Friday, August 31, 2007

*squint* No one reads Uncommon Descent.

*weird look*

Ive learned something from The UD Adventure.

Type however moves you. Want to call someone a Creotard, but your holding youre tongue? Go for it! Want to get in a big fight with another Evolution defender on here, but dont want to give Creationists ammo? Do it!!! Because you are only talking to Sal and Dave.

Sally has linked to me several times the past few days. I was like "SWEET! Send all the IDers here! YES YES EXPOSE THEM TO SCIENCE! WHOOOOOOO!!! HAHAHA SILLY SAL!"

Then I checked my sitemeter and googleanalytics. *gives readers a weird look again* Like, 80 hits from UD per day. My stats are up, as we're all checking the comments... But 80 hits? A link from one of my blog brothers and sisters gets at least 100 more direct hits for a few days. Blake pops you up at least 500 hits. PZ or PandasThumb put me in the stratosphere (3K isnt big for PZ, but its friggen HUUUUUUUGE for me!).

Major drama on one ScienceBlog (**COUGH!**) can also send the hits through the roof.

But major drama and multiple links from UD, THE ID Creationism blog... 80? And some of those are from my regular readers clicking in from UD. 80?

Really?

Sally, got a link to your sitemeter?

I found their technorati-- Authority of 368. Thats good! But then I realized they dont contribute to anyone elses Authority (none of Sals links are on my technorati) and all of their points come from OUR links to them. Thousands and thousands of points from SciBloggers. SciBlog posts, feeding UD traffic, which trickled down to 80 hits on ERV.

*squint*

Nobody reads UD.

Except us.

34 comments:

The Factician said...

Ahhh, you made me laugh pretty hard. Thanks for this.

Between this post and my Friday evening martini, I'm feeling like all is good in the world.

Kevin Z said...

Thats quite interesting. I was thinking about this. Since my post went on Panda's Thumb last night, I have been monitoring my site stats and comments and PT's comment thread for any ID person to refute my points, maybe bitch a little randomly about VPUs... Not one link from UD, granted I didn't link to them specifically because I don't want to be intimately connected to them. (if you know what i mean...) (and I think you do!). But not one person telling me to go read a bible or dembski's fairy tales, etc.

I've been a little disappointed and must affirm that ID is dead but to a few stubborn roses that refuse to wilt.

Forthekids said...

Oh, now hon...it's highly unfair to compare UD to PZ, PT or any other site that is primarily composed of atheist supporters. I mean, come on...

PZ has a whole faith based organization going on over there!

Millions of theists go to church to get their support and guidance for the week, we don't visit places like UD for that. But, atheists hang out on line with their priestly mentors.

To be more fair you'd have to compare PZ with, say, a Billy Graham crusade. Ya know what I'm sayin'?

If we're just talking science minus the atheistic banter and theism bashing, then it would be a much more even match.

And, of course, you have to consider that I've just linked in from AtBC, though I'm a UD supporter. I kinda enjoy watching those folks make fools of themselves. It's a nasty habit, I know, but there it is.

ERV said...

Forthekids! Ah memories! Back when I read The Intersection! When Mooney was getting the Luskin Treatment! What did I type to you--
Posted by: ERV | September 15, 2006 05:07 PM
Forthekids-- The problem I have with Creationists with 'credentials' is that Im a biologist myself. I know what they should know. I know what they were taught in graduate school. Yet they still make the same mistakes as one would expect from someone with no advanced training... And Im still just a student. People of their education should be able to teach me. I shouldnt be able to correct them. Yet I can. Easily.

Id be more humiliated by the fact a child could correct me in my own field, than a journalist criticizing me on political/historical things.


Good times, good times!

ERV said...

Actually, that whole post is wonderfully applicable right now.

LINKY!!

Tyler DiPietro said...

"If we're just talking science minus the atheistic banter and theism bashing, then it would be a much more even match."

FtK, you are so right. In fact I've never seen posts on UD or Telic Thoughts that are primarily or even secondarily devoted to defending theism. Intelligent Design is a purely scientific endeavor, which is why it's advocates have such a stunning research and publication record.

Forthekids said...

Why, ERV, I'm so flattered that you remember me...sorry I can't return the memory. You must not have made much of an impression.

I've grown more than accustomed to tuning out the more sarcastic, nasty little atheists who pretty much have one thing on their mind and it doesn't really seem to be primarily related to science.

Actually, I thoroughly enjoy conversations with atheists who are serious about these issues and have enough moral fiber to treat others with respect.

It's interesting that so many atheists blast the theist community for what they perceive as nasty behavious toward atheists, yet on any given day, you can surf the atheists site and barely believe what you read in regard to theist bashing.

Hypocrisy is such a nasty little thing to have to deal with at times.

But, hey, don't let me stop you from carrying out your mission in life to destroy ID. Carry on, luv.

quantok said...

If you want to see what happens to scordova when the blog doesn't ban dissenting voices, take a look at the Young Cosmos thread 'Bold prediction of CDK possibly confirmed!!!! (posted by scordova). CDK (c-decay) is the YEC hypothesis that light travelled 150,000x faster in the past giving the illusion of an old universe.

Sal cites a paper by G.P. Jellison and W.T. Bridgeman refuting CDK which states "Astronomical observations of binary stars, pulsars, distant supernovae, and gamma ray bursts fail to show the slowing-down effect one would expect if his theory were correct.

The speed of light has not changed."

Sal glosses this as: "whatever theoretical issues may be outstanding (Jellison and Bridgman 2007), we will have empirical evidence strongly suggesting CDK is correct and the strong likelihood the cosmos could be young."

But Bridgman is allowed to post at YC and rips scordova a new orifice. Part of the paper deals with the predicted time dilation effects in binary star systems if CDK were true: the double star would appear to be stationary or moving in slo-mo. And they aren't. Ditto with evidence from pulsars and gamma ray bursts.

So what does Sal do? He seizes on one element - binary stars - rushes off to quote mine astrophysics papers from the 70s and then moves the goalposts. He notes that distant known binaries are eclipsing binaries (their nature is inferred from periodic variation in magnitude as one star passes in front of the other) and concludes that eclipsing binaries do not exist: some other mechanism must be responsible.

To preserve the CDK theory Sal rules that only 'true' binaries (those that can be resolved visually by the Hubble) are ruled in. So the distances to 'real' binaries (as defined by Sal) need to be measured by trigonometric methods beyond 30,000 ly (sal's arbitrary distance) which requires a new generation of space-based telescopes arrays... yes, we just can't decide until more research is done! No doubt he is lobbying the Bush administration to get these space telescopes up in orbit pronto.

scordova voices these obsequies as Bridgman leaves the blog: "I thank you and Dr. Bridgman for the generous amount of time you have volunteered in your critique and analysis of CDK. If for nothing else, I think you have elevated respect for the discipline of physics in the eyes of the readers."

I like that. Was physics then suffering a lack of respect over at Young Cosmos? As opposed to what: surely Creationist cosmology is physics? If not...

Of course, with the scientist off the blog Sal has free rein to obfuscate. He's going to nail these pesky binaries and comes up with a name - Fake-Eclipsers.

Of course these mystery objects somehow occur only in distant galaxies, not our own, so there is, alas, no hope of training the Hubble on one to get Sal his Nobel; but that's a fickle Creator for you.

Tyler DiPietro said...

I am astounded by the scientific literacy displayed by FtK. Through her neglect to constantly whine and bitch about those meanie atheists, she is a clear and incisive demonstration of the entirely secular nature of Intelligent Design. You all have met your intellectual match.

MOOHOOHOOHAHAHA!!!

Forthekids said...

Hmmmm....

We have...

tyler with his:
MOOHOOHOOHAHAHA!!!,

erv with her:
WHOOOOOOO!!! HAHAHA,

then there’s always Lenny Flank with his:
BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!

What, is this the primal call of the more notoriously nasty atheist posters? Is it code? I’ve noticed that your average, ordinary, respectful atheists don’t sound off these strange little signals like the nastier mouths ones do.

Interesting...

Aaron "Hawkeye" Golas said...

Hm. I wonder if that doesn't so much say no one reads UD, so much as it says UD readers don't bother checking the site's sources. Which could still mean Sal is just preaching to the choir... *shrug*

Tyler DiPietro said...

You are of course correct FtK, humorous fluff is an exclusive attribute of "nasty atheist" posts. I once again applaud your intellectual acumen, for which those nasty atheists could only wish they had someone like you on their side. Like I always say, the gain of nonsense is the loss of reason and science.

leo_s said...

What, is this the primal call of the more notoriously nasty atheist posters? Is it code? I’ve noticed that your average, ordinary, respectful atheists don’t sound off these strange little signals like the nastier mouths ones do.

They are just compensating because they can't speak in tongues.

Blake Stacey said...

Whoa! I can make traffic mini-spikes! I find that. . . rather cool, actually. In terms of my reader-directing ability, I'm almost one deciPZ.

ERV said...

FtK-- ...sorry I can't return the memory.
FtK, my dear, if everyone had super powers, they wouldnt be super, would they?

That being said, making an impression on Biblotarians isnt one of my superpowers. Thats Drill Mans job.

I do think its funny that even Creationists dont read UD, though. Thanks for the laugh! BWAHAHAHAHA!

PZ said...

FtK is exactly right. When addressing creationists, those of us on the side of biology do make a lot of loud laughing noises. We can't help it.

The creationists don't do that. As everyone knows, they specialize in fart noises. Different orifice altogether.

Torbjörn Larsson said...

Forthekids:

PZ has a whole faith based organization going on over there!

Unfortunately, no. As readers of Pharyngula knows, there is a lack of organization among free thinkers and skeptics - you might say that such people have many thoughts about what such an organization would do, while others are skeptic about the whole idea. :-P

That is why PZ (and ERV here) supports the new richard.dawkins.net initiative The Out Campaign, which aims to activate atheists to actually organize and speak out for a change.

Because, you know, being non-religious and fact-oriented we lack the paraphernalia of superstitious cults founded on faith.

the more sarcastic, nasty little

While having a tag claiming to be "for the kids" while trying to prevent proper education reaching said kids is not nasty, and addressing a (female) graduate student with kick-ass virulent knowledge as "hon" and "luv" is not sarcastic?

Ftk is competing with Salvador Cordova for the OI Prize (Oblivious Ignorance Prize).

waldteufel said...

"Millions of theists go to church to get their support and guidance for the week"

I don't need support and guidance from your jealous, woman hating, murderous, racist, genocidal maniac who poses as a god.

I can't speak for others, but I have no problem with theists, except when they try to impose their superstitions on the rest of us.

If theists want to mumble to their imaginary friend in the sky, that's fine by me.

Theism as a belief system, however, deserves no respect.

Cairnarvon said...

Apparently UD gets about 6000 hits per day, which, all things considered, is next to none, especially since most of them are people like us, who visit for entertainment rather than because they're IDist themselves.
It's certainly fewer than my own blog got at its peak, and nobody read that.

tinyfrog said...

Forthekids-

First of all, UD doesn't just deal with science. Just a few weeks ago, I saw an article about the importance of the Ten Commandments.

Second, you think 'theist bashing' is so much more widespread than 'atheist bashing'. I see plenty of bashing over at UD - they ban people for saying anything bad about IDists, but you can unleash on Evolutionists and they've got no problem with it. I think the problem is that you are *highly sensitive* to any attack on your own group, but whenever someone bashes someone outside your group (e.g. an atheist or evolutionist) all you think it 'right on', 'they deserve it'. Your perceptions are skewed.

Regarding UD's traffic-

It's amazing that UD only sends 80 hits your way. On Alexa, they seem to be doing quite well - roughly on par with Panda's Thumb, but far below the traffic of scienceblogs which gets about 45x the traffic (unfortunately, there's no way to break out those blogs individually).

I should say, however, that if you know how to manipulate Alexa, you can drive the apparent traffic numbers much, much higher than they are in reality.

If we assumed UD was manipulating Alexa, then it would neatly explain why they get apparently high numbers on Alexa, but send so few hits your way. On the other hand, maybe people at UD don't like being exposed to information outside their pro-theistic worldviews, so they don't click on external links.

"Apparently UD gets about 6000 hits per day, which, all things considered, is next to none"

Actually, that's not "6000 hits per day". I think you're misreading something. He says 6000+ unique visitors. The chart shown on UD shows a lot more than 6000 hits per day.

Cairnarvon said...

"Actually, that's not "6000 hits per day". I think you're misreading something. He says 6000+ unique visitors. The chart shown on UD shows a lot more than 6000 hits per day."

He says unique visitors, but the chart doesn't show anything except some relative amounts.
Considering the number of "unique sites" he gives, it seems far more likely that he's really talking about hits instead of unique visitors. Whether he's intentionally misleading or just doesn't know how to use Webalizer is up for debate.

tinyfrog said...

The charts show several values:

Important note: You have to view the image in it's full size in order to read the numbers. Yes, I know that looks like 100,070 visits when you look at the shrunk-down image, but it actually says 180,676. Also, the number of hits appears to say "1620744", but it actually says "1820744". The image loses some information when it gets shrunk to a smaller size.

Hits are shown in green. Approximately 1,750,000 hits in February, which works out to around 62,500 hits per day. (Hits, of course, are a questionable way of measuring traffic since every non-cached image on a page is counted as a "hit".)

Visits are shown in yellow. It says there were around 180,000 visits, which works out to 6430 visits per day. Note that this number matches the value DaveScot gives: "6430 in February".

Rich Hughes said...

I tried to help them a little while ago with some suggestions:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46d9fe79f5eef48e;act=ST;f=14;t=5162;st=0

tinyfrog said...

Rich Hughes-
Your full URL didn't show up. The end part (for everyone else) is:
s=46d9fe79f5eef48e;act=ST;f=14;t=5162;st=0

Rich Hughes said...

Maybe someone better with teh interwebs can do a linky for me?

Hermagoras said...

Richard,

Is this what you want?

If you use Windows, install Texter, the freeware app from lifehacker. It will let you choose any keyword and replace it with text of your choice. For example, when I type "blogsig" (without the quotes), I get my blog signature:

--
http://paralepsis.blogspot.com

And when I type "linky" (again without the quotes), I get

[a href=""]text[/a]

(Sorry: this just gives a link if I use the actual thing. So I've replaced [ and ] with < and >).

Then I just paste the appropriate URL between the quotation marks and replace the word "text" with whatever I want to be the linked word. Texter works across applications -- in your word processing, in your blogging, etc. It's great. If your writing repeats key technical terms or phrases, it's a real timesaver.

Hermagoras

Hermagoras said...

Agh. Fucked that up. For this text -- [a href=""]text[/a] -- replace the square brackets with < and > signs and you'll get this: text

Marion Delgado said...

Since ForTheKids is ambiguous (it raises Mary Kay Letourneau possibilities), wouldn't "ImWhatsTheMatterWithKansas" be, if longer, more of a full disclosure nickname? Just trying to help, darlin'.

Marion Delgado said...

By the way, Information Overload and Future Shock still being issues for most people, I think we need to look into "Knowledge Sequestration." Think the creationists would be interested in helping out?

I'VE DEBATED AND ABSORBED VIRTUALLY TONS OF "CONTRADICTORY DATA" - ftk

Oh. Well, there you go. That must involve a fortune in data scrubbers.

rimpal said...

WAd aka W'MAD is like English Bob in the "Unforgiven". A fake has been who never will be! There was a time before Dec.20, 2005 when the entire Creotard crowd used to frequent PT. After that drubbing the fight has gone out of them.

Doppelganger said...

FTK:
"I've grown more than accustomed to tuning out the more sarcastic, nasty little atheists who pretty much have one thing on their mind and it doesn't really seem to be primarily related to science."


Ah, yes - I haven't seen such projection in a long, long time...

Nathan Parker said...

=============================
Nobody reads UD.
Except us.
=============================

Maybe we should stop?

Anonymous said...

tinyfrog is very helpful, even though he is very small. Here is his picture:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Yellow-banded.poison.dart.frog.arp.jpg

Anonymous said...

curse these bebothered confusticating interwebs!