Please, expecting website ratings to be above-board and realistic is
like expecting real estate agents to tell the truth about the
properties they're selling!
John Leonard
2009/4/6 Dave Torr <>:
> 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:
> ===============================
>
--
John Leonard
Canberra
Australia
www.jleonard.net
"I rejoice that there are owls." Thoreau
==============================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:
=============================
|
