Power Laws, Popularity, Authority, A-Lists and the Rest

Robert’s advice to the bloglorn is a bit superficial, focusing on eBay-ish features like adding a picture to your Technorati profile, or catchy headlines. Some of the tips are useful, like using lots of descriptive tags (as that will help search engines index your posts better).

However, here’s my list of what to do to improve your blog, so that your sphere of influence will widen and various rankings will increase. Maybe it will push you into the so-called A-List. [Note: /Message a lowly, lowly 7,379 at Technorati this morning, which is nothing like Robert’s 74, and the best T’rati rank I have ever hit is somewhere around 1200, for the Get Real blog. But still, the techniques I have used to climb from one million plus to 7,379 in the past 35 days (chronicled in the Starting From Zero series) are very different from what Robert is talking about.]

  1. True Voice — The absolutely, indispensible, central core of all great blogs is authentic and empassioned writing, clearly expressing a consistent and value-based perspective. If you do not possess this, work hard to see how others do it, and emulate their techniques.
  2. Throw Yourself Into Dialog — Do not write in a corner, looking at the walls. Most great posts are a response to the writing of others. You read something (as I read Robert’s post this morning), it sparks some thoughts, and you add to the thread. Then continue on: see if those involved in the thread respond to your addition to the discussion. Repeat.
  3. Draw The Line, Over And Over Again — At any given time, successful, engaged bloggers are pursuing a set of themes or topics. These are like an investigative series in conventional journalism, topics that you return to, time and again, successively elaborating your view or arguments. Keeping tabs on the censorship in China, or posting consistently on why certain forms of marketing is immoral, or whatever. State your position and defend it. Howl at the inequities in the world. Shake your finger at the idiots.
  4. The Big Idea — Every once in a while, work on one of those big posts, that outlines an idea that may have big implications. This could be asking a hard question, or debunking conventional wisdom, or defining the outlines of a new, emerging market. I recently introduced the Conversational Index, which led to a large cascade of commentary and thinking by others. In past years, I have been lucky enough to click that way with other notions, like last fall’s RSS Readering meme. This is a function of invention, and is hard to channel or predict. But the effect, even of just asking a really hard, important question, can be enormous.
  5. Sharpen Your Pencil, And Then Write. The Polish polymath Ignace Paderewski once said, “before I was a genius I was a drudge.” Writing skills sharpen with use, and the sphere of influence also increases through frequency. You should write — at a minimum — every day.
  6. Courage — You have to be willing to be called an idiot by some if you intend to be considered an authority by most on the topics you are interested in. Accept the occasional (or even consistent) vitriol from detractors and nay-sayers. If you stand up and say something is great, or pointless, or the most likely trend for the future, you can be sure that there are others that will disagree, and they will be happy to say so. Fine. But you can’t hedge, and middle-of-the-road platitudes or cautious optimism — which may come naturally after a diet of television news and mainstream journo-babble — will simply not break you out of the pack.
  7. Technology — By all means arm yourself with technology. Learn how search engines work, and do the obvious things. Expressive titles, especially with people’s and products’ names help greatly. Tagging with detailed terms helps search engines and people alike. By all means, make your blog visually pleasing, accessible, and easy to read. Use graphics when appropriate, such as screen shots or diagrams. Link to all the people and stories you reference, and include people discussed as tags.
  8. Timing Matters — I am not suggesting blowing hot and cold on themes, but rather try to build on stories when they are still new and in people’s thoughts. I saw this post of Robert’s, and I am using it as a springboard to collate a bunch of my thoughts on the topic that he opened. If I had waited a week, a much smaller number of people would read it, because next week this will be one of last week’s hot themes. So timing matters.
  9. Human Sized Pieces — People are busy, and so your posts should generally not be 20 page dissertations. How long do you expect people to spend reading your thoughts? Can you condense? An occasional “Interesting piece from Robert, check it out!” may be ok, but a steady diet of link-blogging is too low fat for most of us. We need more juice. But only a plateful at a time. Not every thing needs to be a three course meal.
  10. Respond to comments — People that comment on your blog are most likely those that are most interested in the topics you are writing about (leaving aside your mom, who just comments to make you feel better). Engage them when they come. But never feed the trolls.

I recently fired myself from an Amercian Marketing Series on social media, because I sensed that a high proportion of the folks that were attending the seminars were approaching the whole idea of blogging tactically: “How little of this do I have to do to be doing an adequate job?” My problem is I only want to talk to people who approach the subject strategically, working backward to the various elements from an analysis of excellence. I bet that those who buy in on that approach will at least find an echo of their own thoughts in these recommendations, and the rest will simply think I am a monomaniacal windbag with too much time on my hands.

Niall Kennedy on Seeking New Horizons

Niall has tendered his resignation at Technorati, effective 1 March:

[from Seeking new horizons

I am leaving Technorati to pursue new opportunities. I submitted my resignation letter this morning and I will be a free agent on March 1. I joined Technorati in February 2005 excited about changing the world of weblogs and introducing people to a new kind of search. Almost a year later my passions at work have eroded and it’s time to find new horizons. Valentines Day is the perfect time to rekindle lost flames.

Hmmm. Most people have forgotten the Niall Kennedy/Technorati self-censorship “imbloglio” of a year ago (see Niall Kennedy and the Spectre of Being Dooced) which will be almost exactly a year after his last day at Technorati. His initial piece that led to the brouhaha was posted 4 March 2005, by my calculation. An amazing coincidence that his departure is 12 months later, almost to the day.

Whatever happened behind closed doors at Technorati, Niall’s a great person. All the best, and I’ll be tracking your progress, Niall!

A True Baseline For Personal Authority (and Starting From Zero: Day 35)

Technorati’s wheels are grinding again, and /Message has been updated, moving from 242 links from 140 sites and a rank of around 10,324 to 340 links from 182 sites and a new rank of 7,379:

Yesterday, I predicted a jump below 5,000, based on the recent surge at BlogPulse. I looked more closely, and the BlogPulse ranking climb was slightly more gradual than I had thought, so changes in one of the two systems are still a fairly good predictor of the scale of changes in the other.

Since Technorati is a hotbed of innovation on authority (see Technorati Authority Filter), it would be sweet if they supported BlogPulse-style graphs, indicating the rise (or fall) of ranking over time, and the comparison of different blog’s rankings over time.

Note that Technorati rankings are that: rankings of blogs. They are not really linked to individuals, except that we know the blogs are written by someone, or some group, by inference. The worst example of that is group blogs and individuals with multiple blogs. Technorati handwaves at the problem, merely associating a person’s profile to the blogs they claim. So, by that approach, one individual — the one that ‘claims’ the blog — gets all the authority associated with a group blog, and the others get none. The worst situation would be a person who has worked long and hard at several group blogs, and who apparently might have no authority at all!

So Technorati needs to create a real personal authority model:

  • Blog authority and personal authority are closely related, and in the unique case of a blogger who only writes on one blog and has no collaborators, they are one and the same. But in every other case, they are different. Perhaps very different.

  • Personal authority is tied to the individual, not the blog. That means that an individual should by some means be able to claim their own posts, and own them. This would allow collation of links and references from multiple blogs into a personal authority rank. This would require author identity to be established, in a way similar to blog claiming, and Technorati would have to learn to read the “by Stowe Boyd” elements of blog posts.

  • Personal authority is not just a matter of links. Those who are authorities in their field are widely cited without direct attribution to specific posts. In my own case, just as examples, in the past week Steve Gillmor wrote a post called Idiot Wind that suggested I was a loon without linking to /Message or the post he was incensed about, and something I wrote in early January at Get Real was quoted by a writer at the Guardian. In both cases, my authority in the field should have been impacted. (Of course, Gillmor’s withholding a link might have been calculated to avoid offering me a boost to my authority on the subject, since his contention was that I am all wrong about the subject in question. In my view, it makes an argument like his hard to follow for the reader, since he is referring to comments that the reader cannot click through to read. What he should have done was use a link with a “nofollow” attribute, which is a way of linking without conferring authority, more or less.)

  • Personal authority is linked on the cascading of influence, which systems like memeorandum leverage and display, but which is not well-captured in Technorati. I wrote a post recently about the Conversational Index. Technorati dutifully noted the number of links to the story, and their originators. But that post led to a really large bloom of thought and argument, where ultimately hundreds of posts were written, many of which did not refer back to the initiation point at all. True, Technorati does capture the first order indicator of that meme bloom, but its conceivable that some of the second and third tier authors in that explosion of thought around the CI wound up with similar link counts from similarly ranked referrers. But the originator of a thought and its secondary critics and admirers should are not in general gain the same degree of authority. The innovator should be recognized in a different way, perhaps on a different scale. I think discovery of the source of these blooms is a critical element of authority in the real world and one that is absent in Technorati, today.

By no means an exhaustive list, but is only an indicator of where Technorati (or others) will have to go before we have established a true baseline for personal authority.

Technorati Authority Filter

Technorati has apparently snuck a new feature into use: an Authority slider, that filters out (or in) blog posts based on the authority of the author. This was reported by Robert Scoble, and commented on by many others.

Steve Rubel wonders if downsampling authority into popularity may not be in our best interests. But Michael Arrington wonders if there are any alternatives.

I went to fool with the feature, and came up with at least an example of how authority-based-on-linkcount fails the true authority test.

As has been widely reported recently, 3bubbles, a client of mine, is releasing a limited beta of their blog chat technology this week. I have been consulting with the company since October, and have been deeply involved in all the development and planning. I was one of the first two to post on the topic, along with Michael. However, unless you turn the Authority filter down to the most non-authoritative level, you don’t stumble across my post about it, although I am arguably one of the 3 or 4 leading authorities, if not THE authority, on 3bubbles, today.

This is the direct result of the current rank of /Message (which I have been chronicling in the Starting From Zero series), which is theoretically an indication of my personal authority in this matter. So there are two problems, one small and one big:

  • The small one: my /Message-based authority ranking is off, significantly, because Technorati has not kept pace with the rapid growth of links to /Message. They are at least 5 or six days behind, which would shift my /Message ranking from 10K and change to something like 4,500. Note, as I have pointed out many thimes, this is a temporary issue, based on the recent start of my blog.

  • The big one: Technorati does not aggregate authority across mutliple blogs. In my case, while I haven’t posted to Get Real in a month, my rank there is still around 1700. Shouldn’t my personal authority be a combination of the various blogs I am associated with? I am also blogging at Social Contract and Conferenza, so over time I will be accumulating links all over the place. And more importantly, is authority online only a function of links? Shouldn’t other factors, such as the period of time that you have been posting, have a weight?

Personally, I have argued for an open model of authority, as I discussed last year vis-a-vis RankOut. Technorati or others could expose a collection of factors — link count, number of posts tagged, number of comments, years blogging, whatever — and allow each of us to push the sliders where we want them. More interested in the perspectives of people with many links? Push that slider to 10. More interested in someone who has been posting on a topic for more than 3 years. Push that slider.

A uniform model of authority has its attractions, but is likely a hopeless oversimplification of people’s real needs in the search for authoritative sources of insight.

Starting From Zero: Day 28

 

I sent email to Dave Sifry, CEO of Technorati, asking about the apparent hiccup in Technorati ranking updates:

[via email]
Stowe,

We had some link count issues over the weekend, and our ops folks have

been fixing things up. I hope that you should see things returning to

normal soon.

We’re also continuing to build out our link counting mechanism with the

goal to make sure that all links and sources are counted at the time

they get added to the index - but we’re still a bit away from that. In

the meantime, we’re striving for updated counts on a daily basis, at least.

Dave

Dave recently reported on the State of the Blogosphere, and all the stats underscore the enormous scaling pressure that Technorati and other blog search engines much be experiencing. The Blogosphere doubling every 5.5 months, a new blog launched every second! Yikes.

But Technorati is such an important appliance that it just has to work; at least for me. I use it every day, to track links, find new voices, check tags. And Dave’s email was two days ago, and nothing seems to have happened. Today’s T’rati ranking for /Message:

Same number of links (138) from the same number of sites (82) as on Day 20, ten days ago. Obviously out of date. I hope they get around to updating in the next day or so, since Day 30 is a big day for the Starting From Zero project.

My bet is that when recalculated, /Message will climb into the top 10,000, at least.

Technokarma

Steve Rubel is picking up the technokarma question I have been poking at for the past few weeks today — see Micro Persuasion: You Can’t Take Your Technorati Links With You — where he says

This raises a bigger issue. Lots of bloggers and podcasters switch URLs and blog platforms. Still you can’t take your Technorati metadata with you. If you use FeedBurner you can redirect your old RSS feed to a new one. TypePad and other platforms let you export your posts. However, Technorati does not let you take what you have amassed somewhere else and port it to your new profile. This is wrong. When is Technorati going to step up and let us manage our reputations?

This is technokarma: I am a person who wrote all that stuff at Get Real, but that fact has no impact on the status of /Message. Which is crazy.

The focus of Technorati and other services on the physical dimension — files, links, trackbacks, etc. — leaves them blind to the underlying social reality. Those posts are written by people, they don’t just appear.

Technorati should explicitly create “technokarma” which is tied to individuals, not the physical location of blogs. So, when you start a new blog, or participate in a group blog, you do not start from zero.

I demand the beanie off of Stowe Boyds head.

I think it was Brian Dennis Ritchie, one of the inventors of Unix and C, who said “All large systems that work start as small systems that work.” This is an enormously powerful thought, one that can be carried into all corners of life, business, and technology, and which resonates with today’s notions about small, focussed, and quickly evolving Web 2.0 apps. I also think that this insight also is deeply relevant to social media.

While working at Corante, I had the opportunity to peer at the stats for all sorts of blogs that we had going. And one thing that became really obvious is that sucessful blogs — ones that were currently viable and vibrant, and those that were on a growth trajectory from their start — shared a common characteristic: The ratio between posts and comments+trackbacks (posts/comments+trackbacks) was less than one. Meaning that there was more conversation — as indicated by the number of comments and track backs offered by readers — than posting articles. I will call this the Converation Index, just to put a handle on it.

Here’s the current picture for /Message, a CI of 80/102 = 0.784.

The down side? Those blogs that we started at Corante that did not take off, and subsequently went dormant, or were shuttered, had a Conversational Index greater than one: too much speech, not enough banter. And those that started badly seldom pulled out of the problems.

Perhaps it’s all unsurprising, really. But this conversational metric is not hidden, per se — I mean you can go to a blog and do the arithmetic — but our expereince of this differential between blogs is generally just sensed rather than explicitly measured. That may be a mistake. Perhaps it should be as relevant to determining whether something is worth reading as Google juice and Technorati rank, but it is not reported, and not used by those search tools, as far as I know. These search engines simply count links, and who is linking — which is a useful metric — but these are relatively crude measures, and don’t adequately measure the level of interactivity going on at blogs, I don’t think. They are industrial grade metrics, good for comparing the top 5000 blogs, perhaps. But they don’t really help a blogger with relatively light traffic to determine week to week, month to month, if what they are doing is satisfying to some group.

No, the Conversational Index is much better for the artisanal level of blogger. So I hope someone out there — some bored toolsmith, or a computer science student looking for an interesting project — will build a tool that will scan a blog, determine the CI, and provide the result as a chicklet that we can embed on our blogs. Even better would be a 30 day graph, like Tufte’s sparklines, that shows the social interaction ebbing and flowing.

And of course, my thesis: any successful blog starts in a small way, but from the very beginning is highly social. It is a place, a shared space, not a container for articles. The best predictor of blog success — aside from previous success in other blogs — is the Conversational Index, because it contains the outcomes of many other small things done right.

[Update - Doc Searls corrected the Brian Dennis error in the first paragraph, and says he can’t find the quote anywhere. Neither could I, but the C Programming Language text is not indexed on line. So who knows.]

ATTENTION PLEASE: Who decides what gets noticed?

Scott Karp poses a great question (before wandering into a maze of ideas that peter out without a solid conclusion):

[from Publishing 2.0 » Who Are the New Media Gatekeepers?]

Who decides what’s worthy of your attention — a Web 2.0 application, a newspaper columnist, a talk show host, an editorial staff, an influential blogger, a community of thousands, a community of millions?

In the perfect world, the answer would be that each person should be their own gatekeeper. The reality is that we are unequipped — we do not have the time or resources. So we are thrown back onto one of four (potentially complementary or competitive) approaches to dealing with this conundrum:


  1. Institutional authority — If you agree with the editorial stance of a particular group or company, then you allow them to decide what’s important, how many words to devote to it, and your life is easy.
  2. Individual authority — If you like what Doc Searls has to say about open source or the future of media, put his RSS feed in your reader, and ta-da, life is good.
  3. Emergent authority — If you trust in the wisdom of the crowd, then Slashdot, digg, the Always-On-Network, or del.cio.us/popular will be a good choice, as they rely on collective decision making about what is interesting and what is not.
  4. Machine authority — Various software approaches to determining what is important, like Google, Blogpulse, tech.memeorandum.com, or Technorati, mine the social gestures that people leave behind, like links and traffic, and pass it through an algorithmic blender, to yeild a metadata-based approach to what is most important.

But of course, all of these things are happening in an open universe: they all impinge on, and influence each other. It’s a dynamic system, where individual authority — good writing on a topic — leads to emergent authority (as many swarm to read a great post), which allows Technorati to mine those readers’ links, which leads to increased individual authority, and so on. Meanwhile, individuals combine into groups — like the Web 2.0 Workgroup — which confers an almost institutional authority, or are included on exclusive lists in aggregation, like the tech.memeorandum 2000 bloggers.

So, the answer is: there is no gate. There are many waypoints, many street signs, and many ways to go, but no one is barring the gate, or deciding who is let in. This is confusing if we try to apply the old map to the new territory, but not if we try to perceive the new media universe as it is.

Good Works, Bad Works, but Karma doesn’t work

Richard McManus at ZDNet’s Web 2.0 Explorer and Read/Write Web investigates the karma system at Reddit, and wonders if it’s better than Digg’s:

[from » Collaborative filtering: comparing Reddit’s karma system to Digg]

Indeed Reddit’s Alexis Ohanian says that “with reddit, we’re hoping that by focusing on filtering, users will be inclined to vote up links that genuinely interest them”. The Reddit method then is trying to capture that elusive social software principle of getting the user to reward him or herself first and foremost, but actually the system is enhanced at the same time. As Alexis said, “The nice thing about this is that although users are serving themselves by voting to train a personal filter, the by-product of their honesty is that the community gets a more accurate idea of what’s really popular.”

What do you think. Is Reddit’s karma system a better - more honest - way to rank stories and users than Digg’s? Or do you think Digg has the right approach, but just needs to address the groupthink and spam issues that come with scaling to thousands of users?

My strong belief is that these rating/ranking filters are failing at a fundamental level: not because they don’t work, or because they can be gamed, but because they are

  1. closed, and

  2. tightly integrated to a specific solution.
I would like to see an open karma solution that would allow all sorts of applications to share individual’s karma, and to participate in the karma’s change over time. It’s crazy for us to have 252 karma ratings in 252 different applications!

Each application could influence this foundational karma in dissimilar ways. On one application, say Oyogi, your karma would increase by correcting answering questions directed to you, while Technorati might increase your karma based on the number of inbound links to your blog, and Typepad might increase your karma based on the number of positive comments you receive on your blog.

Since we are in the Web 2.0 era of mash-ups, won’t someone break their karma system out, and set it up in this way, so that we can avoid a fragmented collection of non-interoperable solutions? People who would like to have various, separate identities could still do so, and the solution could support anonymity, but the benefits of a open karma solution, that all could draw upon, is so obvious that I am actually surprised it hasn’t been done already.