Human traffic
I'm not actually sure why, but out of the blue I have been accused twice this week of deliberately trying to increase "traffic" to my blog by touching on "contentious" issues (fluoridation; political self-interest; the ownership of a health drink company by a large fizzy drink company), specifically by Edd and Adam Smith (who doesn't have a Blogger profile or website to link to, and I assume is not my good friend Adam Smith the film writer). The term "trolling" came up on both occasions. I have looked this word up, as I wasn't sure what it meant, and Urban Dictionary says:
Trolling
1. Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.
2. Trolling is the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet, generally on message boards. When done in a moderated internet community, this can result in banning.
3. Act of appearing on internet forums and boards with malicious intent.
OK, well I certainly haven't done any of that. Also, the implication of "trolling" is to annoy others behind the accepted safety of a forum pseudonym, something I have never done, and can't very well do on my own website. I'm pretty sure posting a blog entry on your own blog about something that may cause debate is called "posting a blog entry on your own blog about something that may cause debate", and is allowed - some may say encouraged.
For the record, then (my favourite phrase), I present above the graph monitoring unique visitors for the past couple of days. As ever, it averages out to around 180 visitors a day. You'll see that the fluoridation entry (Monday 15 June), lively though it turned out to be, had no appreciable effect on visitor numbers, other than the usual moderate spike after the weekend lull when people are either not at their work computers, or they're out in the fresh air, as I am. Equally, there was a spike on Tuesday 9 June, even though I didn't post anything between Friday 5 June and Thursday 11 June. So, if I wish to increase traffic, which I don't, the best thing for me to do is post nothing. I'd better get on to the advertising department and tell them the news.
I know this is boring, but it's the first time I have been accused of doing something as cynical as trying to increase traffic to my website. Maybe this entry will finally do the trick and take my visitor numbers as high as 221 and I'll be able to put my rates up.
Anyway, those Iranians, eh, trolling all over the place, trying to encourage a debate.
posted by Andrew Collins @ 8:55 AM
31 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
31 Comments:
Analytics is cool, I admit, but beware! I have found that it tends to undercount visits when I compare it to figures I get from another server-based stats package.
So you may well have hit the magic 221 already.
Colin
It was a very weird accusation.
By the way, I'm often quite paranoid about my use of a pseudonym. A lot of our readers and contributers use them because they have proper jobs, as I once did, and don't want to get rumbled for wasting time. It's not always a coward's way of dishing out abuse.
People tend to sneer at the use of silly names, but sometimes the reasons for their implementation aren't as simple as straightforward 'trolling'...
Also - blog etiquette ought to be that a post should be discussed in the comments area on the terms of the actual content in the text. The reader's assumptions over the writer's reasons for posting a certain argument shouldn't, in fairness, come into it - something I've learned the hard way.
I don't think people were accusing you of being a troll, just the people criticizing you in the comments. Although I could be wrong, I often am.
For your pleasure Andrew, let me also introduce you to the term "flamebait", which i think is a far more appropriate attribute to give to Edd's comment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamebait
So - Adele or Duffy?
Dan:
Adam Smith said: "What were we supposed to be considering here or is this what is known in the online trail as 'trolling'?"
And: "... by Trolling (and you are not normally someone I see as a Troll which is why I bothered to comment) I meant were you just putting up some emotive statement just to get a reaction and hits on your blog. Rather cynical I know, but out of character for you."
Edd said: "Now didn't you previously protest your innocence at being a trolling website-traffic whore Mr.Collins?"
Both were indeed accusing me of "trolling." For the record.
Adele.
If you posted the relevant posts while sitting under a bridge, then you may well be a troll Andy. Otherwise I think your 'posting a blog' description is more apt.
As it is, I wouldn't even bother responding to such comments. People just post things like that to rile you, because they can. The internet's a funny place.
There are posts of yours I scan but don't read all of because they don't particularly interest me. It'd be pretty odd if 100% of your output was interesting to me. We'd share all the same interests. We'd probably have to marry.
When I'm not overly interested I don't post a comment berating you for daring to not cater for me alone.
And remember Andy, sometime people call you Andy because it sounds odd and slightly confuses and riles you.
You're denying that you were "trolling" based on the definition of it that you found on Urban Dictionary, rather than what was actually meant by the term. All they meant was, posting stuff purely to get a reaction.
Actually I don't think you were doing that either, so, er, carry on.
Jumble, I think it's pretty clear what was meant by the term "trolling" in the original comment I helpfully quoted above: "Putting up some emotive statement just to get a reaction and hits on your blog." I don't deny enjoying a reaction, but it's the cynicism of trying to notch up hits that I object to. And the use of a term which might easily be misinterpreted by the sounds of it.
I will defend myself against unfair slurs. Get used to it.
There's nowt wrong with 'notching up hits' with contentious copy, I'd like to reiterate.
It's like keeping an eye on the iTunes chart after making a swearily enjoyable podcast and taking joy in the fact you've connected with people. Something else I'm learning over time.
I admire your spunk Andrew (we all do, nyum nyum, etc. etc.) but I find that these people are better ignored. It's your blog and you can post about whatever the fuck you like. Some of us happen to enjoy what you write and if it's 'controversial' (whatever the fuck that means these days), then all the better.
This all reminds me of a time when I was a child and my father sat me down on his knee. He said to me the following words, words that I will never forget "Son, most people who comment on the internet, are dicks. Complete dicks"
This was amazing advice. Amazing because it was way before the internet was even invented and doubly amazing because I just made that story up. It never happened.
Still, I think I've made my point.
I prefer the Polari definition of trolling:
to walk about (esp. looking for trade)
Just out of interest, why do people feel the need to criticise you for writing about what you're interested in? It's clear from other posts and the podcast that you have a passion for alternative health, organic and natural foods, so how are the last few posts any different? If you suddenly started writing about something you've previously shown no interest in but was seen as "cool" I'd understand the criticism...
I imagine that Edd's traffic has probably increased dramatically through his flaming however!
"Don't feed the trolls" is good internet advice.
(Edd being the troll, not you)
You're probably encouraging them with this post and the chance of being mentioned on a podcast!
BTW Surprised no one has mentioned Dasani with relation to Coke's "vitamin water" - I expect the new ones will go a similar way.
Rich
What’s going on this week? Are people taking snarky pills? I’ve become fond of Andrew’s output since the podcast started precisely because he’s unusual among media commentators for demonstrating very little ego or side, and being genuinely interested in “stuff”. I know it’s a bit foolish to think you know much about the personalities of people you’ve never met, but after listening to someone talking off the top of their head for an hour every week over the course of a year and a half – well, you can’t help thinking you’ve got their measure a tiny bit. When in serious mode, I’ve never once suspected him of any motive other than an agreeably Reithian mission to inform, educate and entertain, but with the added extra of wanting to be informed, educated and entertained himself.
Monitoring the lively debates in the comments section of his blog are a welcome sop during my working day, and it’s always excellent to eavesdrop on intelligent people arguing passionately over their differing views. But when people infer that someone, who (in my case) provides entertaining written and spoken material on a regular basis that costs me absolutely nothing, of selfish, mimsy little motives (inferences that Andrew dutifully approves to be posted, by the way – I’d hate to think what you’d have to write for him not to approve you), it jars a little bit – like Bill Hicks’ poetic “turd in my drink”.
I’ve surprised myself my having spent ten minutes defending a bigger boy who’s more successful and articulate than myself, but I suppose you never know what you’re going to care about. (I’ll go back to being a facile “Mike Giggler” style poster immediately!).
Edd, bash it up your bum! You are so wide of the mark and obviously attention seeking. I won't look at your blog.
Andrew, I am sure your motives are not doubted by the vast majority of your listeners/readers.
Lily
Indeed, as others have pointed out the only true Troll in any of this was Edd.
Andrew, don't take it to heart. It seems the only thing you are being accused of anyway is writing about interesting topics worthy of discussion.
And anyway, we all know you are far too busy cataloguing the cottaging graffiti of the British Library toilets to worry about the number of hits on your blog.
Dave, York
Troll(ing)...
To act like a supernatural creature of Scandinavian folklore, variously portrayed as a friendly or mischievous dwarf or as a giant, that lives in caves, in the hills, or under bridges.
So Mr Collins, the podcast evidences suggests you have both friendly and mischievous characater traits!!
Even though the evidence is stacked against you, we must be non-judgemental until all aspects of this case have been assessed;
1) How tall are you?
2) Do you live in any of the above mentioned abodes?
3) Are you a supernatural being?
Once we have the information this debate can be put to an end...
Jim
I agree with Lily, "Edd, bash it up your bum!"
and the comments about internet commenters being idiots. I know I am. I should be doing something more productive, surely? Nothing really matters, to quote Del Amitri.
Sometimes you (or one) writes about something that's in your head and it's also in the head of the collective mass brain so we latch onto it and all have our own opinion. It's not wrong to speak your brains. And the great thing is to read something that someone has written and think - yes - that's exactly what I would have said if I had been clever and quick enough to say it. Or else: by reading that it has inspired me to actually challenge myself to think up a coherent argument to disagree with that palpable nonsense.
etc.
It all helps to delay the onset of dementia I think. Given that I can't be bothered to do Suduku or Julie Walter's brain training.
p.s. surely flamebait troll whatnot usually happens by accident. If you look at 'keywords' in Google analytics someone has usually searched for irrelevant words and ended up at your site: such as 'Madonna naked' or 'free Viagra' - given that you/one have used these words out of context or whatnot bla bla etc. So it's best to just shake your head and not give a flying figroll. I say.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, it looks like you're taking this waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to seriously. :) To paraphrase Fight Club, are you Jack's inflamed sense of rejection? If someone goes up to a black person on the street and says black people are stupid, you wouldn't expect the insulted party to start defending themselves by sharing their A Level results and trying to point out that they're comparable to other ethnic groups and so on. It's silly. In fact your reaction to it comes across as a kind of reverse snobbery. Why wouldn't you want to spread awareness about something you believe in? Don't you want more people to know about Burnham's potential conflict of interest or the cynical marketing of Vitamin Water? Isn't that the point? If we don't make a stand now aren't we likely to have doner meat fortified with vitamins so that kebabs can be sold as vitamin sandwiches? Are you Jack's exaggerated sense of self-denial? :) Or is this just an easy post to make and a sure-fire way to get lots of hits and comments massaging your ego (just kidding)
Duncan, I find it hard not to take slurs against me seriously. And I'm pretty sure your "black person" analogy doesn't hold water, fluoridated or otherwise.
To me, it's alot to do with fear Andrew. In the short term, it's pathetic attention grabbing, name calling. But in the long term, it means erosion of debate or any healthy discussion. I applaud you posting such things. It stimulates one's own responsibilities to being free & healthy. Plus.. it shows who the arseholes are, like Billy Connolly with his multi-coloured troosers, a great idiot dectector.!
Thanks.
Loooking forward to your Edinburgh week.!
The analogy points out that you don't have to spend time and energy responding to every unfounded insult that comes your way. How many comments did you get making that kind of accusation, two, three? Out of more than a hundred. About one percent of people are schizophrenic so I'm guessing a higher percentage might be the type of people who post a wind-up on somebodys blog, especially since your double act with Herring often involves him taking the piss out of your opinions for comedy purposes whether he actually agrees with them or not....
So, for the record. Did I get that from you or did you get it from me? I even noticed I was using it talking to myself the other day.
I think you're right to get annoyed and to set the "record" straight. They probably didn't think they were causing offence - to be fair I think they thought they were making a valid point. But if it bugged you then it's better to say so, and to say why, than to just brood on it. (Although you seem to be doing both(!)) Would it be fair to say that the ever-so-knowing - and probably more calculated to annoy - digs about homeopathy are easier to take because you've had that argument out? Or am I just talking bollocks as usual?
Can we call this bloggate yet? Or trollgate? Or hitgate? When does it get to that stage? I need to have something to hold onto here.
180.
you sure that the graph isn't displaying the legend correctly , and that's actually in counts of 1000 ?
m.e/ireallylovemusic
I appreciate that those people calling such accusations pathetic and advising Andrew to not take it seriously mean well - but......
For gods sake! I am totally with Andrew on this one. Christ! But how well and calmly and logically you deal with these people - they get more attention than they deserve but hopefully because of it they will understand why the way they phrase things matters, and learn.
There are too many cruel, horrible, nasty, careless people on the internet. I don't understand it. I try to, but I fail.
You're an inspiration Andrew x sounds corny and I am admittedly tiddly right now but I do mean it.
Andrew, I have recently started reading your blog and fear I may be responsible for any anomalies in the stars. I can assure you however that it was not your flouride that brought me, just work has been a little bit boring of late so I'm spending more time on the I Internet. Hope that clears everything up and sorry if my low boredom threshold got you labelled a troll.
James
Maybe we should all buy one of these to make you feel better :) There's also a poster that says
Blogging: Never Before Have So Many People With So Little To Say Said So Much To So Few
:)
"There are too many cruel, horrible, nasty, careless people on the internet. I don't understand it. I try to, but I fail."
Amen to that.
(I was just reading this site, ironically enough, whilst deliberately avoiding my regular lunchtime interwebnet corner: a football site which has become so infested with trolls that any fun that used to be had by 'talking' to others has become ruined by bitter and petty arguments caused by trolls)
There's a lot of it about...
*sigh*
Did we fight the Web Wars for nothing?
Pete
Silly me. I really did think that a major aim of blogging was to increase the number of people who come to your site and read your ramblings. I must adjust my own blogging technique from now on only write about boring subjects such as "trolling".
Post a Comment
<< Home