All it took was this unpopular post, and I lost half of my feed subscribers, going from around 180 down to 90 …
The irony is, it was probably the most active post on my blog for quite a long time, gathering a lot of interesting comments from several different people.
I guess the typical blogger would be devastated by losing half his audience in one day, but the sad truth of my blog is that most of my traffic comes from search engine referrals. While it makes me sad to see them go, if it was so easy to unsubscribe after one post, I wonder how much value they were getting out of my blog in the first place.
I guess this is one way to start off blogging in 2009 with a bang, huh?
Tags: meta, blogging, subscribers, fail
Get used to people not wanting to be exposed to the truth. :)
They say that optimists say the glass is half full. They also say that pessimists tay the glass is half empty.
I’m a realist. I realize I now have another damn glass to wash.
One of the interesting dynamics about this era of blogging is that people who say things that can be construed as extremist can easily be ignored. This is both good and bad – good because the people who truly are extremist are typically ignored (and ridiculed, a powerful deterrent for would-be extremists), but also bad because it’s easy to label as extremist someone who isn’t..
It speaks about how much people want to believe Obama is pretty much perfect and how he will make government save the planet’s collective ass from falling into the abyss.
But yeah, spending that much money on a single-day event when it would be put to better use somewhere else does make you wonder if he’s starting with the left foot. Here in Mexico we’re used to antics like these from our politicians; it is somewhat disappointing to see Obama allow this.
I think your comment about race in the last post was totally uncalled for. I’m not branding you a racist, but don’t you see that you undermined the whole point you were trying to make? You had a legitimate case about the high cost of the inauguration, but you raised the audience’s ire and diverted attention to racial issues and away from what was relevant.
David K: You’re absolutely right — my inclusion of race in my comment was inappropriate and distracting, similarly to when discussions about Obama’s potential success revolve around race — it really has, and should have, nothing to do with his leadership abilities.
However, trying to have a serious discussion around the high cost of Obama’s inauguration is pointless: those who are against it know it’s folly, and those who are in favor of it have already justified it to themselves. In the past few days, the explanation that “donors have provided funds for the inauguration, let them spend it” has been repeated, which is really disappointing. Estimates put the raised funds at around one-third the total cost of the inauguration, the remaining balance to be paid for by the government. I mean, can I throw a party and only pay 1/3rd and have the State of New Jersey kick in the remaining 2/3rds of the cost? That’d be swell.
So, it’s hard to make the actual cost of the inauguration the point — I either end up preaching to the choir or arguing pointlessly with people who’ve already made up their minds that it’s okay. What it seems we did end up discussing is my racist nature because I made a colored — or, maybe an off-colored — joke. This, to me, seems a lot more useful of a discussion: I get to learn more about myself and how I feel about certain things, and I learn about people I know and how they feel about things. That discussion is a lot more valuable to me than trying to “convince” a few people that this inauguration spending was inappropriate.
A lot of folks who commented on the previous entry are mostly people I know, not just “Internet strangers” — everyone’s feedback, positive or negative, is informative and I do try to listen to it all.
i wouldn’t stop reading your blog because you make one post that i think is vitriolic and stunted click-fodder, but i probably would if it were constant.