First let me declare an interest - I am acting webmaster at BOCA which
usually rates slightly higher than John's site - and realistically given the
number of members most Aussie bird clubs have then that is reasonable.
Maybe "dubious" was the wrong word but I find that - despite what you say
Trevor - none of the world's "major" birding organisations (Audubon, ABA,
RSPB, even Birds Aus) are in the top 100 - probably because they choose not
to have the counter installed. Whilst Avibase and Fatbirder come in at 13
and 14 (and well deserved!) the first identifiable "bird club" is the Dutch
Birding Association at 17. Number 23 in the current list does not even have
a name! It seems that photo sites and blogs tend to dominate and as you say
Trevor there are few "scientific" sites like John's in the list.
Nothing wrong with any of this but John should realise - as we do - that
this is a very distorted set of figures as it can only rate those who want
to be rated and that it would seem that if you don't do photography you are
doomed to sit way down the order. Of course if the big bird clubs ever did
get on the list then we would probably sink even further down.
2009/4/5 Trevor Hampel <>
>
>
> Dave Torr wrote:
>
>> There is a Birding Top 500 meter on the home page. I am very suspicious of
>> these as the list of top sites in the world sometimes has very surprising
>> entries!
>>
>>
>
> Hi there Dave and other birders,
>
> What are you suspicious of?
>
> Listed are many fine and very popular sites, including blogs about birds
> written by groups or - as is the case with my blog - written by individuals.
> Many listed in the top 100 sites are from the world's leading birding and
> ornithological organisations.
>
> Do you mean that the list includes some sites which sell optics and other
> items relating to birds, things like t-shirts, bird houses, bird feed, for
> example? The owner of the Birding Top 500 site has allowed these according
> to his specific rules. I fail to see why you should be suspicious of these
> sites - they openly advertise their wares for sale and are legitimate
> businesses (as far as I know - but buyer beware!)
>
> The Birding Top 500 site lists sites purely on the number of visitors that
> they attract. The more traffic they get, the higher the ranking. It is a
> crude measure and only an indicator of popularity, little else.
>
> I include the meter on my blog merely as a simple indicator to my readers.
> (I hope it also leads readers to other interesting sites via the link.) I
> also monitor my statistics with a far more sophisticated site which gives a
> complete breakdown of where my readers live, which entries are visited the
> most, which search engines they use as well as number of unique visitors,
> number of visitors, page views and many other items. This information can be
> analysed on an hourly, daily or monthly basis.
>
> Because of this I only use the Birding Top 500 meter as an crude indicator
> - nothing more. I'm currently listed at #55 and have been in the 50s for the
> last few months. The highest I've been is about #30. Despite 600+ visitors
> daily from 100+ countries, I will never go much higher because the top 50
> sites are largely made up of large organisations with 1000s of contributors,
> subscribers or members. One person cannot complete with that - nor do I wish
> to.
>
> My aim is to share my bird sightings and photos - and if I enthuse a few
> people to observe and care for our birds a little more, I will have achieved
> my aims.
>
> I've included John's original email below to set the context of this
> discussion. John's site is meticulously comprehensive in its contents but
> will - in my opinion - never rank much higher than #200. It is just not the
> kind of site that will be popular by any measure.
>
> Scientifically accurate - yes.
> Comprehensive - yes.
> Authoritative - yes.
> Useful - yes - but only to a limited number of people unfortunately.
>
> I believe that John should not be concerned about the popularity of the
> site and should be encouraged to continue his quest for a very comprehensive
> resource.
>
>
> Dear Friends,
>>>
>>> I am disappointed that the rating for my website
>>> http://www.worldbirdinfo.net <http://www.worldbirdinfo.net/>
>>>
>>> has fallen so low. Here are some reasons for raising its rating. I have
>>> been going systematically through the records, and improving notably
>>> habitat, movements, pictures and calls. I have completed all
>>> Ostriches,Rheas,Cassowaries,Emus.Tinamous.Loons, Albatrosses,and I am
>>> into
>>> Petrels. With very few exceptions I have added photos to all of these
>>> (even
>>> of Atitlan Grebe!), and calls for many, inlcuding several albatrosses and
>>> petrels.
>>>
>>> Check it out! And keep checking it out! And tell your friends and
>>> colleagues.
>>>
>>> John Penhallurick
>>>
>>
> --
> Trevor Hampel
> Murray Bridge
> South Australia
>
> Check out my BLOGS (web logs):
>
> Trevor's Birding - observations and photos of birds at
> http://www.trevorsbirding.com
>
> Trevor's Travels - travels in Australia, Thailand and Nepal at
> http://www.trevorstravels.com
>
> Trevor's Writing - read some of my writing at http://www.trevorhampel.com
>
> Twitter: follow me on Twitter - http://twitter.com/TrevorHampel
>
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
