Interesting article...good job.
Thank you - if there's sufficient interest I might consider further articles about this tournament, such as a survey of the more interesting games, opening novelties, endgame themes, etc.
"If you write it, they will come."
The above article was great. You could, and maybe should, write a short book on the 2013 Candidates Tournament. There is interest, I think.
PS: Great article GB, you could also post it as a blog for the heck of it and see how many hits it gets that way.
OK, so...As suggested, I posted this (and my followup article on the games themselves) as a blog and so far it's got pretty much zero hits. That is to say, random blogs with a single youtube link to Katy Perry songs and/or cat pictures have a larger viewership. I'm sorry to say this, as I think my blog has often been rather good, especially compared with what actually *is* featured, but there doesn't seem to be any possible way to gain it any exposure, as there's a vicious loop working against it:A) To be a "featured blogger", you have to have a lot of readers (or a title and/or administrative help)B) 99.999% of chess.com members are only aware of blogs shown on the front pageC) The only blogs shown on the front page are from "featured bloggers"Since I lack a title, this seems to me to be an almost insurmountable catch-22. Anyhow, thank you all for your nice comments, and if anyone has any ideas for how to get any of my material noticed by more than five and a half people, please do share!Sincerely,- John
B) 99.999% of chess.com members are only aware of blogs shown on the front page FALSE, although quite possibly accurate in effect; I occasionally get responses to old and antiquated blogs C) The only blogs shown on the front page are from "featured bloggers" FALSE Depending on how you define "featured blogger" I guess, a lot of blogs on the 1st page are often 100% crap and I mean 100% crap not 99.999% and I'm not being a snob - I'm being an insufferable snob - I believe the first page is the most recent blogs with no exact formula for who gets picked and who doesn't and overall it's page 1 - latest blogs /// last page - oldest blogs
I've posted about 150 blogs and I'm pretty sure (but not 99.999% sure) I know more about them than you do. As for being a "top blogger" I never set out to be one and in fact was unaware of being one (or that there were "TBs" to begin with) until I looked at the list after having posted several dozen blogs already.
Unfortunately all I can say about getting more attn is give the readers what they want - in my case lots of blogs with games by Bobby Fischer seems to have helped - and continue writing quality blogs I don't claim to be a great blogger but quite frankly a lot of "blogs" out there are a total 100% waste of time ("chess com sucks" "I don't know the difference between a blog and a forum" "testing-testing-one-two-uh, 2 1/2, 2 3/4, etc") so anything halfway decent automatically will help you to attract attention to your blog.
I'm guessing once you get one blog with several hundred or more hits it's easier to stay on readers radar than to get there in the first place
I'm confused, is B) "FALSE" or "quite possibly accurate"? I don't see how it can be both. To be honest, I think it's probably an understatement, if anything.
As far as C) goes, that is what chess.com told me when I asked them about it. If they are mistaken, then perhaps you should let them know as well. In any event, I'm fairly sure I've never had a blog entry featured on chess.com's front page.
Anyhow, thank you for the advice on reaching a wider audience by regurgitating old Fischer games or perhaps advising people to update their antivirus software. If someone points a gun to my head and demands I get another hundred views I'll seriously consider giving that a shot.
Er, so to speak.
I'm sure whining about the lack of attention will generate lots of hits.
As one who has been a published writer for more than four decades in newspapers, magazines, literary and professional publications, as well as extensive online work including as a contributor to top 10 and top 20 blogs, I can attest that often your best stuff attracts the least attention and adulation, and pieces you consider throwaways or generic product can achieve celebrity.
There is no accounting for the public's taste, and even less to be gained by complaining about it.
I am pretty sure GB is right about C). Only top bloggers are shown there.
There are 25 blogs displayed on the front page right now (July 8 0715 PST) not counting the top 3 in yellow. "Top Bloggers" (a separate listing) takes up 2 pages.
I think by front page, he means the "www.chess.com" page. There are (in order) articles, videos, news and blogs featured there. There is always one primary blog and 4 "more blogs" there and all of them are from "Top Bloggers".
OK I'm going by the blog listings when you go to look up blogs. I never thought about the "front page" here which I never go to.
... (spectacularly impressive literary resume snipped for sake of brevity)
I'm sorry if I appeared to be whining about the "public's taste" - that was not my original intent, which was to whine about chess.com's tautological "top blogger" ranking system.
People who track you or your friends will see all your blog entries. I'm one of those and wouln't miss any of your writings .
If you increase this 'base number' then you can reach the critical mass required to feature as a top blogger.
Aha, thanks. :)