Skip to main content

A Technical Question: Anybody noticed anything funny about Technorati ratings?

Just curious, because this is what I see on a daily basis.

In the mornings, when I first log onto this site I generally see a Technorati rating of 57.

But in the afternoon or evening when I drop by, the Technorati rating has mysteriously dropped to 40.

If it happened once, it would be theoretically possible. Back when we were all arguing about a bunch of militia and DHS report stuff, I picked up a lot of links to some of those stories which, if the linking sites never found anything else they liked, would have all evaporated at about the same time.

But for the past two weeks I have been noticing this fluctuation every single day.

To drive me even crazier, Alexa insists that there are 68 blogs linking to this site.

Anybody know why this is happening?

Comments

Hube said…
A few months ago we were sitting at around 115. Now we're below 50. They must've "recalibrated" or something, similar to what Amazon.com did to their reviewer ratings. Admittedly, all the mu.nu blogs linking to one another helped out our #s ... but if it's happening to other blogs, I've no idea.
tom said…
"To drive me even crazier, Alexa insists that there are 68 blogs linking to this site."

Google shows about 812 pages linking to you. Once you filter out the duplicates and the non-blogs that's probably about 68.

i don't know much about Technorati, but I do wonder why your time zone is off by three.
Hube
I have had the same experience with TR, and Waldo, whose blog I watch daily suddenly dropped one day from something like 32 to 12; similarly I have seen a comparable drop on Delaware Watch.

tom
The times are off because I never remember to reset the blogger clock from PST
Waldo peaked at 38 at Election '08 and then fell off into the 20s, which we expected. But the last month or two the Technorati rating yoyos- multiple times daily- between 17 and 23. Go figure.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...