<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Top 10 NZ Christian Blogs &#8211; April 09</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/06/top-10-nz-christian-blogs-april-09.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/06/top-10-nz-christian-blogs-april-09.html?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=top-10-nz-christian-blogs-april-09</link>
	<description>Philosophy of Religion, Ethics, Theology and Jurisprudence</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:03:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken</title>
		<link>http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/06/top-10-nz-christian-blogs-april-09.html#comment-2769</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:03:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mandm.churchweb.co.nz/2009/06/top-10-nz-christian-blogs-april-09/#comment-2769</guid>
		<description>Interesting that you opt for a weighted factor model. If we could just get sitemeter counts for all blogs we could do something like that. It must be possible - after all how do Alexa, Technorati, Google etc., get their raw data.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Although my ranking is not based on a specific model deriving a rating score (as are Halfdone&#039;s and Tumeke&#039;s) it does derive a rating from averaging the separate ratings for 11 individual indices. Contributions are about 36%, 45% and 20% from page ranking, linking, and RSS subscription count groupings of indices respectively. Everybody might desire a different weighting - mine are based purely on what data is easily available.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Really most people ignore rating scores and remember just their own individual rating - that is, they wish only the compare themselves with other NZ blogs. The relationship between the different rankings and the ranking from the sitemeter stats can be compared for about 50 sites now. last time I looked (&lt;a href=&quot;http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/ranking-nz-blogs-with-sitemeter-data/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ranking NZ blogs with sitemeter data&lt;/a&gt;) the sitemeter rankings contributed 52%, 54% and 60% to the Halfdone, Tumeke and Open Parachute rankings respectively.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In reality  sitemeter rankings contribute about 50% to the Technorati Rank, Alexa Rank and Google Readers Subscription Count rankings. So we already have indices based on weighted models available but people don&#039;t seem to like them. There seems to be a preference for ranking based soley on sitemeter stats.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Recent blog post: &lt;a href=&quot;http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/purpose/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Purpose&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting that you opt for a weighted factor model. If we could just get sitemeter counts for all blogs we could do something like that. It must be possible &#8211; after all how do Alexa, Technorati, Google etc., get their raw data.</p>
<p>Although my ranking is not based on a specific model deriving a rating score (as are Halfdone&#39;s and Tumeke&#39;s) it does derive a rating from averaging the separate ratings for 11 individual indices. Contributions are about 36%, 45% and 20% from page ranking, linking, and RSS subscription count groupings of indices respectively. Everybody might desire a different weighting &#8211; mine are based purely on what data is easily available.</p>
<p>Really most people ignore rating scores and remember just their own individual rating &#8211; that is, they wish only the compare themselves with other NZ blogs. The relationship between the different rankings and the ranking from the sitemeter stats can be compared for about 50 sites now. last time I looked (<a href="http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/ranking-nz-blogs-with-sitemeter-data/" rel="nofollow">Ranking NZ blogs with sitemeter data</a>) the sitemeter rankings contributed 52%, 54% and 60% to the Halfdone, Tumeke and Open Parachute rankings respectively.</p>
<p>In reality  sitemeter rankings contribute about 50% to the Technorati Rank, Alexa Rank and Google Readers Subscription Count rankings. So we already have indices based on weighted models available but people don&#39;t seem to like them. There seems to be a preference for ranking based soley on sitemeter stats.</p>
<p>Recent blog post: <a href="http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/purpose/" rel="nofollow">Purpose</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Madeleine</title>
		<link>http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/06/top-10-nz-christian-blogs-april-09.html#comment-2761</link>
		<dc:creator>Madeleine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:26:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mandm.churchweb.co.nz/2009/06/top-10-nz-christian-blogs-april-09/#comment-2761</guid>
		<description>Formulae that excessively factor in page ranks are very flawed - especially when they result in blogs with lower uniques and backlinks trumping those with higher.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A ranking formula should predominantly weight: &lt;br /&gt;unique hits (from a page counter) - say 40%&lt;br /&gt;backlinks (from technorati) - say 40%&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And give some weight, but not as much as the former, to amount of comments as that shows reader enjoyment and interaction though this can be artificial/faked - say 20%&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If someone were to create a formula that just did that and commit to doing it each month I would follow it over Tumeke, HalfDone and Open Parachute.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Recent blog post: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/06/tonight-dr-matthew-flannagan-on-moral-relativism.html?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mandmblog+%28MandM+Posts%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tonight: Dr Matthew Flannagan on Moral Relativism&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Formulae that excessively factor in page ranks are very flawed &#8211; especially when they result in blogs with lower uniques and backlinks trumping those with higher.</p>
<p>A ranking formula should predominantly weight: <br />unique hits (from a page counter) &#8211; say 40%<br />backlinks (from technorati) &#8211; say 40%</p>
<p>And give some weight, but not as much as the former, to amount of comments as that shows reader enjoyment and interaction though this can be artificial/faked &#8211; say 20%</p>
<p>If someone were to create a formula that just did that and commit to doing it each month I would follow it over Tumeke, HalfDone and Open Parachute.</p>
<p>Recent blog post: <a href="http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/06/tonight-dr-matthew-flannagan-on-moral-relativism.html?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mandmblog+%28MandM+Posts%29" rel="nofollow">Tonight: Dr Matthew Flannagan on Moral Relativism</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken</title>
		<link>http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/06/top-10-nz-christian-blogs-april-09.html#comment-2749</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jun 2009 22:47:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mandm.churchweb.co.nz/2009/06/top-10-nz-christian-blogs-april-09/#comment-2749</guid>
		<description>I want to encourage bloggers who follow lists like this, and how they rank in them, to consider making their statcounter or sitemeter stats publicly accessible. I have heard a bit of criticism about ranking methods because they don&#039;t take actual visits into account. So I have produced my own ranking list for those 53 NZ blogs which have public stats (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/nz-blog-sitemeter-ranking-may-09/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NZ blog sitemeter ranking – May ‘09&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Four of the blogs listed in the post are included:&lt;br /&gt;#10: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MacDoctor Moments&lt;/a&gt;;&lt;br /&gt;#17: &lt;a href=&quot;http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NZ Conservative&lt;/a&gt;;&lt;br /&gt;#19 &lt;a href=&quot;http://halfdone.wordpress.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Something Should Go Here, Maybe Later&lt;/a&gt;; and&lt;br /&gt;#21: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mandm.org.nz/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MandM&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I welcome any feedback on what bloggers would like to see in a ranking list. I am aware that there are several different criteria which could be used in ranking but many people seem to prefer giving priority to actual visit counts.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Recent blog post: &lt;a href=&quot;http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/morality-and-politics/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Morality and politics&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I want to encourage bloggers who follow lists like this, and how they rank in them, to consider making their statcounter or sitemeter stats publicly accessible. I have heard a bit of criticism about ranking methods because they don&#39;t take actual visits into account. So I have produced my own ranking list for those 53 NZ blogs which have public stats (see <a href="http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/nz-blog-sitemeter-ranking-may-09/" rel="nofollow">NZ blog sitemeter ranking – May ‘09</a>).</p>
<p>Four of the blogs listed in the post are included:<br />#10: <a href="http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/" rel="nofollow">MacDoctor Moments</a>;<br />#17: <a href="http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">NZ Conservative</a>;<br />#19 <a href="http://halfdone.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Something Should Go Here, Maybe Later</a>; and<br />#21: <a href="http://www.mandm.org.nz/" rel="nofollow">MandM</a>.</p>
<p>I welcome any feedback on what bloggers would like to see in a ranking list. I am aware that there are several different criteria which could be used in ranking but many people seem to prefer giving priority to actual visit counts.</p>
<p>Recent blog post: <a href="http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/morality-and-politics/" rel="nofollow">Morality and politics</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

