« Don't mess with small town store owners | Main | Richard Pryor Dies Of Heart Attack At 65 »

Calling their Bluff

Kevin adds: It's worth noting for new Wizbang readers, or those who have just forgotten, that neither Paul nor Jay Tea are involved in any aspect of The Weblog Awards.
Since everyone else is giving Kevin advice about the Weblog Awards, I figured I'd chime in. I propose a new rule... one that could be enacted effective immediately.

When an idiot finalist urges his readers to NOT vote for him but then links the voting to make sure they know EXACTLY where to go do it.... Kevin should call their bluff and they should be deleted from the poll.

If they really don't want any votes, we can have that arranged.... Likewise, if the award means that little to the idiot finalist in question, then certainly the idiot finalist won't mind being removed from the poll.

The hypocrisy is tiresome...

"The Weblog Awards are a waste of time because they are done by a conservative blog.. So don't vote for me AT THIS LINK RIGHT HERE."

Kevin won't do it... He's nicer than me.

But I've played a little poker in my day and I'd pay 5 bucks if Kevin would just call their bluff.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Calling their Bluff:

» All Things Beautiful linked with Blogging The Weblog Awards 2005

» flagrant harbour linked with Voting irregularity

» Top Selling Digital Cameras linked with Digital Cameras

Comments (21)

Better yet - remove any fin... (Below threshold)
Russ:

Better yet - remove any finalist who links the awards site with anything more than a "cool, I got nominated" post and the logo pic.

Shilling for votes proves popularity, not quality... and this is a "best of" contest, as opposed to a popularity contest, is it not?

...and this is a "best o... (Below threshold)

...and this is a "best of" contest, as opposed to a popularity contest, is it not?

Indeed it is -- which is precisely why I am not a nominee.

...although, I wouldn't win... (Below threshold)

...although, I wouldn't win a popularity contest either, come to think of it...

And we wonder why teh Iraqi... (Below threshold)

And we wonder why teh Iraqis have problems with this voting thing ...

I'll put another $5 in the ... (Below threshold)

I'll put another $5 in the pot.

At first I thought the hypocrisy was tiresome but now as they just go on and on about how they don't care...it's getting to be kind of funny.

I suggest a new category: The Blogger Most Likely To Nail Himself To Cross To Generate More Votes - or - The Best Martyr Blogger. Guess who the first nominee will be? But remember he won't campaign for it, he'll just post often reminding you not to vote for him. Well unless you really want to. [Just click here. RIGHT HERE. Now dammit!]

I see that my and Kevin's s... (Below threshold)
Matt:

I see that my and Kevin's suggestion for a category called, "Best Blog by anyone named McGehee or Drachenberg" was completely ignored.

(You would have won that one, Kev)

I think that is a fine new ... (Below threshold)

I think that is a fine new rule. Good one Paul. Hold them accountable for their very own words.

Paul, I know who you're tal... (Below threshold)
Beth:

Paul, I know who you're talking about, but what about those who are willing to take one for the team to make sure that other person DOES NOT WIN?

Beth, I'm not linking anyon... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Beth, I'm not linking anyone.

The situation is what it is. Personally, I tire quickly of hypocrisy and manipulation. So I had my say.

Ultimately if his tactics win... that's part of life too.

As for me, I live in a town where over 3 months after a hurricane blew thru they are still finding dead bodies in the rubble.

And these dumbasses are whining over Weblog awards?

Here's another suggestion: ... (Below threshold)

Here's another suggestion: Divert all those votes to "Random Yak" in the "Best 5,000-6750" category. Like presents. "All of your votes belongs to us."

...it was just a thought...you can stop laughing at me now.

"..and this is a "best of"... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"..and this is a "best of" contest, as opposed to a popularity contest, is it not?"

Not really. Just about everything is a popularity contest, especially contests like these.

I can't stand this.<p... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I can't stand this.

Here's an organizational idea for next year:

One week and one week only a full month preceding the Awards requests for Categories and Nominees and any/allthings involved, to write all the suggestions, ideas and otherwise possible about the Awards, and to write them on the Awards site and then get all this out of the way and be done with it.

Unfortunately, in my own case, I was impervious to this year's Awards until about last week and late to offer perspective (apologies, since I now realize they're too late to make any impact to the current Awards, while I did, in fact, intend them as general opinion to improve the Awards for the coming years).

But, websites that manipulate the voting once there are acknowledged nominees in acknowledged Categories...we discussed this last year and it looks to be about the same sort repeating this year the bad behaviors of last year...sites such as that should be disqualified from the Awards in future years.

It's difficult to PROVE but not when sites suggest voter manipulations and decry the validity of the Awards themselves. In fact, they identify themselves (whoever promotes manipulating votes in any way) as sites that should NOT be involved, despite nominations otherwise.

And, because avowed Left authors always seem to complain about the Weblog Awards being "conservative" as to Wizbang being the site that organizes the Awards, I think that, too, reveals that to the Left, all things are manipulated to and by political perspective.

Not that they ARE, but that, since the Left is always making this complaint about the Awards ("always" as in last year and now again this year, and beyond that, I have no knowledge of anything related to the Awards), I'm concluding that they reveal their own hand/perspective about how any Awards/this Awards process will be handled: by manipulation -- they reveal their assumption that "conservative" affiliated will, therefore, inherently mean "to manipulate votes" and while I wholeheartedly disagree with that as to political affiliation, I do know some INDIVIDUALS do but it has nothing to do, inherently, with whether one is conservative or not.

Although the legacy by John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean, among others among the Left, does establish a legacy of manipulation if not downright cheating. I think the Left is just too aware of it's own effects and behaviors to ever entrust anyone else to not be involved in the same bad character.

If anyone can vote, and can... (Below threshold)

If anyone can vote, and can do so multiple times, it most assuredly is a popularity contest, and thus I am not surprised that contenders are treating it as such. If you want to have an award based on quality, voting can't be open to the general public. You choose panels, have discussions, and have judges vote on the winners.

Let's try to keep a straigh... (Below threshold)

Let's try to keep a straight face here, alright? I'm quite far in the left spectrum of politics and couldn't care less whether this award is organized and financed by a (US!) conservative blog/person/whatever or not. There's no contentual relation between the award and politics, so I guess that settles it.

About the awards not being a popularity contest and full with cheaters, I'm sorry, but I have to differ... a lot.

1. Weblogs are all about networking. Vitamin B, nothing else is the blood that runs most sites. Weblogs are known to be frequented mainly by other webloggers, this trend has increased this year btw.

2. Friends and fans tend to be blinded by emotional attachment, so, no, it's about popularity. Don't believe me? Answer yourself the question how nominations work. If you're nominated, a.k.a. some fan of your weblog nominates you. That's alrady one step, you need to be popular to have this nomination at all. If the ticket for the ride is based on popularity, you can still say, no, wait, the rest of the awards is not like it - let's look further into it. Look at this blog i.e.: http://www.ljcfyi.com/
The owner recieves about 0-5 comments per post, not much, not nothing, let's call it humble. Its design is partly nonexistant (http://www.ljcfyi.com/blog/archives/2002_07_01_ljc_archive.html) but it's nevertheless in the "best design" category. The owner reports on the 8th that the blog recieved 30-40 votes since Dec 1st, and two days later, it's at 600+. Not a popularity contest? If it's not, at least in this case it's fraud. Macromedia Flash is so easily hacked it's deplorable you use it for the polls. Whatever happened to polling backed by registered emails/IP addresses and cookies to prevent multiple voting? Check the IP addresses for the voting of the above mentioned blog if you don't believe me. You still don't think so? Look at their weblog awards thread, users in it are even boasting that they're a) voting more than once a day and b) think that nevertheless who's the competition, this blog should win.

That's what I call blindness towards the very spirit the weblog awards initially wanted to stand for.

(You would have won that... (Below threshold)

(You would have won that one, Kev)

Sure -- until you went on the radio.

Great piece Paul! The cont... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Great piece Paul! The contributors to Wizbang are among the best in the business, well if bloging were a business they would be among the best in the business. Anyway, keep up the good work.

"If you were a hotel, <br /... (Below threshold)
-S-:

"If you were a hotel,
honey, you'd be a grand one,
But if you hit a slow spell
Do you think you could stand one?
If you were a hotel,
Well, I'd lean on your doorbell,
I'd call you my home."


"If You Were A Bluebird"
by Butch Hancock
from Emmylou Harris' CD, "Bluebird"

Paul, I think you take this... (Below threshold)
Jane:

Paul, I think you take this stuff way too seriously man.
I mean there won't even be an awards ceremony or anything..
Chill.

I have to agree to Mac Lorr... (Below threshold)
Frederick:

I have to agree to Mac Lorry, just the effort you put into this is applaudable.

On another note, the ten days voting period is not going to help small sites against huge weblogs like Xiaxue, no matter how many days you extend the period. Reason is, the big blogs need only to put a link on the top and their readers vote every day, too, thus negating the desired effect. Perhaps 2006 should be back to one day or so.

"The Weblog Awards are a... (Below threshold)
TheEnigma:

"The Weblog Awards are a waste of time because they are done by a conservative blog..

Why is it that the far left has no problem quoting from cnn, cbs, abc, nbc, USA today, etc. when the "polls" created by these organizations support the far left agenda. Everyone with even an ounce of intellect knows that the questions asked in the polls are presented in a manner to generate a specific, desired response?

I think you are taking this... (Below threshold)
just visiting:

I think you are taking this a little too seriously as well. I stumbled across the blogger you are refering to a few days ago and thought his post was funny. He is not saying the awards are trivial--he is trying to win in an engaging way. In a sense it is a complement to you that he is spending so much time to get the notice concerning his award. I agree with a poster up above--relax; have fun and enjoy the process.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy