|
Post by weirdmisty on Jan 12, 2009 12:24:29 GMT -5
Rocks, I find your hostility perturbing. If Cake Wrecks receives 48K visits a day (which isn't counting people such as myself, who track it via RSS) and votes are allowed once every day, then for heaven's sake, how is it so hard to believe it could have 20K votes?
If Cake Wrecks has 24K votes and 48K+ visitors, that means that [less than] half of the people viewing the blog have been voting for it (and since the RSS viewers are an unknown quantity, we can't tell exactly how small the portion of readers voting really is). I don't find that at all unreasonable (and in fact, I'm rather amused that anyone does).
You've been assured repeatedly by an Administrator who has access to much more information regarding this issue than you that no fraud has been found, despite the fact that they've looked into the matter. I certainly trust him when he says that it checks out, and I can't imagine why you're blindly clinging to your accusation, despite that.
You can continue disbelieving until you're blue in the face, but it simply doesn't change anything. Try and leave your sour grapes at the door next time, hm?
|
|
rocks
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by rocks on Jan 12, 2009 12:49:58 GMT -5
First of all I really don't get where I have ever been hostile. I have been trying to be helpful. Whether Cake Wrecks and 538 wins is a matter of complete indifference to me. Never mind that they clearly have won, no one is suggesting they haven't.
"Site traffic isn't everything. Engaging your readership is."
I would agree but I really don't think readers of humor sites are any more engaged the people who follow political sites religiously and those people have gotten very engaged here.
Cake Wrecks had 48,000 unique IPS that day. Do you think that is some extraordinary number? It isn't. It's very nice, but it isn't. It doesn't automatically translate into anything. Maybe the admins here have the energy to explain why, I don't.
All I was trying to do was call attention to what clearly looks like gaming and perhaps be helpful. Why Jen and John, and their fans, feel such deep seated need to suggest that couldn't happen I don't know, or care.
Instead of dwelling on my nonexistent blind dweeling and sour grapes perhaps you should dwell on your paranoia.
|
|
|
Post by weirdmisty on Jan 12, 2009 13:06:35 GMT -5
You know what the admins have the time to explain? The fact that these votes are legitimate. In fact, Sean has done so already, or are you going to place your own "expertise" over someone who actually has access to the information that proves definitely what's going on?
I am heartily amused that you believe everyone else be paranoid, despite the fact that you're the one spouting silly conspiracy theories about voter fraud ^_^
|
|
rocks
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by rocks on Jan 12, 2009 13:14:51 GMT -5
WM, No conspiracy and no paranoia. I'm not the one here defending someone who hasn't been accused of anything. And as far as this is concerned you don't need expertise, just common sense. Sean has said these votes look legit, I don't doubt they do look that way. It doesn't explain the pattern though.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Gleeson on Jan 12, 2009 13:29:17 GMT -5
No personal attacks, please. This is your only warning.
There is no reason not to take Rocks at his word: he was trying to be helpful, and he was pointing out what he saw as a suspicious pattern in the totals. We are grateful to people who point things out to us, so we can check them out. He was not vilifying anyone, and the only people he was even criticizing were us, the operators of The Weblog Awards. If we ain't offended (and we ain't) then nobody else has call to be offended either. He is not being "paranoid." ("Obstinate," perhaps, but it's a free country.)
|
|
|
Post by curligurli on Jan 12, 2009 13:41:15 GMT -5
I have to admit, I'm a newcomer to cake wrecks and while I haven't voted every day, I have voted a couple of times and asked friends to vote as well. I LOVE that blog. What I find hilarious is that after reading Jen's post, I tried to vote again...to kick a$$ as Jen suggested and found that the site is so overloaded that I can't vote. What started as a questioning of the validity and "patterns" of voting has only served to overload The Weblog Awards' servers with rabid Cake Wrecks readers/voters. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by kestris on Jan 12, 2009 14:04:24 GMT -5
I personally follow CakeWrecks via an RSS feed to my LiveJournal. Chances are, many people follow CakeWrecks this way, and that accounts for the lack of traffic according to the Alexa sitemeter. Never heard of Serious Eats, honestly. Will have to check them out. I do find it odd that Jen and Jon feel such a need to defend themselves, even calling on their readers to post in a little read forum. No one is doubting Cake Wrecks won and no one accused them of doing anything wrong. I was not 'called upon' by anyone to come defend anything. I came of my own free will. I for one am insulted by your obtuse accusations.
|
|
orng
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by orng on Jan 12, 2009 14:35:47 GMT -5
I would agree but I really don't think readers of humor sites are any more engaged the people who follow political sites religiously and those people have gotten very engaged here. I don't think Cake Wrecks readers are just ordinary Readers of Humour Sites. Jen has an engaging style that sort of promotes a sense of a personal relationship. As do many other bloggers, of course. But this is obviously a different type of engagement than someone who reads The Onion, for example. She also posts often, and with consistent quality. And she's found a particular niche that is funny whether you're a foodie or not, whether you're a baker or not, and whether you're into cakes or not. I don't think she has a particular demographic. I've sent links to particular posts to friends from all walks of life, and almost all of them are regular readers now. Not one of them is a stay-at-home mom. Plus, she's really funny. Naked Mohawk-Baby Carrot Jockeys alone is worth 20,000 votes: cakewrecks.blogspot.com/2008/06/naked-mohawk-baby-carrot-jockeys.html
|
|
|
Post by liriiel on Jan 12, 2009 14:38:54 GMT -5
I follow cake wrecks regularly and thoroughly enjoy that blog. I have voted every day and would continue to do so as long as the voting continued. I even went to all the hassle to register here just so i could get on here and thank jen for providing her oublic with a highly entertaining blog that promotes such a loyal following. I am a full time soldier and really enjoy and apprecite a site that is so enjoyable as well as being "clean" so that acess is not restricted on the military net. those few minutes a day I spend reading it. I have promoted the site to many of my freinds, family, and fellow soldiers. I agree that cake wrecks should have fallen under humor but will continue to support it no matter where it has been nominated. i hope that this turns more people into obsessive cake wrecks fans and jens legions of followers expands. LET THE WRECKINESS CONTINUE BWA HA HA HA!!!
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Jan 12, 2009 14:53:57 GMT -5
Add me in with the legions of Cake Wrecks followers who only read on my RSS and never comment. My co-worker and I can regularly be heard saying, "Did you read Cake Wrecks yet today?" so we can laugh together.
I have voted twice. The day Jen announced the competition, and today. I bookmarked the site with the intention of voting every day, but I am sad to say I didn't remember to carry through on that. I have no doubt that many others did, though, and so the numbers don't surprise me.
I have a few other food blogs on my RSS as well (none of them are nominated here), but I usually just give those a cursory glance to see if anything piques my interest. Cake Wrecks, on the other hand, is a can't-miss blog in my daily lineup.
The fact that Cake Wrecks is a humor blog more so than a food blog explains a bit of the edge here. I think it stands to reason that a humor blog would have more faithful followers than a straight-up food blog. As Sean pointed out earlier, some go to food sites to look up recipes and move on, whereas Cake Wrecks readers are in it for the humor and many of them join in the comments as well. It is more engaging in that way.
Voting in the Weblog Awards is my teensy tiny way of saying "thank you" to Jen for entertaining me every single day, while I remain fairly hidden by getting her blog via RSS and never commenting.
|
|
|
Post by minchazo on Jan 12, 2009 15:11:51 GMT -5
rocks, I'm glad you have such a thick skin. I don't think I could keep so cool under 3 pages worth of pressure. And like the other CW readers, I signed up just to comment on this thread
|
|
|
Post by megangiselle on Jan 12, 2009 17:42:19 GMT -5
;D Rocks, ya want sprinkles on that cynicism? Cake Wrecks isn't about food, just like it isn't about grammar. Cake Wrecks is just plain FUNNY! And Jen appeals to everyone! 'Cept you, I guess. And Sunday Sweets is even more interactive than the daily wrecks; cakewrecks.blogspot.com/2009/01/sunday-sweets-castles-fairies.htmlI'm another not counted person - I view Cake Wrecks through my Google Reader.
|
|
terey
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by terey on Jan 12, 2009 17:55:26 GMT -5
Another voter who registered just to say - Cake Wrecks is hilarious and has a huge fanbase that has obviously been underrated - until now.
Underneat that I love Cake Wrecks!
|
|
barb
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by barb on Jan 12, 2009 18:19:31 GMT -5
I have been a devoted follower of Cake Wrecks since November. It is a "must see" every day. I've voted a few times since the start of the process and agree that there is a very active following for CW. It amazes me the number of comments that are quickly generated. I don't feel witty enough to comment, myself, but enjoy the comments almost as much as the wrecks (almost!). I don't doubt that with the readership they have that the number of votes is so high. I'm just surprised it isn't higher!
If the other blogs don't know how to promote themselves, perhaps they'll learn something from CW and apply it next year.
|
|
|
Post by beckyzoole on Jan 12, 2009 18:24:33 GMT -5
I just registered with this forum for the sole purpose of commenting on this thread.
I voted for Cake Wrecks here. I'll vote every day, if that's possible, because it's Just That Good.
I read Cake Wrecks regularly on my RSS feed. It's by far the funniest site out there. I frequently send links to posts to my friends. I love it!
|
|