2010-03-01

Biblioblog rankings for February 2010

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Biblioblog rankings for February 2010

The following two tabs change content below.

Neil Godfrey

Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.

Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)

If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!

  • 2010-03-01 09:26:37 GMT+0000 - 09:26 | Permalink

    No. I am finding that the rankings are not indicative of quality. They seem to be simply volume. Many people prefer a quality product to just a lot of shit.

    Cheers!
    RichGriese.NET

  • 2010-03-01 09:30:27 GMT+0000 - 09:30 | Permalink

    Rich,

    These rankings are explicitly about volume.

  • 2010-03-01 10:58:16 GMT+0000 - 10:58 | Permalink

    They are about quantity only, but two posters once expressed some interest in accessing the list.

    Sometimes my stats have shot up and when I’ve checked to find out why I’ve found that one person has gone into some apparent dementia state and spent a few hours clicking madly around everything on my blog over and over! 🙂

    Lies, damned lies and statistics, as they say. But it’s interesting to see lists of other biblioblogs and see who and what is around, I think.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.