Patterico: Not Linked in 2006 (Official per Carnegie Mellon, So Don’t Try to Argue the Point)
I’ve read recently that Don Surber is the “Carnegie-Mellon University’s 2nd most informative blog.” I believe I saw that on Don Surber’s old Blogspot site.
I was intrigued. So I thought I’d seek out the study and look at the methodology.
And that is how I learned that no blogger linked me in the year 2006.
The screenshots prove it. Here is the page where they list all the blogs they considered. There are 45,000 blogs on the list, so it’s a pretty sizable sample. Note the statistics they tracked:
Pay special attention to that third column. As you can see, it represents the total number of links the blog got from the blogs on the list — which is pretty much every blog in creation, and then some. Even the smallest blog got a few links. For example, a blog literally calling itself dontlinkthis.com still managed to pick up 4 links during the entire year of 2006:
By way of comparison, Instapundit got 4636 inbound links, and the aforementioned Don Surber got 1206 inbound links. My pal See Dubya at the Junkyard Blog got 547.
So how many links did Patterico get in 2006?
None.
You don’t believe me? Then take a gander at this, my friend:
My interview with Stashiu? Nobody linked it. My post revealing Michael Hiltzik’s sock puppetry? No links. My post on Glenn Greenwald’s sock puppetry? Not a single link. My post on the non-existent Ramadi airstrike? Nobody linked that either.
The screenshot doesn’t lie, folks. Nobody linked me in 2006.
Carnegie Mellon researchers say it. So it must be true.
No wonder I have a tough time getting advertisers!
One, your blog must REALLY suck. No incoming links at all?
Two, is it possible, however unlikely, that all the 2006 inbound links you received had the rel=”nofollow” attribute?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 12/13/2007 @ 1:40 amthis cant be, i’ve seen links to patterico on PJM, MM, hmmmmm dont remember others but something is wrong here.
james conrad (7cd809) — 12/13/2007 @ 2:05 amPatterico—buck up, my man. I started my blog at the very end of 2006, and since then I’ve linked to you at least two dozen times, by quick rough count. 2007 should have you rolling in advertising $.
I feel so badly for you that I’m going to add you to my sidebar links today, something I had been meaning to do anyway…
driver (faae10) — 12/13/2007 @ 4:52 amPatterwho?
Pablo (99243e) — 12/13/2007 @ 5:35 amMaybe Patterico’s Pontifications is just a fictional twilight-zone dream shared by people who post here.
Think about it – what really happened to Alphie?
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 12/13/2007 @ 5:46 amMaybe “0” is Carnegie Mellon’s symbol for infinity.
DRJ (09f144) — 12/13/2007 @ 6:23 am“Two, is it possible, however unlikely, that all the 2006 inbound links you received had the rel=nofollow attribute?”
Huh? I think all the above posts were linked by Instapundit. Does he put a no follow tag on his links?
Patterico (3d16a5) — 12/13/2007 @ 6:38 amPatterico –
Did you check under Profonico?
😉
jim2 (a9ab88) — 12/13/2007 @ 6:44 amHeh. How about “Profoundico”? It’s close to “Profonico” but sounds more . . . profound.
Patterico (a98f4e) — 12/13/2007 @ 6:48 amThere’s something very odd about that database. On quick glance, it seems a bunch of blogs with a large number of posts have no incoming links. Unless those blogs are all spam, which would kind of undermine my point….
Attila (Pillage Idiot) (5283ce) — 12/13/2007 @ 6:55 amPerfect Sense,
I do believe Alphie went bye-bye because he thought it was a good idea to make insinuations about our Host’s job on another site.
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 12/13/2007 @ 7:33 amI’m convinced it is part of a LAT inspired plot to quash the voice of the little man (Unless, patterico, you are over 6 feet tall in which case it is the tall man) and to maintain the integrity of the all holy NEWS in the face of upstarts.
Dr T (340565) — 12/13/2007 @ 7:36 amAbout six months ago I actually saw on LAT.com where they had linked to this site in their legal blogroll emailed Patterico about it because I was so surprised. Of course these days you’ve become such an annoying thorn in their side that they probably won’t make that mistake again…and I’d count that a compliment.
Dana (b4a26c) — 12/13/2007 @ 7:53 amHas anyone clicked on the rel="nofollow" attribute link, read about it, and asked if this could possibly be the issue?
I’m just curious.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 12/13/2007 @ 7:55 amGeez, even little ole’ me linked to you. But, this is a university that, as they all do, leans 90% leftard so how are they to be believed?
Sue (585014) — 12/13/2007 @ 8:21 amGee thanks! 🙂
Anwyn (a130c1) — 12/13/2007 @ 8:48 amYou see, trackbacks aren’t links, they’re…..uhhhhh……. trackbacks. Links are….uhhhh….. links.
Veeshir (5f9b87) — 12/13/2007 @ 9:13 am45,000 blogs and they don’t list two that I blogged on in 2006, and I’m pretty sure at least one linked to you.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/13/2007 @ 9:14 amI linked to you several times last year, from my sadly neglected Southwest Left Coast blog.
Bradley J. Fikes (0c68a2) — 12/13/2007 @ 9:18 amThat’s odd, but I notice that not once in 2006 did I ever link to Carnegie-Mellon.
McGehee (25adee) — 12/13/2007 @ 9:31 amAt least you were in the dataset that was considered; I didn’t get that far . . .
. . . doubtlessly because I never made our host’s blogroll. 🙁
Dana (3e4784) — 12/13/2007 @ 10:02 amWOO HOO! I’m the man!
See-Dubya (1fc18b) — 12/13/2007 @ 10:31 amP.S. you kinda missed a chance to make it 548 there.
See-Dubya (1fc18b) — 12/13/2007 @ 10:31 amDon’t feel bad. Littlegreenfootballs and proteinwisdom also had zero links.
Greg (d9fcad) — 12/13/2007 @ 11:32 amI am sure noone knows who they are either.
I can’t even get to the link – I keep getting timeouts. You are on my regular blogroll and on several others that are on my front page so there are multiple links to you from my blog alone.
kimsch (2ce939) — 12/13/2007 @ 11:56 amHi Patterico:
I just found your blog. It’s very informative. If you wait long enough, someone might link one of your stories… Good luck with that.
😉
Clark Baker (68ef14) — 12/13/2007 @ 1:41 pmI know I first came here in either late ’05 or early ’06, and it was through a link….
*shrug* Bad sample.
Foxfier (c8e3db) — 12/13/2007 @ 2:50 pmfinally got there. They don’t have my site at its current domain, just my old blogspot one. That says my Blogid is #7795; NP 39; IL 28; OLO 13: OLA 74. My links to posts ratio is pretty high.
kimsch (2ce939) — 12/13/2007 @ 4:27 pmLinking is a strange thing. I started my blog and only had 4 inbound links…and all of a sudden started averageing 170 a day… Truth Laid Bear is a little tweeky….
Original Pechanga (c00bc4) — 12/13/2007 @ 4:29 pmCarnegie-Mellon…
Is that an intermission refreshment; or,
Something to throw at poor performances?
Alphie…Gone.
But we still have blah.
I’m so relieved.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 12/13/2007 @ 5:16 pmI linked you, but I’m too small to make the list 🙁
Verlin Martin (899dce) — 12/13/2007 @ 6:23 pmHow could they have forgotten your stunning piece on 18th-century New Zealand geologists’ neighbors? Or the words to “Humming and Humming”? Or how to outwait other silent pedestrians? Or your proof, against so much tyranny and censorship, that this planet is an oblate spheroid? Or the secret messages you find in your grocery-store receipts? Or your long lists of your original articles? Or your opinions of your long lists of your original articles? Or other people’s opinions of your opinions of your long lists of your original articles? I truly am stunned.
Bleepless (730ae6) — 12/14/2007 @ 11:55 am