How do you become a top blogger on this site?

1 is only relevant if you post pics.

@Batgirl: it isn't mind reading, it's counting number of views.

You are ignoring the facts. 

"Top Blogger" is a status.  Titled players are given that status automatically due to their position in the chess world.  Everyone else must apply for that status if they want it.  If everyone had that status, it would be meaningless.  Number of views are meaningless - post a bunch of girly pictures and you get a bunch of views.  Chess.com doesn't know automatically whether you want that status or, even if you do want it, whether you are entitled to it until they examine your content.  You aren't chosen, you must apply and meet certain criteria or standards just as if you want a driver's licence.

Again number of views are irrelevant. I don't understand why this keeps getting mentioned.

Huh. Didn't know that. Someone should start a thread about it.

@ Batgirl: I see! You are right about posting "random pictures" and such. I didn't think about that.

Of course I meant things like posting quality content and getting lots of views for that, or rather, SHOULD get lots of views.

To filter out those random blogs that just post pictures and such there could be a "spam" button too, but on the whole I believe using filtering mechanisms such as that, rewarding by number of views isn't such a bad strategy.

batgirl, I think you're confusing correlation with requirements. Let's say, for example, that people who like math correlate with people who play chess. That doesn't mean that you have to like math to play chess.

Correlation still seems like a relationship; that's why I disagreed with your comment that there is no relationship between views and being top blogger. I would agree that there is no direct causal relationship. But, I would expect amounts of views and those picked as top blogger to overlap to some degree, even if it's not strictly speaking necessary. ("Girly pictures" with little chess content as you put it would indeed be a definite exception, but given that it's a chess site that probably wouldn't happen often in a blog -- well, hopefully not.)

Of course it's possible they don't even correlate. It just seems like a reasonable guess to think they would.

I would also disagree that I was ignoring the facts: I made my point while keeping yours in mind. That's why I made a nod to the fact that one is not required to have a large amount of views to be top blogger.

No, I'm not confusing correlation with requirements.  Any casual relation is meaningless and a correlation calls for a dependency.  A meaningful correlation may exist between good/interesting articles and number of views  but there is no correlation between "top blogger" and good/interesting articles, especially when my own obsevations tell me that 50% or more "top boggers" articles are mediocre at best.  If there is any meaningful correlation between "top bloggers" and number of views, it's that the number of views could possibly be driven by the fact that the article is written by a "top blogger" and therefore gets more exposure leading to more views and not that number of views affects who is a "top blogger" (which was the essence of the discussion and what I've been trying to get peoples' minds around ).

"and not that number of views affects who is a "top blogger""

This is why I think you're mixing up correlation and requirements/causation.

For two things to correlate, it's not necessary for one of those two things to affect the other; they just both have to have a trend of increasing/decreasing together. That could happen if, say, there is some third thing that causes both of the two things at the same time. As a possible relevant example, it may be that putting a lot of thought into an article (the "third thing") just so happens to increase both views and the likelihood of being top blogger at the same time.

Anyway, I respect your opinion on the matter and we can agree to disagree. I think, from my experience, top bloggers here tend to write pretty good stuff.

"A meaningful correlation may exist between good/interesting articles and number of views"

Ok. So we agree here. You're just saying that those who get picked as top blogger are not necessarily better at writing blogs than those who don't.

Exactly!

What may or may not be good idea I'll leave for others to speculate upon since I quit blogging October of last year.   I can only say for certain what process is in place now.  I don't know much about many things, but since I've blogged here ever the place opened for business in the spring of 2007 (about 700-800 chess-related articles), had been the Top Blogger for most of that time and intimately involved with the blog area's painful evolution every step of the way,  I feel I know how blogging here works at this time as well as in every incremental phase prior.  I do suspect the evolution will continue.