MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

A quick trip over to Alexa tonight indicates that MyDD has experienced major audience/traffic growth since the beginning of the year, certainly in comparison to its much bigger "cousin," DailyKos.

Judging from the front-and-center "history graphs," for which Alexa's known, MyDD's audience reach (percentage of overall Internet users) appears to have almost doubled since January 1, 2008, while the reach of the significantly larger community at DKos is at roughly just 50% of the numbers it was posting at the beginning of the year.

While traffic at most political blogs during a presidential election year tends to mirror actual campaign activity--experiencing erratic and/or downward swings once the primaries are concluded prior to an uptick around convention time--Alexa's history graphs indicate that MyDD's audience reach appears to have actually achieved a modest gain in its daily traffic over this period, while DKos "reach" stats have plummeted, dramatically. (i.e.: relational comparisons between MyDD's and Kos' overall audience reach around the first week of June indicate an audience-reach ratio of 1:8 or 1:9 between the two sites; however, this week, that ratio is approx. 1:2.5 or 1:3.)

Alexa provides "hard numbers" which seem to soften the apparent traffic hit the Big Orange appears to have taken in recent weeks, but this may be due to the fact that most of Kos' audience drop has occurred in the past five or six weeks. The hard numbers, below, tend to reinforce my comments about the positive visual representations on that site for MyDD, however.

90-day audience stats are as follows--

      MyDD  +35%      Daily Kos  +11%

      MyDD  +11,856 positions      Daily Kos  +488 positions

      MyDD  +50%      Daily Kos  -6%

As of yesterday, July 19, 2008--

AUDIENCE REACH (% of all Internet users):
      MyDD  .0048%      Daily Kos  .0123%

      MyDD  22,840 ranking      Daily Kos  9,875 ranking

      MyDD  4.3      Daily Kos  2.5

Congratulations to Jerome and his great staff! These results speak for themself.

Tags: Blogosphere, dailykos, meta, MyDD, traffic statistics (all tags)



In the words of Satchel Page...

"Don't look back, something might be gaining on you!"

by bobswern 2008-07-20 12:34AM | 0 recs
Re: In the words of Satchel Page...

One of my all time favorite quotes.

by Denny Crane 2008-07-20 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

When looking at the Alexa link, you have to enter "" and "" to see the graphs.
Very interesting.

I added in Huffington Post just to see their stats, seems they are kicking everyone's butt!

by skohayes 2008-07-20 02:46AM | 0 recs
Yeah, HuffPo's had....

...significantly more traffic than Kos, at least since I've been looking at this stuff. (Which is only the past year, or so.)

by bobswern 2008-07-20 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

Instead of comparing the sites to each other, you're comparing the sites to their previous accomplishments, while pretending to be comparing them to each other.

Not the most honest of techniques. You say that MyDD grew 35% in audience reach, while DailyKos grew only 11%. What you fail to indicate is the actual number of people this represents.

With the same tactic I could compare my own website favourably to MyDD if it was visited by 1 person last year, and it's nowadays visited by 2. Why, that's a 100% growth in audience reach! Beats your 35% right out of the water.

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-07-20 03:06AM | 0 recs
Extremely belligerent, inaccurate comment.

Did you even bother reading the very first sentence of the diary? Where I say Kos is much bigger than MyDD. Or, what about this (where I indicate that Kos had eight to nine times more traffic than MyDD at the beginning of the year):

...comparisons between MyDD's and Kos' overall audience reach around the first week of June indicate an audience-reach ratio of 1:8 or 1:9 between the two sites; however, this week, that ratio is approx. 1:2.5 or 1:3.

Apparently, you didn't. Instead, you accuse me of "misrepresenting" or "pretending." The diary's quite accurate.

Apologies are accepted around here, btw.

by bobswern 2008-07-20 06:13AM | 0 recs
I'm t.r.'ing this....

...since you're attacking the diary for misrepresentation of the facts, when that's not the case.

In three separate places here--in a diary that's not that lengthy to begin with--I indicate that Kos has significantly more traffic than MyDD.

Furthermore, all the stats are self-evident, too.

His audience is down; this audience is up. Period. End of story. It speaks for itself.

And, if you look at the most recent nos. Kos traffic is only about 2-1/2 times greater than MyDD as of the last few days. At the beginning of the year, it was running 9 to to 10 times higher as far as reach stats were concerned.

It's all here.

Another comparison: MyDD user registrations are up about 30%-33% since the beginning of the year. DailyKos user registrations are up roughly 10%.

by bobswern 2008-07-20 06:39AM | 0 recs
Not worth trolling bob

And on the issue of increased MYDD user registrations: I suspect that is just due to Rankles and his various sockpuppets.

by duende 2008-07-20 07:17AM | 0 recs
LOL!'s all due to him/her! n/t

by bobswern 2008-07-20 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Extremely belligerent, inaccurate comment.

i don't see the belligerence.  You were having naval gazing fun, playing with statistics and they called you on your fishy presentation.

Diaries like this aren't going to lead mydd to the promised land.

by cargocult 2008-07-20 02:20PM | 0 recs
The only thing 'fishy' about a...

...presentation, where all the reference info is available for anyone to comment upon appears to be with regard to all of the "baggage" folks still appear to be carrying since the primaries were concluded six weeks ago.

Apparently, it doesn't take much to contort a conversation about web traffic into something quite different than the intentions of the person that posted this diary in the first place.

Tell me there's no lingering resentment towards those that own, manage and regularly participate at MyDD, and I'll point you to the comments in this diary.

People are coming out of the woodwork on this. Why, come to think of it, right now I'm responding to a comment from someone that hasn't posted here in a dog's age.

Tell me, how could folks contort cut-and-dried web stats that show that MyDD seems to be doing pretty well, in comparison to Daily Kos, into a dialogue Clinton-hate (and/or Obama-hate)?

Goes to show it doesn't take much. And, that resentment still lingers among those that claim otherwise--to say the least--doesn't it?

by bobswern 2008-07-20 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The only thing 'fishy' about a...

"fishy" in the sense that you remind me of local media market personalities..your typical FM Morning zoo, for example...and nationally syndicated people like Larry King, Rush Limbaugh, Don an Mike...when their 'credibilty' is threatened they pull out arbitron rating and wave it like across/flag.  That's what you seem to be flirting with.

by cargocult 2008-07-20 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

Assuming you're beyond a certain minimum point at which statistics become credible and not just noise, scale is a more accurate way to compare two similar objects, actually. Granted, the growth statistic is probably a bit less meaningful, but the ones that compare pageviews per session or pageviews in general don't lie. MyDD developed a more diverse number of voices and has been rewarded with a certain niche of people that is growing.

by vcalzone 2008-07-20 10:47AM | 0 recs
IMO, it's all about management

It has nothing to do with the audience. Most are as ignorant as ever, accusing people that they disagree with of being trolls. The same mind-set as many on daily kos. Mydd administrators run the site in a more Democratic fashion.

by soyousay 2008-07-20 04:07AM | 0 recs
Re: IMO, it's all about management

yep Todd and the others seen determined to make this Dkos Jr., and all the dkos kiddie trolls now hang out here making sure it as lame and useless as Markos's hate-site.

by zerosumgame 2008-07-20 07:06AM | 0 recs
You love it really n/t

by duende 2008-07-20 07:18AM | 0 recs
Please spare us.

Todd is my favorite FPer because he's honest, open-minded, and made the switch to Obama gracefully and graciously. I'm so sorry that his decision to support Obama disturbs you.

DKos isn't really a hate site. It has some hateful people, just like MyDD. If you'd stayed out of the candidate diaries, you wouldn't have had any problems. We have plenty of rude, abusive Clinton supporters here. Interesting that you agree with O'Reichy about the Great Orange Satan, though.

If this site is lame and useless, how about you GTFO?

by sricki 2008-07-20 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Please spare us.

so he is your favorite? and that means something to anyone else why exactly? I have never seen you take anyone to task for insulting anyone you disagree with so why should anyone care about your likes or dislikes?

by zerosumgame 2008-07-20 08:13AM | 0 recs
You didn't give a decent

reason for disliking Todd, so I pointed out his good qualities. He has nothing to do with the meanies who say not nice things to you on teh intertubes.

Again I ask, why don't you get out? Honestly, other than your sockpuppet brother, who wants you here? You're spiteful and irksome.

by sricki 2008-07-20 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: You didn't give a decent

You know, when you spend some time on the internet, you begin to notice certain personality types. In particular, the addictive, obsessive, and/or compulsive types who are drawn to anonymous conflicts and can't pull themselves away. They're the ones who get banned repeatedly from sites and return under different names, who create multiple personalities, who post at dozens of sites, who spend most of their time flaming (because it gets the most attention).

This technology has a lot of wonderful advantages and potential, but it can also exploit peoples' worse tendencies and weaknesses. I suspect that a lot of "trolls" are, in addition to other things, very unhappy and mostly solitary people who are immersing themselves in this virtual world as a way of escaping from or ignoring the real one.

They're not going away. They're a reflection of humanity, unfortunately. And we're all susceptible. I've even had to budget my own computer time, to keep from being pulled into an unhealthy vortex now and then.

by BobzCat 2008-07-20 08:30AM | 0 recs
amen n/t

by shef 2008-07-20 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: IMO, it's all about management

Hide rated for calling out Todd and accusing him of made up lies and bullshit. In other words, your usual M.O.

Say hi to Jeff for me! LOL!

by spacemanspiff 2008-07-20 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: IMO, it's all about management

Trytobereal....  Why don't you abide by your own sig line and actually comment instead of the drive-by troll-rate?

by JenKinFLA 2008-07-20 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: IMO, it's all about management

Didn't you hear?

zerocredibility got outed last night.

trytobereal is her sockpuppet and (being the moran she is) forgot to log off and responded to a comment directed at zero. 34451/737/63#63

Hilarity ensues.

by spacemanspiff 2008-07-20 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: IMO, it's all about management

Wow... miss a night around here, miss a lot...

I had suspected as much given the targeted uprates and all, but the proof in the posting is nice to see.

by JenKinFLA 2008-07-20 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: IMO, it's all about management

Okay...  let me get this straight...  you think this place is infested with trolls and "kiddie trolls" whatever those might be, you think it is lame and useless...

May I ask the question:  Why are you still here?

by JenKinFLA 2008-07-20 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

I came for the non reality based clintonista windbaggery.

Got stuck.

by lojasmo 2008-07-20 04:29AM | 0 recs
You might as well change your sig. n/t

by sricki 2008-07-20 04:38AM | 0 recs
Re: You might as well change your sig. n/t

Can I has help wif my formatting?

by lojasmo 2008-07-20 06:21AM | 0 recs

You want to enter this code:

<a href=;entry_id=13035&gt;John McCain, maverick</a>

Cut and paste that into your sig, and it should work.

by sricki 2008-07-20 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

Same here.  

The primary wars were good to MyDD. I suspect that is why Jerome & Co. don't ban the PUMA's and their enablers.  If these people left, MyDD would revert back to its pre-strike self and participation would go down by quite a bit.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-07-20 05:04AM | 0 recs
There are two types of PUMAs...

...they're called Democrats and Republicans.

Last I checked, this site was about Democrats.

Also, a lot of folks here supporting and/or working for downticket candidates are being accused of being trolls and or PUMAs, when that's not the case.

Lastly, some folks have a penchant for slamming people that are posting anything that's critical of Obama, and then accusing those people of being PUMAs or trolls.

This is abusive behavior of Democrats, IMHO.

(NOTE: there are trolls still here, of course; and there are many in the PUMA movement that are little more than acknoweldged GOPers or Rethug sockpuppets. I am in favor of calling these folks out. But, it's a fine line; and it's a line not well-defined by many that's abused by some others that post around here, too.)

Judging from your comments, you're not tolerant of any of that. It's the same mentality that has caused me to do most of my blogging here in the past few months. Although, admittedly, I do post over at Kos from time to time.

by bobswern 2008-07-20 06:58AM | 0 recs
Correction: there are 3 types of PUMAs.

Republicans. Independents. Democrats.

by bobswern 2008-07-20 07:00AM | 0 recs
With this comment

'It's the same mentality that has caused me to do most of my blogging here in the past few months.", you might have explained part of the reason behind the numbers in your diary. The drop-off in Kos traffic seemed to drop off about the same time that the witch hunts for anybody not clapping loud enough for Obama reached a fever pitch there. A lot of people who were driven out of the Kos community landed at myDD by default. Now that a lot of those same self-appointed diary police have followed them, I wouldn't be surprised if myDD's numbers decline over the next few months.

by georgiapeach 2008-07-20 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: There are two types of PUMAs...

It's impossible to be a democrat and a PUMA.  If you are engaging in actions that increase the likelihood of the republican candidate winning you're not a democrat.  PUMAs have lost their right to call themselves democrats.

by Philoguy 2008-07-20 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: There are two types of PUMAs...

Fall in line or drop dead, eh?

by Narrowback gal 2008-07-20 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: There are two types of PUMAs...

Put pressure on Obama to change positions in cases like FISA or faith based initiatives (also supported by Clinton), but also be clear that you will vote for the democrat and work to get him elected.  If you're planning on sitting out the election or voting McCain then you've surrendered your right to be called a democrat.

by Philoguy 2008-07-20 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: There are two types of PUMAs...

What kind of pressure would you suggest putting on him?
I'm interested in what you think would make him respond.

Should I guarantee my vote with no conditions attached, just because I am a democrat, and hope that he will "re-see" the light on FISA?
Should I donate money and keep my fingers crossed that he will actually espouse the progressive values which he assured us he holds?

by Narrowback gal 2008-07-20 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: There are two types of PUMAs...

I think the best we can do is to continue what we've been doing with the democrats in the last few years.  We have made progress, though certainly not as quickly as we would like.  My view is that this election is the last chance we have to begin turning things around economically and environmentally, so not voting for the democrat is not an option.  Back in 2000 I could understand the perspective of the Nadar voters because many thought that there was little real difference between democrats and republicans (not that I voted for Nadar).  Clinton had moved to the right on economic policy as well as a number of social policies, and it was difficult to imagine the sort of extremism the republicans later came to embody.  Things are no longer that way.  I wish I had a better answer, but I think the best we can do is to continue to build coalitions and work to have our voices heard.

by Philoguy 2008-07-20 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: There are two types of PUMAs...

Fall in line or drop dead sounds pretty tempting to me sometimes.... It depends what bullshit I have read at the time.

Seriously, this election is bigger than one person... it is bigger than one group... it is, quite seriously, about the future of our country.  You are either working to regain the White House in Democratic control or you aren't.

by JenKinFLA 2008-07-20 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: There are two types of PUMAs...

I would even say that it is bigger than the entire country.  I am not making the ridiculous claim that somehow America is the most important nation in the world, but that this is our last real chance to begin shifting policy concerning the looming environmental apocalypse.  That simply won't occur if McCain gets in the Whitehouse.  Now whether or not Obama will take the needed steps is still an open question, but it is far more likely if democrats are in power.  All of these issues are also attached to economic issues.  We are currently on the verge of a complete economic meltdown.  If we continue republican rule we will have economic decisions designed to benefit the top 5% of the population while screwing the rest of us.  It's fine to have your problems with Obama-- I sure do --but there really is no other reasonable choice here if you've been paying attention.  I get these sense that those who are talking about sitting this one out or voting for McCain think that either a) we're going to win this in a landslide so their indulgence is okay (you'll hear catfish talk this way on occasion, stating that a corpse could beat McCain), or b) that our situation isn't really that dire and it matters little whether democrats or republicans are at the helm.  I think people are deluding themselves if they think we're going to win this thing in a landslide.  The occupational danger of being well informed is that you unconsciously begin to think everyone sees things the wrong way.  Yet massive segments of the country are still filled with all sorts of false media narratives that work to McCain's advantage.  We need every vote we can get and none of us can afford to sit this one out.  This is not like 2000 where everyone thought we'd just be getting more of the same regardless of who was in power.  The stakes are clear in a way they've seldom been clear before.

by Philoguy 2008-07-20 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: There are two types of PUMAs...

Philoguy, this is an excellent, convincing response. Quite simply, putting it in these terms takes it out of the realm of the personal and into the practical.

The biggest problem with some is that they don't just want your vote, they want you to hero-worship the man the same way they do. Sorry, I just don't. Then again, I didn't hero-worship HRC either, just respected her tremendously.

He's good on some issues, so-so on others, and I disagree with him on some things (Coal? Are you kidding me?). Will I vote for him? More than likely, unless there are some other unpleasant surprises down the road, along the lines of FISA. Do I think Democrats are the far superior choice? Yes. That doesn't mean I think they should get a free pass. Does being a good democrat mean giving blind loyalty?

by Narrowback gal 2008-07-20 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: There are two types of PUMAs...

PUMAs have lost their right to call themselves democrats.

Anyone else catch the irony? What an undemocratic thing to say.

by SophieL 2008-07-21 04:00AM | 0 recs
Re: There are two types of PUMAs...

PUMAs support McCain, either directly or indirectly. That makes them Republicans (or Independents, I suppose), whatever they want to call themselves.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-07-20 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

Same here!  I imagine that's the reason for a lot of the traffic increase.

by BishopRook 2008-07-20 05:24AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

Me too.  Troll wrangling has proven to be quite popular to some, although a bigger waste of time there never was.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-07-20 06:10AM | 0 recs
Actually, I thinks it's a compliment... Jerome's (& Co's) management and moderation of this place.

I tend to concur on the sometimes-ridiculous focus on PUMA folks and trollery around here. The place could use many more issues diaries. But, even now, there appears to be a concerted effort by some folks towards that end.

That being said, this place was more of a home for disparate supporters of various Dem candidates (and, even an occasional non-Dem candidate) from day one. And, that's been a part of its culture. And, since maintaining a dialogue with PUMAs is in the long-term best interests of our Party, I see this place fulfilling a need that other sites' cultures don't permit.

In fact, it's because of the very culture of this site--if you want to maintain discourse on some matters that might not be "allowed" over at places like the Big Orange--providing you're reasonable about it, that behavior is enabled here. And, to a great extent, it is Jerome & Co's closer moderating of behavior here that facilitates that.

Others may argue with my observations, but I would tend to think that if they are in disagreement with me, they probably were NOT Hillary supporters earlier in the year (like I was).

by bobswern 2008-07-20 06:26AM | 0 recs
Trolls are hidden and banned

at Kos.  Here, most are protected and encouraged, as the controversy drives posting and presumably traffic.  If they wish to run the blog that way, that's fine, it has some slight entertainment value.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-07-20 06:35AM | 0 recs
The definition of a troll... what's considered different between DKos and MyDD.

Until the beginning of June--at the very earliest--if you were a HRC supporter, there was a 98%-99% chance you'd be called out as a troll if you posted a diary on DKos, no matter what its content. I say this with firsthand knowledge. Hand-in-hand with that mentality, if you said anything positive about MyDD on DKos, you were also considered a troll 98%-99% of the time.

Upon reviewing the statistics: The numbers would appear to demonstrate that folks enjoyed the DKos abuse of others up until the primaries were concluded. Meanwhile, MyDD's stats have been improving rather consistently throughout 2008.

by bobswern 2008-07-20 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: The definition of a troll...

That's simply not true and repeating it doesn't make it true.  Those Clinton supporters that were called trolls at dailykos were ones who were either pushing outright falsehoods, distortions, racist concern trolling, and who refused to correct their statements when provided with documented evidence to the contrary.  Alegre was a case in point.  She would post something that was blatantly false, yet refuse to correct those falsehoods in her diaries when provided with proof to the contrary.  Otherwise Clinton supporters were as welcome at Dailykos as supporters of any other democratic candidates.  That doesn't mean that people would agree with them and their positions, but disagreement and debate is entirely different from being called a troll.  

My impression is that a number of Clinton supporters thought they should be given a free pass.  From the beginning, when Clinton still had a massive lead, those Kossites who had serious reservations about her, instead supporting Edwards, Richardson, or Obama were greeted by Clinton supporters with extreme malice, being told not to voice their criticisms and concerns as she was the inevitable nominee.  This generated an extraordinary amount of ill will that spiraled out of control and played no small part in diminishing support for her candidacy over time.  I'll never forget looking with amazement as a number of Clinton supporters called themselves victims because their diaries were not reaching the rec list...  As if somehow they were entitled or automatically deserved to be placed there.  The primaries might have gone very differently had Clinton supporters listened to the criticism of their opposition and graciously responded to it, rather than choosing the strategy of distortion, attack, and faux victimhood.

by Philoguy 2008-07-20 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: The definition of a troll...

I had to troll rate this. Both by your own standards ("pushing outright falsehoods, distortions") and by this site's standards ("an attack on another user").

by souvarine 2008-07-20 10:33AM | 0 recs
This is a very good example

 of faux victimhood, not to mention gross ratings abuse.  Very instructive.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-07-20 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: The definition of a troll...

I call bullshit on your rating.  Philoguy is not attacking any specific user, nor are they lying (fingergate was an example of what many Clinton supporters did, both here and at DKos).

by ProgressiveDL 2008-07-20 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: The definition of a troll...

No, you did not have to troll-rate it.

No where in the post was the specificity of calling out a poster or a group of poster that would merit a troll-rate by the rule you cite.

by JenKinFLA 2008-07-20 12:01PM | 0 recs

to counter ridiculous ratings abuse.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-07-20 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: The definition of a troll...

With all due respect, Philoguy, I grew to despise dailykos and haven't visited it since April.  It turned into the most disgusting, humorless bastion of vitriol and groupthink I've ever seen on the intertubes.  I don't miss that piece of shit in the least.

by SuperCameron 2008-07-20 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: The definition of a troll...

Apparently you didn't spend any time at Hillaryis44, NoQuarter, or even here from April on either.  I can't say I ever witnessed the level of vitriol at Dailykos that I witnessed at these three places.  I would certainly agree that Clinton was not a popular candidate at Dailykos-- no surprise given their antipathy to the DLC and Clinton's tone deafness to this starting with her appearance at Yearlykos --but the vitriol I witnessed came from among her supporters there.  People responded in kind.

by Philoguy 2008-07-20 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: The definition of a troll...


by SuperCameron 2008-07-20 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: The definition of a troll...

Yep, it was all the fault of those evil Clinton supporters.  Why are we doing this again? Can we please stop having this idiotic discussion about who's supporters were the most annoying?

by Denny Crane 2008-07-20 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: The definition of a troll...

Nope, that's not what I claimed.  I'm doing this, however, because certain people continue to distort what occurred by presenting things as if they were one-sided and asymmetrical, speaking as if all of this only came from one group of people, effectively attempting to portray themselves as innocent victims.  

by Philoguy 2008-07-20 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The definition of a troll...
I actually agree with parts of your post.
I was not originally an HRC supporter (Edwards), and it was true that that whole inevitability thing was very annoying to non HRC supporters, and probably did encourage some ill will. However, the level of vitriol that ensued was both uncalled for and extemely destructive. Some Obama supporters (not all but enough that it became a considerable problem) went way, way over the line in their rhetoric. They took it to a point where HRC supporters felt personally attacked.
I also have to add that there are more than a few Obama supporters who should take your advice regarding listening to the criticism being leveled. Distortion, attack and faux victimhood seem to be all the rage these days.
by Narrowback gal 2008-07-20 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: The definition of a troll...

It is difficult to have a clear and level headed perspective on what took place in the primaries, and I include myself in this.  Personally I seldom saw many posts at dailykos that I would describe as attacking Clinton personally or in a sexist manner.  When I did see such posts (attacking her appearance, her voice, calling her a "bitch", etc) I troll rated these posts as did others.  The mystery then becomes what constituted an attack or vitriol?  That's where things become extremely difficult.  I thought it was perfectly appropriate to talk about her relationship to the DLC and her corporate donations, but others seemed to think this was an egregious and slanderous personal attack.  I also thought it was perfectly legitimate to have grave concerns about her history in relation to questions of electability, yet others thought this was an egregious attack.  I personally do not think those who cried "racism" over certain comments or who were outraged by the RFK remarks or who were furious over the "white working class" remarks were doing so in a cynical way for the sake of manipulative political ends, but it seems that many Clinton supporters thought there was a cynical political aim behind these things.  They did not believe people were sincere in their outrage.  Likewise, perhaps many Clinton supporters were genuine in their constant harping over Ayer, Wright, Rhezko, the "present" abortion votes in the ISL, though I find this very difficult to believe as Obama supporters kept providing legitimate evidence to the contrary from credible news sources.  I do think there's a bit of a false equivalency being drawn here between the actions of certain Clinton supporters and Obama supporters.  I really don't think there's any viable or legitimate comparison between what took place at Taylor Marsh, No Quarter, Hillaryis44, now Alegrescorner, and often here and what took place at DailyKos.  I think we have confirmation of this now as we have seen subsequently how this group of Clinton supporters have behaved, demonstrating that their ire over at Dailykos was never about an intolerable amount of vitriol, but always about a cult-like worship of a particular candidate that could brook no disagreement whatsoever.  This point is only magnified by the fact that Clinton herself has come to endorse Obama and campaign on his behalf, while these particular supporters continue to hold out for either pushing Obama out or some miracle at the convention, all the while campaigning in a way that ostensibly is at odds with Clinton's own platform (and therefore a violation of their support for Clinton).  The personal attacks I heard came primarily from the Clinton camp (references to cults, youthful naivete, messiah, etc) not the Obama camp, though I fully admit that this Edwards supporter turned Obama supporter might have been keyed in to only hear attacks directed our way and not Clintons way due to personal bias...  Something that these Clinton supporters need to consider as well.

by Philoguy 2008-07-20 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: The definition of a troll...

No doubt that when you support a candidate, you are much more attuned to what is said about them and perhaps, to take offense more quickly.
I think the problem stems from the fact that many people have come to equate their candidate with themselves.
I have absolutely no problem with your comments about HRC and the DLC- in fact, I shared that concern. I also was very, very disappointed in her vote on the Iraq war, although I did not consider it the mortal sin that so many others seem to have. I just would have loved to have seen more "spine" on her part- not that it would have made a damn bit of difference, or prevented the travesty which followed. There are other issues though, on which she truly impressed me, health care and her committment to womens issues being among the quickest to mind. I also just came to be so unbelievably impressed with how incredibly strong that woman is. Honestly, she is amazing, and that inner strength really won me over after Edwards dropped out. The constant harping and criticism she took from so many different quarters would have killed a lesser woman. We saw that strength during the Lewinsky scandal, and age has only deepened her resolve.

Certainly there are HRC supporters who go/went overboard, but I believe that the small audience they reach is insignificant in comparison to the reach of other outlets who constantly savaged Clinton- MSNBC springs to mind. The biased coverage they supplied did not do them any credit. They merely became the Fox news channel for democrats. Good for ratings,perhaps, but not so much for democracy.

And, Philoguy, I have to say, I think calling HRC supporters cult-like is the ultimate in false equivalency...that description would be much more suitable for many in the Obama camp, who refuse to see the man as a mere mortal doing whatever it takes to get elected. The contortions they performed trying to justify that FISA vote were pretty astounding. The danger in putting a politican on such a high pedestal is that when they inevitably fall off, the repercussions are so much worse than perhaps they should/could be.

by Narrowback gal 2008-07-20 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: The definition of a troll...

I fully agree with your analysis of the acrobatics certain Obama supporters engaged in to defend FISA.  Of course, there were a huge number that were outraged by this as well.  You'll note that I did not call Clinton supporters "cult-like", but a particular group of Clinton-supporters cult-like.  These would be the PUMAs and dead-enders that are so attached to her candidacy that they're willing to sacrifice the very values she stands for to insure that either Obama doesn't get elected or, in the worst cases, that McCain gets elected.  When you're betraying the ideals of the very person you claim to support you've entered cult-like territory.  I think the vast majority of Clinton supporters are great people who supported the person they believed to be the best candidate.  And you're right, Clinton is amazing.  just as it was a small segment of Obama supporters who were cultish (the rhetoric about messianism was truly ugly), so too are these Clinton cult members a small minority.

by Philoguy 2008-07-20 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: The definition of a troll...

Philoguy writing the truth so we don't have to.  Thanks!

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-07-20 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The definition of a troll...

At DKos, Clinton supporters took a lot of heat, it's true, because as a whole, she never had much support there.

Pro-Clinton diaries didn't of themselves merit being called troll diaries. In many cases they'd be treated respectfully -- well, as respectful as any other (especially back when the Edwards-Obama conflicts were the most intense there.) The problem is, a number of Clinton diarists stopped writing pro-Clinton diaries, and started posting purely anti-Obama screeds. (Some of them got to be so awful, the assumption was they had to be written by trolls rather than by legimate supporters of Sen. Clinton.)

So you can say, in boldface no less, that content didn't matter. But it did, and does. And if one is going to post in what is clearly an already hostile environment, doing so in an inflammatory way doesn't help anything but one's own martyr complex.

Daily Kos is one of the, if not the, most highly visible Democratic blogs around. As such, it attracts a lot of trolls of all stripes: garden variety disrupters, attention hounds, obsessive-compulsives, juvenile kick-seekers, opposition researchers, BillO and Rush trolls, GOP ops, third party promoters, conspiracy mongers, and ordinary buttheads, among many others. By and large, the comments that get hidden there deserve it, and people who get the boot deserve it, too. 99% of the bannings there are a result of behaviors, not opinions, even if some opinions aren't popular.

Just like here, DKos users occupy a number of strata. There are issue diarists, there are serious and ethical campaign advocates, there are local activists, there are community builders, there are meta critics, there are moderators, and there are trolls. (The last three tend to attract each other, by the way.) Everyone finds a niche.

At this point, if someone's trying to carve out a niche at DKos by daily bashing the presumptive Democratic nominee and propping up the republican, they certainly will labeled trolls and will be marginalized if not outright banned, since that behavior runs counter to the site's mission.

Here at MyDD, conversely, people whose sole purpose is to tear down Obama at every turn while implicitly supporting McCain are given a lot of room to roam, as well as multiple user names with which to play. I don't know how much that skews the numbers, but the two sites have markedly different characters and levels of tolerance and are administered very differently.

by BobzCat 2008-07-20 09:11AM | 0 recs
Is this thread from another universe?

If your concept of "fairness" includes the behavior of Kossacks towards HRC supporters during the first five months of 2008, you're living on another planet.

Furthermore, assuming all HRC supporters (past or present) mimicked Alegre, or any other individual supporter, is (in and of itself) quite insulting.

Or, were the DKos polls showing somewhere in the neighborhood of 98% support for Obama versus 2% support for Clinton--throughout most of the March-May, 2008 period--something I'm just imagining? They certainly were not reflective of the Party as a whole.

Do you know the definition of "revisionist history?"

Your comments have no bearing in reality.

Are you the very trolls of which you protest?

by bobswern 2008-07-20 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this thread from another universe?

I'm glad we agree, Bob, you're living on a different planet.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-07-20 10:42AM | 0 recs
Many Hillary trolls were and are

tolerated with great patience, at least until they completely lost their minds.  Know Vox, Alegre, Boring Dem, Edgar08, Susan Hu, the infamous Larry C Johnson, and many, many more.  

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-07-20 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this thread from another universe?

bob bob bob, I freely admit that Clinton never had much support at Daily Kos, having from the very beginning performed poorly in the site's straw polls. It stands to reason, to a degree, since Markos established the site as a counter to the DLC and insider influence with which the Clintons were commonly associated (whether you agree or not). The reasons for Clinton's lack of popularity at DKos can be traced to the days of Howard Dean, "Crashing the Gate" and progressive disillusion with the swiftness of the country's conservative realignment following President Clinton. She was always going to have an uphill battle there.

I never specifically mentioned Alegre, although she's a good example of a pro-Clinton writer who morphed into a purely anti-Obama ranter, and one who would never defend her claims. Her behavior became trollish in many eyes, for those reasons.

Actually, when and if a truly "pro-Clinton" diary appeared that wasn't merely a vehicle to attack another candidate, it was often greeted with appreciation. Peter Daou's diaries certainly attracted a lot of partisan fury, but from the reasonable posters, his contributions were generally respected, even when they were understood to be spin.

Again, the problem was that the Clinton bloggers at Daily Kos were unable to communicate effectively to a hostile audience, admittedly not an easy task. Many of them just decided to leave. What remained was sub-par at best, trollish at worst, and it became the visible norm.

That's not revisionism. That's just my perspective. You have yours.

I know that you, from your perspective, consider me to be some kind of troll. Is it because I don't agree with you?

by BobzCat 2008-07-20 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this thread from another universe?

You can not communicate to people who refuse to listen and who attack you for your opinions or preferences. Daily Kos became more than hostile, it became abusive to HRC supporters- and I can't tell you how sad that made me. I was one of the earliest Howard Dean supporters, and DK became a big part of my life from that time on. I'm not a big poster or diarist, but I read that site every day, two or three times a day. The viciousness that was allowed, even encouraged by some front pagers, was shocking to me. Leaving DK was like losing a home, but staying was impossible.

So now I'm here at MyDD, and thankfully, this place has a big tent, and all voices can be heard- not just those who are singing in the Obama choir. I'm willing to praise him when he deserves it, but I'll be damned if I will let him have a free ride just because he's a democrat! That mindset is scary, and it also is why Bush got away with as much s**t as he did. Do we really want to go down the same path of mindless approval based on a cult of personality?

by Narrowback gal 2008-07-20 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this thread from another universe?

Did you get the chance to see what was going on on MyDD during the primary? Have you looked around and seen who's supporters are behaving like cult memebers?

Your selective memory and reasoning are pretty gosh darn funny.

Love how you compare Bush with Obama and call his followers cult members after all nice and elegant bullshit you wrote before that.

by spacemanspiff 2008-07-20 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this thread from another universe?

T'rated for calling Obama and his supporters a cult.

You are not as clever as you think.

P.S. sorry for all the typos.

by spacemanspiff 2008-07-20 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this thread from another universe?

Dammit, here I was telling myself "you are so clever!"

Well, thanks for straightening me out. And please, make sure you don't listen to ANYONE who doesn't think exactly the same way as you do. God only knows where that would lead.

by Narrowback gal 2008-07-20 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this thread from another universe?

"So now I'm here at MyDD, and thankfully, this place has a big tent, and all voices can be heard- not just those who are singing in the Obama choir. I'm willing to praise him when he deserves it, but I'll be damned if I will let him have a free ride just because he's a democrat! That mindset is scary, and it also is why Bush got away with as much s**t as he did. Do we really want to go down the same path of mindless approval based on a cult of personality?"

Can you pinpoint exactly where I compare Bush to Obama? Nowhere.
My concern is with the mindset of "you're either with us or you're against us". You pretty much made my point in your response.
I am NOBODY'S "follower". I either support you, or I disagree with you. I think for myself, and "follow" my conscience. I am not defined by who I support in a political campaign.

What was going on here during the primaries was alot of arguing and debating. I don't think there's anything wrong with that- democracy is messy and loud, and passionate. Alot of different voices wanting to be heard- and actually being allowed that opportunity. You have a problem with that? You don't have to like what they're saying, but you should damn well be willing to let them speak.

"The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of people you don't agree with."
-Eleanor Holmes Norton

by Narrowback gal 2008-07-20 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this thread from another universe?


Your approach is nothing new around here.

That mindset is scary, and it also is why Bush got away with as much s**t as he did. Do we really want to go down the same path of mindless approval based on a cult of personality?

You are not as clever as you think. Don't bother responding and if you do, don't think I'll be around to read your b.s.

by spacemanspiff 2008-07-20 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this thread from another universe?

Did you slam the door on your way out?

by Narrowback gal 2008-07-20 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this thread from another universe?

The internet is a tough place. Anonymity can fuel some pretty crude behavior. (You want to see viciousness, look at some other forums, particularly those of local media outlets.)

During the primary wars at DKos, there was plenty of abuse to go around. Personally, and with the case in point, I didn't appreciate being called a "cultist," or a kool-aid drinker, or any number of other epithets. But I shrug it off and ascribe it to the rhetorical inadequacy of those who would use them, and look elsewhere for commentary of value.

But see, when you start with the "cult of personality" stuff, you know exactly what you're doing. You know how people are going to respond. Why go there? Why fan those flames again. Don't they get in the way of the point you want to make?

I've posted this before, but here it is again. Compare and contrast the following statements, and see if you can tell the difference. Which contributes to constructive dialogue, and which is meant to simply be insulting?

"I disagree with Obama's support of faith-based initiatives, because I don't understand how the money can be limited exclusively to secular programming. Is it possible to do this? Because I don't see it, and I'm troubled that this will effectively be state support of specific religious views. Will the benefit to communities outweigh the church-state issues?"

"Obama's support of faith-based initiatives proves that he's a born-again theocrat just like Bush! If he doesn't drop his pandering to religious nut-jobs then he's going to lose in November! Democrats are going to be sorry they got behind this lying flip-flopper!"

I submit that the former comment would get a rigorous yet respectful response in any forum, including DKos. The latter comment, which is not far removed from those of a number of people here, should properly be rejected. At Kos, it would be hidden and the poster perhaps eventually banned for not participating in good faith.

by BobzCat 2008-07-20 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this thread from another universe?

And yet, abuse of Obama supporters was encouraged and applauded here...

I don't see how that is different or how that is better....  I don't care what side of the fence you were on in the primary.

by JenKinFLA 2008-07-20 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this thread from another universe?

Bob, how could there possibly be an issue of "fairness" here?  What could you possibly be talking about?  It was a primary race.  People either supported a particular candidate or didn't.  There was not widespread support for Clinton.  It was the job of Clinton supporters to persuade the rest, but they failed in that respect.  Rather than addressing the concerns that many had there, they either a) tried to silence criticism ("she's going to be the nominee so you better not do the work of republicans for them!"), b) grumbled and cried foul, or c) just left.  What was needed was not a rationalization of the AUMF vote or the corporate donations ("you had to understand the times and she was from New York!" and "lobbyists are people too!"), but a real response that would demonstrate that she would not make the same mistake in the future and that she wouldn't tie herself to corporate interests over the interests of average Joe and Joette American.  That response never materialized and ergo many didn't support her.  In many respects she put her supporters in an impossible position.  Given that she never made moves to distance herself from her former hawkishness, lobbiests, and alienation of a netroots fed up with failed DLC electoral strategies, she left her supporters with no ammunition to defend her and persuade others save complaints about media bias (bunk given how the news was all Clinton all the time up until the October debate and Obama's first win) and victimhood...  Not exactly a winning strategy.  So here we are.

by Philoguy 2008-07-20 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this thread from another universe?
Pardon me, but this is bullshit.
We attempted to persuade people, just as Obama supporters did.
We used facts, debunked false claims and outright lies, just as Obama supporters did. We were supported and encouraged here and called names and troll rated at DKos.  
And it turns out we were correct in what we told you about Obama. He wasn't the progressive savior than many (including Markos) assumed he was.
But now he's our nominee, and I have donated money and supported him just as much as anyone else here, my former candidate has shown that she has more grace and is a better Democrat than many people (who made a lot of assumptions without evidence) who spent post after post bashing her.  
by skohayes 2008-07-20 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this thread from another universe?

This is not what I observed there.  Things started out that way.  Alegre, for example, was terrific early on, though people, of course, continued to disagree with her.  As things progressed, there were instead a number of diaries that quoted things out of context, misrepresented records, and distorted things.  People initially began by pointing this out in each specific instance, but things continued to get repeated.  A good example would be how a number of Clinton supporters distorted Obama's present votes in the Illinois State Legislature.  

Now, I do think there was a lot of sloppy uses of language in both direction.  Let's take a non-controversial example to illustrate the point.  Whenever a religious discussion about the religious right occurs in the leftwing blogosphere you'll always find a number of comments in the diary where Christians express outrage at how they're being talked about.  Now clearly, the diarist and people voicing agreement with the diary are referring to Christian fundamentalists, not leftist Christians who they have no problem with.  However, due to the poverty of language and a failure to specify exactly who is being referred to each time, these leftist Christians experience themselves as being the object of attack.  I think a lot of this sort of confusion occurred in Clinton and Obama diaries.  A Clinton supporter might have had a very specific set of obnoxious Obama supporters in mind, yet good faith Obama supporters might have taken themselves as the target.  Likewise in the case of comments calling out certain Clinton supporters.  

In this comment you continue to repeat the sort of inflammatory remarks that earned that sort of treatment.  You write "He wasn't the progressive savior than (sic) many (including Markos) assumed he was."  It wasn't the citing of facts (when they were in fact facts rather than just "truthiness") that led to the sort of treatment you're describing, but tremendously insulting statements such as that.  Markos, incidentally, had a number of reservations about Obama and only gradually came around to supporting him.  At any rate, things would have been much different all around if all of us had avoided that sort of insulting language which only escalates hostility.  So much of what took place can be seen in terms of positive feedback loops ( edback) where people received what they gave and things gradually intensified beyond control.  You might recall that over the course of the primaries there were scores of diaries calling for rhetoric to be toned down and for everyone to make an effort to be more civil in their disagreement.  Unfortunately, as always, such pleas fell on deaf ears and here we are.  Be that as it may, don't pretend one side was filled with innocent angels.

by Philoguy 2008-07-20 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this thread from another universe?

Man, that is one awesome broad brush you paint with - can I borrow it sometime? Your comment is incredibly condescending and offensive to me as a Clinton supporter.  You don't like Hillary.  We get it.  Move on.

by Denny Crane 2008-07-20 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this thread from another universe?

Interesting, because it was broad brush comments I was responding to.  The point is that what occurred at Dailykos was far from being as bobswern described it.  Of course, there's a lesson in your little rejoinder here.  There will always be fewer words than there are things, meaning that language will never be able to perfectly latch on to its referent.  Cognizance of that is something all sides need to take into account.

by Philoguy 2008-07-20 08:00PM | 0 recs

You are talking about the site that banned all of us who questioned Jerome's motivations or were opposed to Hillary during the primary, right? How may folks were booted until Hillary conceeded again?

by ElitistJohn 2008-07-20 09:45AM | 0 recs
What is hillarious

and educational is to put in and

MyBO is in the top 5,000 sites since January, reaching as high as 600. is "not in the top 100,000"


by chrisblask 2008-07-20 05:56AM | 0 recs

apparently I was copying my own typo.

Still, is ranking about 12,000th while MyBO is ranking about 1,800th atm, with that mid-Feb spike to 600th.


by chrisblask 2008-07-20 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: &quot;Dorrection&quot;?

God, what I wouldn't give to rent some fingers that work...

by chrisblask 2008-07-20 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

Click on the little "max" tab.  MyDD is at the same level as last August.

by username 2008-07-20 06:46AM | 0 recs
Audience is larger than last August.

Membership's grown significantly. Page views are way up. (Folks are staying and reading a lot more when they are here.) Site ranking is way up. All in comparison to DKos' performance. DKos nos. appear to be down considerably in most measurements.

by bobswern 2008-07-20 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Audience is larger than last August.

Interesting.  I was looking at "reach", not "rank" or "page views."  So it looks like the same number of people are spending more time here.  Swatting trolls, perhaps.

I (also?) think Kos is unreadable garbage, but MyDD is close, and would be at least as bad with as much traffic.

by username 2008-07-20 07:35AM | 0 recs
So What???
What a petty, silly diary.
Who cares? If DKos is such a horrible place, why do you seem so obsessed with what goes on there?
Say what you want about them, but they still have more members, more content (as opposed to who was mean to Hillary, and the latest PUMA outrage), and elected officials actually post there.
For someone who holds them in such disdain, you can't seem to tear yourself away, you still post there.
by Maori 2008-07-20 07:20PM | 0 recs
I left kos when threats of violence
were neither policed nor punished.  At the time, it was dismissed as "metaphorical", not a real threat, so no biggie.
Of course, a month or two later, Hillary was accused by kos of calling for 0bama's assassination.  LOL.
by kosnomore 2008-07-20 07:58AM | 0 recs
I will never forgive...

...certain luminaries in our party for crossing the line--and knowingly lying in their attempts to throw Hillary under the bus--on the RFK matter.

Please don't conflate my own sentiments on this, however. I consider myself to be a strong Obama supporter, and have been such since June 4th.

But, some so-called leaders in our party and in the media went out of their way to deliberately distort this. And, we're talking about RFK for crissakes! Talk about a total distortion of reality?!?

The greatest vindication was when the South Dakota paper--to whom she made her original remarks on this matter--endorsed Hillary a few days later.

But, that's all behind us, except for it being a textbook example of the depths to which certain folks will go within their own party to undermine a fellow Dem's candidacy. This was about the assassination of RFK. It wasn't just an issues matter.

A line was many. And, there's a clear trail of gross hypocrisy that supported that effort, too.

by bobswern 2008-07-20 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: I will never forgive...

We'll have to agree  to disagree on what we think Hillary meant with those comments.  But the most offensive thing, to me, was the Hillary supporters who constantly said things like "Well, the Kennedy family said it's no big deal, so Obama can't be offended."  As if it ever had anything to do with the Kennedys.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-07-20 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: What amazed me

That's true.  I like to think she didn't mean to actually imply that she could be around if Obama got killed.  I think she actually meant it in a more general way, as in, Obama might mess up and I'll be around to pick up the pieces when he does.  She chose a terrible example, obviously.

As far as the bitter comment, I actually disagree with him.  I think people cling to religion because it's what their parents did, and their parents, and so on.  People cling to religion because it makes them feel safe and comforted and gives them easy answers for their kids, and even though that doesn't work for me, I am trying to learn to accept that and respect it a little bit.

People cling to (hand)guns because they are convinced that a) they are going to shoot a burglar and be on the news as a hero...this means you, Joe Horn, b) the government is going to collapse and they will need to take their gold coins to their bunker, or c) they like showing it off to friends.

I have a lot more respect for people owning rifles to hunt, though I don't like hunting.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-07-21 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

I suspect MyDD has experienced major traffic because it was such a pro-Clinton site during the primaries and people are curious to see whether or not Clinton supporters are coming around.

by Philoguy 2008-07-20 08:35AM | 0 recs

And Jerome had a great business strategy...let the place go nuts.  The more intense the infighting became, the higher the traffic.  Front page posts like this one ( 51/009) probably did the most to boost enrollment.  Combine that with the fact that many users created 5 or 6 accounts after they lost posting privileges, and you have a huge increase in numbers.

by WadawutG 2008-07-20 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

One other thing to note...I do find MyDD to be a valuable community.  Many of the front page posters do a really excellent job.  I'm just giving my take on the traffic/enrollment boost.

by WadawutG 2008-07-20 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

Meh, I come here for the craziness, the fighting, and the trolls.  I go to DKos to actually donate or get involved.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-07-20 11:28AM | 0 recs
This analysis is spot on

"that section of the political asylum where they keep the incurables," with apologies.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-07-20 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth.

I remember when algre or texdarlin would write a diary "boom" 30 or more immediate rec's...
Thankfully those days are behind.
That said...I believe the significant addition of Josh along with the always insightful Singer will re-establish MyDD.
The front page is getting stronger...there are excellent..informative diaries.
People have stayed. People are returning. People are finding out.

I hope that Jerome's time away will allow him, upon his return, to regain the credibility he lost during the Primary.

by nogo postal 2008-07-20 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth.

Credibility with whom?

by ChitownDenny 2008-07-20 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth.

Pretty much everyone.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-07-20 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth.
Everyone? Really?
You don't think maybe you are projecting your opinion onto others who may not, in fact, share it?
Just a thought.
by Narrowback gal 2008-07-20 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth.

Having seen Jerome called out from both pro-Clinton and pro-Obama sides during he primary season, I would say, at times, he rubbed quite a few the wrong way.

by JenKinFLA 2008-07-20 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth.
Which I would consider the sign of a good journalist/blogger...
If both sides are pissed at you, you're doing something right.
by Narrowback gal 2008-07-20 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.


Let's see, increased traffic on BOTH sites, good for both Kos AND Jerome, who make their living from providing forums for political discussion.

Trying to make this some statement about KOS, given the relative sizes of the readership is pointless.

But, since we all hate Kos, and the great Orange Satan, I think that is also a spin you can put on these numbers.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-20 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

And addition to it being good for them, we might add that it's good for Democrats.  Any increased traffic on leftist blogs is something to be celebrated.

by Philoguy 2008-07-20 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

The primary wars on MyDD were legendary.

I'm a big Singer and Todd fan.

The lack of direction from up top  makes me want to particiapte less and less everyday though. The reason we are all here is because we are Democrats looking for a place to share like minded ideas. This is the "niche" on which this blog was built on. It's the only reason it exists. MyDD = Democrats looking to blog. Helping elect Democrats, ect.ect.ect.

If I wanted to argue and repeat the same conversations day after day I'd go to NoKKKwarter or the Confluence (where I'd get banned in a second). I'm waiting out for the new rating system and I'll see what this place looks like then. I really love MyDD so I hope it all works out.

by spacemanspiff 2008-07-20 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

I think I hold the record for being banned at Alegre's Corner.  Twenty minutes.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-07-20 11:08AM | 0 recs

I got banned over at NoKKKwarter for making fun of Flowbee's bowl haircut. It was hilarious. Their were others trolling the comments section as well and the hilarity that ensued was priceless. I think I lasted about 1 hour. But what fun those 60 minutes were. Even the Grand Wizard himself came into the comments section to flame. Great fun.

by spacemanspiff 2008-07-20 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

Truly a badge of honor!

I salute you!

What did you do, suggest that MAYBE Hitler as just a little worse then Obama or some other controversial statement?

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-20 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

Please folks, Im BEGGING for a link!

I want to hear the kiddies defend possibly the worst haircut in the blogosphere.

they prob removed it though.

Also, Larry is such a dork, didn't he know Republicans cornered the market on "Repubclican Hair" (ie see Delay and any otheres supporting the "box" cut)

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-07-20 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.
Spiff, you seem to be aggravated with all the trolls here, but I know from experience, you're usually the first to jump into these diaries and stir things up.
So you create controversy and atagonism and then complain when the trolls, having received the attention they crave here, keep coming back?
Anyway, I like your input and analysis on all things Democratic, and hope you stick around.
by skohayes 2008-07-20 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.


Everybody has an opinion.

by spacemanspiff 2008-07-20 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

I expect MYDD's growth to stop this year, as it returns to be a predictable, one-sided pro-Obama website.

Part of MYDD's recent growth was due, in my view, to the fact that many points of view collided during the primaries. We cannot say that this website was a pro-X candidate platform, unlike Daily Kos, TPM, etc., which uncritically carried water for Obama.

This is not to say that we shouldn't be extremely partial to Obama. It's just an observation that growth may be over.

by kingsbridge77 2008-07-20 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

Bronx Kingsbridge or somewhere else?

by Narrowback gal 2008-07-20 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

yes, Bronx. Do you live around that area?

by kingsbridge77 2008-07-20 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

I grew up around there, off Bailey avenue right near Van Cortland Park. Lots of great memories.

by Narrowback gal 2008-07-20 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

"I expect MYDD's growth to stop this year, as it returns to be a predictable, one-sided pro-Obama website.."

Returns to implies it was at one time a pro-obama website.  

When was that?  During the primaries, when Alegre and Texas Darlin dominated the Rec list.

When there were WELL over 100 Rev Wright Diaries?

That's when it was a "one-sided pro-Obama" website.

Jesus, the ability of you folks to rewrite history based on your solopsitic viewpoint....

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-20 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

I'm not surprised at all. DKos has become the crazytown of the blogosphere. Markos has turned that place into a loony bin.  

by bsavage 2008-07-20 01:41PM | 0 recs
great diary bob - rec'd.

i love this place and i am extremely happy that its doing well!

by canadian gal 2008-07-20 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

I think a lot of newcomers, like myself, are relatively new to all of the blogs.  The increase is proportionately larger on those sites that have a smaller overall number of members.

Like most liberals exploring the blog world, Huffington Post and Daily Kos, which are the best known off-line were my first stops.  I imagine a lot of people attracted to the blogosphere during, or as a result of the primary race, just stopped at HuffPo where they encountered so many well known names.

And yes, I did come here from DKos because it was listed on his home page.  I've stayed because sometimes there is some really good stuff posted here on the front page or in the diaries and comments.  But, I also read and post on DKos and sometimes even on HuffPo.  

The die-hard one time pro-Hillary sites like the Confluence don't want me around and have made it very clear that their opinions are the only ones that matter.  Here, even PUMA members are allowed to at least express an opinion.  That is not necessarily a bad thing.  It will give this site an advantage when all of the shouting is over and the Democrats become a single party again (which we always, eventually, somehow seem to do).

by Susan from 29 2008-07-20 02:38PM | 0 recs
Wow. I didn't realize

   that there was a competition. Ok. Go MyDD, I guess. Whatever!!
by southernman 2008-07-20 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD: major '08 growth. DKos: not so much.

My baloney has a first name, it's A-J-A-X.

by really not a troll 2008-07-20 04:58PM | 0 recs
Well, Dkos bans trolls while Mydd caters

to them.

If you banned all of the pro-mcCain trolls around here, volume would drop sharply.

by Geekesque 2008-07-20 05:05PM | 0 recs

Dkos and MyDD both have troll problems.

Dkos is much bigger, they have more PAID admins because they can afford it. This is why you see trolls dealt with fater at dkos.

One other thing. It is not just trolls that were banned or had privileges taken away at dkos, it was also most supporters of Clinton and anyone who just was not a huge fan of Obama.

by kevin22262 2008-07-20 05:58PM | 0 recs
Which non-troll Clinton supporters

got banned?

L. Whitey Johnson?  Susan Hu?  Crackberry?

by Geekesque 2008-07-20 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Or

People who described Obama, Edwards, and Clinton as "scum" who would never beat McCain, and who proudly declared themselves "concern trolls" while baiting others relentlessly.

Know anyone like that? Not surprising that anyone posting stuff like that would eventually be banned as participating at a Democratic website in bad faith. Don't you think?

by BobzCat 2008-07-20 10:52PM | 0 recs
The big difference

between Dkos and MyDD is size. Size can be a good thing to make money and become famous but it also dilutes the information.

MyDD has less diaries so you have time to dig a little deeper into the diaries that are written.

EENR Blog (see my sig line) is another great blog that deserves growth and attention.

by kevin22262 2008-07-20 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: The big difference

The size of Daily Kos also means it has greater variety of content. The daily Diary Rescue calls up gems of issue advocacy and information from a wealth of voices, much of it exhaustively researched and generally well written.

A lot of diaries here are little more than comments or cuts and pastes. There's not much depth to dig into, unfortunately. In a smaller pond you have more people clamoring for attention, posting their two diaries daily whether they have something to say or not.

by BobzCat 2008-07-20 10:59PM | 0 recs
I was one of the silent lurkers for a long time.
Didn't want to join in as scars of the USENET newsgroup wars (different World, different time, different names) have healed over the decades past. Also didn't had a candidate per se to be vocal about. However the DKos crowd ganging up against the Clinton supporters just blew my mind. The divisiveness was too much to watch from the background. Hence joined in DKos. But branded as a low information supporter of HRC, it was not long before I gravitated from DKos to MyDD with most of the HRC crowd. Stayed on, as Jerome and Team didn't make us feel bad for whom we supported. True, the Blog wars at DKos and MyDD reached extreme levels and I didn't do my part to cool down the fires as much unfortunately.
But I'm glad to see MyDD doing well. But I still visit DKos to read blogs by Meteor Blades, Mutual Assured Destruction, DarkSyde et al.
by louisprandtl 2008-07-20 08:31PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads