The Feedster search engine has just introduced a monthly listing of the Top 500 blogs. It’s an interesting list, which I find especially remarkable as one of my blogs is included.
At number 221 in the list, NevOn Experimental appears:
Flattering but remarkable. That blog is one which I post to quite infrequently, on average once or twice a week. The content is a bit niche and my referrer stats from Statcounter consistently show that link traffic is less than ten percent of what my primary blog gets.
Now I might be persuaded to believe the list if it were my primary blog (NevOn: this one) that was listed, to which I post with some frequency, perhaps two or three times every day, and which consistently shows up in my various watchlists of who’s linking and talking. But the secondary one that hardly gets noticed? [Edit: Feedster did have the wrong blog listed – see Update below.]
What I find hardest to believe is that NevOn Experimental has a higher ranking in this list than blogs like Silicon Valley Watcher (229), Adrants (254), Nick Bradbury (262), or Jeremy Wright’s Ensight (348), to name just four.
Not only that, I notice at least one site listed – Expatica, number 295 – isn’t a blog, it’s a web portal. That may look like picking nits, but Feedster’s description is quite clear:
Each month, Feedster brings you a list of 500 of the most interesting and important blogs. Enjoy browsing to see what people are reading, to find feeds that will bring topics of interest to you on a regular basis, and to discover new voices in the Blogosphere.
Feedster, can you take a look at your info again? I’d love to know how the link data has been calculated. Meanwhile, I’m afraid I have so many doubts that I couldn’t rely on your list as a credible snapshot.
[UPDATE 17/8/05] Feedster was listening. My incredulity has diminished as a result of a comment last night to this post by Scott Rafer of Feedster – the ranking is correct but they got the wrong blog listed. It should be this blog, NevOn, not my other one. Thanks for the clarification, Scott.
For Immediate Release ranks 245 while my blog, a shel of my former self, ranks 452. This can’t be right.
The longer I look at the list, the more I have the feeling it needs some finetuning. Buzzmachine has a good posting with the title Another damned list.
http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2005/08/16/another-damned-list/
Heh, well, at least it has Dooce on there…
I didn’t spot FIR in there, Shel, thanks. I really do think something about this list is out of kilter somewhere. As I said in my post, I just cannot see how my secondary blog can be at #221. It’s simply not believable to me. So I question the validity of the list itself.
Elisa Camahort has a terrific post about this list, puts it into excellent perspective:
http://workerbeesblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/why-a-list-can-be-self-perpetuating.html
I’m happy hiding away in the mid 300s 😉
Heh indeed, Laura!
And I just saw that Feedster has added an ‘Errata’ to the Top 500 list page:
“No list is perfect and, unfortunately, we managed to not list several prominent blogs that should have been in the August Feedster Top 500. And our guess is that they will be in the September Feedster Top 500. But for right now here they are along with their approximate ranking”
That’s probably a good approach, Jeremy. It will no doubt change next month anyway.
But I do wonder – does anybody *really* care about such lists? Is this yet another indicator of the navel-gazing bloggers partake in? I like to think that I don’t pay much attention to such things, but here I am with a post about the list…
We seem to have you at the right rank with the wrong feed URL. Sorry about that. It should be fixed now.
ScottR
Scott, thanks for your comment, I appreciate it.
So the rank is for this blog, not the other one. Well, now I am impressed!