searches through the scientific literature than
Google.
Ed