taxonomical inanity

Over the past few years I’ve tried to keep out of the various blog listing capers, generally by not paying attention to any of them. Nonetheless I discover that I am listed for some reason as the country’s 46th most popular Labour supporting blog, despite, for instance, producing this before the last election, that being only one of the various ruderies and arse displays I’ve directed to that quarter over the years. I take it that it’s fairly well known by regular visitors that I’ve been parking my vote with the Lib Dems for lack of anything better to do with it. And what's the metric here? It's pleasing to learn that I'm more popular that=n whatever it is that Father Frank Field says on the internet, but sadly I doubt that this is true, merely desirable.

I suppose I could get in touch with the Total Politcs people and ask to be withdrawn. But it seems a bit precious and I don’t really want any communication at all with them. Above all, I can’t understand what the point of all this is supposed to be. It may play some part in Total Politics' own client offering, which I presume doesn't include research.

Comments

[Splintered Sunrise]

You're no less startled than I was to learn I was the 27th most popular Labour-supporting blogger.

I don't take these rankings very seriously, but was quite chuffed in the leftwing list to have beaten Geras. Yo! Fuck you, Norm!

[FlyingRodent]

They chucked me in with the Labour crowd on Total Politics too for some reason, although I'm about as popular as hepatitis. I guess all non-Tories look sort of the same to them.

[Simon]

Decent Norm hasn't really reinvented himself for the post-warmongering era, unlike say Harry's Place, who have cornered the market in Muslim hatred.

[Chris Brooke]

I think I'm pleased to learn that the Virtual Stoa is both the 67th and the 86th Top Labour Blog.

(Perhaps I could combine the rankings, come in at #153, and fall off the list altogether?)

[Phil]

Splinty - I think you'll find that even if it were demonstrably correct to argue that Norm should be fucked here and now, it would be clear if we considered the matter without the benefit of hindsight that those now advocating Norm-fuckage were in fact the most deserving targets of unwanted sexual attention (were such targets to be designated) - and indeed that such people, given their continuing failure to appreciate the force of this argument, would quite arguably remain far more appropriate nominees for such attention than Norm himself, always assuming that anyone were to stay awake to the end of this sentence.

Chris: Perhaps I could combine the rankings, come in at #153

A Teacher Of Quantitative Methods Writes: this boy will go far!

[Richard J]

You forgot the gratuitous cricket reference, but otherwise not bad. (Does Norm still go on about cricket - I never could quite read him even back BIW.)

[Simon]

There was a view back in the day that Norm's politics were terrible, but that he was worth reading on cricket. This view is severely wrong - his postings on cricket were even more tedious, sanctimonious and badly informed than his opinions on foreign policy.

[Guano]

It's interesting how blogs have given us access to a range of different opinions on many subjects, yet the main political parties have almost identical views and people like Dale still see politics through the prism of these almost identical political parties.

[ejh]

the main political parties have almost identical views

Well, it depends what you mean by the parties. The front benches' expressed opinions are not all that different, true, and probably closer than they've ever been even during Butskellism, but I'd doubt the views of the party memberships were all that close.