Recommendation Statistics - no comments

Neil Harding suggested - some time ago - that we try to re-weight our recommendation counts according to how frequently the blogger on the receiving end posts. I may add this extra measure to the main page at some point, but for the time being, a snapshot of the top 32 (just enough to squeeze myself on!) who have had two or more posts recommended, follows at the end of this post.

The original aim was to measure the perceived (given that these recommendations are made by the public) "quality" of each blog, the idea being that daily news-style sites would tend to attract more recommendations than those run by bloggers who had great ideas but little time, or who concentrated their efforts on occasional posts of a pretty high quality. Those are the blogs I expected would be appearing high in the eventual list.

Here's what I take from the actual list:

1. Not everyone recommends on the same basis, let alone my personal definition of quality.
2. Some people/groups are more willing to recommend than others.
3. Agreeing with a post is probably more a motivation to recommend than some neutral criterion.
4. Posting occasional pieces into which a lot of effort has gone is probably not a great strategy for attracting recommendations, regularity building up one's community of supporters and readers.
5. Brevity probably helps attract recommendations - whether it helps anyone else, or enables you to convince an opponent, is another question entirely.

Controversial? Before you respond, though, none of the above should be taken as applying specifically to, or criticising, any particular sites on the following list.

Perhaps there's also a lesson for community-builders, social entrepreneurs, and so on: if you provide liberty, and services that are capable of being used in many different ways - or not at all - not only will they be used in many different ways, but you're likely to end up frustrated if you had a particular aim in mind, and especially if you want to imbue individuals with your own ethos - such as my paternalistic belief in the "quality" blogosphere. Attempting to force the issue would risk community members walking away en masse.

Alternatively, it may be that we're simply reflecting the values and behaviours of pre-existing social groups and on-line communities, especially those that are well-organised, close-knit, and have the best intelligence (or, put another way, who know what's going on).

Well, whatever. Here's the top 32:

Site	Total recommendations	Recommended posts	Average
John4Leader	107	30	3.5667
Labour Humanists	378	120	3.15
Geoff sez	22	7	3.1429
Jon's union blog	307	103	2.9806
transpero.net	14	5	2.8
Darlington Councillor	8	3	2.6667
Union Futures	114	43	2.6512
Freemania	114	46	2.4783
Reclaim Labour	39	16	2.4375
Just another false alarm...	12	5	2.4
janestheone	7	3	2.3333
Dirty Leftie	76	33	2.303
The Daily	411	180	2.2833
The Ministry of Agitation and Propaganda	82	36	2.2778
The Provisional BBC	36	16	2.25
Antonia Bance	116	52	2.2308
Don Paskini	187	84	2.2262
Double negative	15	7	2.1429
schmoo on the run	17	8	2.125
Softy Lefty Catchy Monkey	17	8	2.125
Ministry of Truth	165	78	2.1154
BrightonRegencyLabourParty	42	20	2.1
Fair Deal Phil	129	63	2.0476
arbitrary constant	24	12	2
Malcolm Redfellow revivus	34	17	2
Manchester Labour Club	8	4	2
Oxford Labour Party	6	3	2
Politics for People - the Co-operative Party	16	8	2
The Silent Hunter	8	4	2
Live from the Socialist Fortress	83	43	1.9302
Bloggers4Labour	50	26	1.9231
Ephems of BLB	25	13	1.9231