Site Trophies and Top Blogging

"Erik, in his January 12 post, has promised a review of blogging this year, but also wonders how to fix the problems. "

I know. I think it was copy and pasted from around last year around this time when I had brought up this topic :-D

I mention (and complain) rather than push hard for these changes simply because I don't know what's going on in the background. But, then again, it's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil . . . or so I've heard.

hmm. . . . "SqueakyWheel" would make a good handle.

"Seriously? All you have to do is request it and you got it? Oh..."

Of course, they could turn you down too.

That's interesting. Thanx for the help...

ADK

ADK:  I was wondering the same thing a while back. I think the system recognizes Top Bloggers based on the select few who were already ones... This means that no one else can have his/her's on display! No matter how hard I tried to make MY blog good enough, it was not cut out to be one.

Yep, there's a way in, ADK.  You only have to hammer on the door loudly enough and you'll get in.

I had the same problem a few months ago.  I realised that I wasn't going to get many readers without a front-page listing so I wrote multiple posts (go to my blog and check the frequency from June 1 last year).  I usually got between 40 and 80 views for each post but when they took me past the totals shown in the top bloggers page I put up a forum post and asked how to break in.  (Much like you've done with this post.)

Erik reviewed the top bloggers' list and I think a few of us were added at the same time.  Give it a try.

BTW, if you look at my total number of viewers now you won't find any showing only 40-80 readers, but that's been caused by a spill-over from viewers reading the more recent posts, then going back to read what they missed before.

Sorry, batgirl already answered your post while I was adding that.  I won't delete it though, if a simple request doesn't get what you want then my more roundabout approach might.

Letting erik select who are and who are not "Top Bloggers" is nonsense in my opinion. Not only will erik get a spammed messagesbox when people hear about this, but that's just not what should define a "Top Blogger". A top blogger should be chosen by the public as being a top blogger (or a worthless blogger), not by one person.

I'd say to be a top blogger you'd need to get a good combination of popularity (why don't blogs get ratings anyway, like articles?), viewers and trackers from the public.

Hmm, maybe that opening line ("Letting erik select who are and who are not "Top Bloggers" is nonsense...") sounds a bit harsh, but I'm just saying that I don't think that's a good system. No offence erik!

I believe the idea behind Top Bloggers relates to the fact that blogs here don't have to deal in chess.  Singling out those that deal exclusively with chess promotes the site, which is, of course, a chess site.  I don't think it has anything to do with elitism.  Someone in Admin has to make the determination of whether a certain blogger devotes enough of his writing to chess to attain Top Blogger status.

There's an element of self-preservation there too, batgirl.  My experience has been that if I don't make it clear either in the title, or in the opening sentence, that a post is chess-related, then it won't attract many readers.

Given the problem with site trophies that was already pointed out in the first post of this thread, allowing users to choose who is a top blogger based on voting might not be the best choice available.

Essentially, Erik wanted good content for his chess site and chose to display the work of people he believed were providing it. This is how most websites (newspapers, magazines, etc.) work. The general public doesn't choose the authors of site content, the site owner does.

Obviously, from what I've already written in this thread, I support user feedback for rating blogs. I just don't think there is a necessity to cut out the management entirely. The executive discretion of the site owners is still valuable.

Dozy, that little blurb is rather annoying. While a certain sentence might make a rational opening, it often makes a lousy advertisement. So, I sometimes amend my opening  or add sentences that I don't particularly care for simply to make the blurb a bit more appealing.  It's called the Pavlovian School of Posting.

But if I just wanted a lot of views, I'd post a game by Morphy or Tal or Polgar and write some generic hype. . .

History, however, isn't quite so dynamically charged, at least to most people.

"I just don't think there is a necessity to cut out the management entirely. The executive discretion of the site owners is still valuable."

And no more necessary than possible.  Ultimately it's entirely their decision.

You have some good points there, but still... erik and the Chess.com staff don't pay bloggers to share their content, while Chess.com members do pay for memberships, which also includes being able to view good content. I do think that at least the paying members of Chess.com should have a say in it as well. Or erik should start paying good bloggers :)

"Or erik should start paying good bloggers"

Eric doesn't pay you ? ?

batgirl:  Pavlovian School of Posting

Woof!  (That's dog talk for LOL...)  

Yeah, we basically differ there.  Perhaps it's because of the type of stuff I write, or maybe it's an ego thing, I tend to measure the success of a piece by the number of readers, and I always take some pleasure from any responses. 

If a post scores well, I'm pleased with it.  If it flops, then like a lost chess game, I try to see why. But a good score on one post probably means there'll be a good response to the next so it can be a positive indicator.

And in case anybody hasn't noticed, I do have a reasonably well-muscled ego.  It wouldn't register on the Richter scale but it 's definitely there.

I find it hard to spot it in written texts (because you don't get the intonation with it) but I assume that was a sarcastic comment...

"I assume that was a sarcastic comment"

No sarcasm intended. . . just joking around.

None of the proposed changes are possible without the say-so (and hard work) of the chess.com staff. Relinquishing their power in determining the top bloggers included. It is possible if that's their decision, but though I think we both agree it would be a bad one, it doesn't hurt to spell out why.

Re-read what you quoted of me. I don't disagree that giving the members a tool have a say in it as well is a good idea.

That's why I add smileys, it's easier to see I'm joking then :)

What do you all actually think about the whole Articles & Blogs (& News) section differences? When I started making some posts about my games I was not sure if I should post it in the Articles or in the Blogs section. In the end I "concluded" that Blogs should be for personal stories, while Articles should be about chess in general. I noticed not many share that view though and I was wondering what you think seperates blogs from articles...

Similarly, if you comment on a recent Corus game, would that be an Article or a News item? (or still a Blog post?)