The gift that keeps on giving

From Open Source Trademark Infringement’s about page:

And where faceless, “objective” editorial boards once handed down opinions and endorsements, bloggers sound off, the numbers on their public sitemeters lending them unassailable credibility as voices for the rest of us.

Anyone seen OSM’s public sitemeter? Neither have we.

Maybe they should steal borrow one from Christopher Lydon.


Comments: 9


My sitemeter proves that my credibility is unassailable. Because no one stops by purely for comedic fodder…


Chris Lydon has graciously allowed them to use his sitemeter.

Wait, make that, due to a misunderstanding, he didn’t graciously allow them to use his sitemeter, but he gave up the use of that sitemeter of his own volition, even though it still records hits to his site.

Watch this space closely, as we’re working on another misstatement of fact that we think covers our collective ass.


the numbers on their public sitemeters lending them unassailable credibility

even if it were true, are they suggesting we should trade in newspapers for some kind of mindless, blogger driven mob?


Yes! Everybody drink-up and riot*!!!







*not an inducement to actually riot.


Jeez. I knew in some vague way that it was bad to give wingnut sites hits, so I’ve tried to keep my ogling at trainwrecks to a minimum. But if they’re going to use their sitemeters to legitimize themselves as my voice, then I’ll never go near any of them again.


Sitemeter records referrers if you don’t have them blocked, so I don’t feel too bad. The other day TBogg was responsible for far more traffic to Don Singleton’s blog than OSM, that’s gotta hurt.


I believe I have the just and equitable solution. David Corn’s strange bedfellows in Osama Pajamas can call themselves “Open Sores Media.” It sounds almost the same and is much more descriptive of their lot.


not an inducement to actually riot.

not even a little bit of rioting?


aren’t sitemeters kinda like circulation numbers for newspapers? Doesnt that mean that papers with high circulation numbers (eg NTY, WSJ, WashPost, etc) also have “unassailable credibility as voices for the rest of us”?


(comments are closed)