Sim-O

A question for Nadine Dorries on her post The Daily Telegraph (I’m telling you the title of the post and not just linking to it because her main-website-intergrated-blog doesn’t have post pages)…

Charlie*, the difference is, Newspapers do not spend public money on expenses. I do not care if a journo claims £48 on a bottle of wine, takes it home and then claims it on his expenses because I wasn’t forced to contribute to it.

Now Nadine, about this second home, do you or do you not have a second home?
Is this ‘somewhere else’ yours or someone elses? If it is yours, then no problem. If it isn’t then I think you may be in a sticky position.

It’s logged here because Nadines got comment moderation enabled.

*Charlie says…

I would be very interested to read about journalists’ expenses because if politicians are lying scum – journalists are twenty times worse.

Update:
It got published

There’s lots of stats on the Messagespace site. So I’ve just spent the evening looking through the list of Messagespace advert publishers according to Messagespace, all 35 of them, looking for more stats.

Just out of curiosity, like.

And what did I find?

On the 35 publishers there were:

• 45 advert spaces
• 36 visible adverts for Messagespace.
• 1 publisher had 2 visible adverts served by Messagespace (advertising Messagespace) also had 10 other Messagespace codeblocks, but not showing ads on the page (I don’t know why, I didn’t look that closely)
• 3 publishers listed on the Messagespace site had no adverts showing or any Messagespace code in the source code
• the two magazines were advertising themselves
• erm. That’s about it

I’m not going to do any percentages cos it’s late and I can’t be arsed now, but 36 ads for the ad server on 35 publishers with 46 ad spaces. What is it? Some sort of ad world Ponzi scheme*? How many of these 800,000 users** are gonna need the services of an internet advertising network?

The raw data (.xls) (it doesn’t tell you anything I haven’t already)

*I’m not implying there is something illegal is being done, but all those bloggers advertising the ad agency that’s serving them ads? Where is all this money coming from?
**A bit of a contentious issue is figures

Thinking of putting ads on your blog? Thinking of using Messagespace?

Wait!

Do you really want to associate yourself with any of this stuff?

Does he really?

I said recently about Nadine Dorries opening up her comments again, well, having comments again has just reminded me how incompetent the people looking after her blog are and how her blog is an integral part of her website against the rules.
Yeah, yeah, I know that’s all done and dealt with and I’m being petty but, fuck it.

Can you spot the error?

I just spotted that Nadine Dorries has got comments open again on her not-funded-by-taxpayer-and-totally-seperate-from-her-main-website-blog.

I don’t know how long comments have been enabled, but frankly, if an MP is open to the public in this manner, it would be a shame not to make use of it – in a polite and curtious manner, obviously.

It is a little odd though, that with so many visitors, she is getting so few comments. Maybe like me, they don’t know yet.

I wonder if she bothers reading them or if she gets one of her minions to do that as well as the posting…

Anyone. It could’ve been anyone but them!

Labours propaganda outlet, labourlist has recruited the slimey shits Shillings to watch their back in the comments.

Manic has spotted it and seen a remarkable similarity in the accountability of the site to some more erm, prominent, bloggers.:

Now Draper is insisting that he is not accountable to me. So he accepts comments, but refuses accountability – and here I will remind you again that he learned what little he knows by watching Dale and Staines in action. Nowhere is this influence more obvious than in his stated policy that those who are unhappy about this state of affairs should essentially ‘get their own blogs’ and make their case there. In other words, if you’re not happy that your question was refused or shouted down at a public meeting, you’re invited to go outside and hold your own meeting. Nice.

Actually, they’re made for each other, Labour and Schillings. They’re both information and image control freaks in the pay of the capitalist classe

What do you reckon, then?

There’s still a few things to sort out like getting the feeds back through feedburner and little bits and bobs, but other than that, it’s all done.

I hope you like it and would appreciate if you’d let me know of any problems you come across, either in the comments or by email.

Paul stated in this post:
“The data above is for unique users.”
Having a look at the graph (not saying anything about the % of market share as I do not know how big the market is) it is labelled:
“…measured by visits, based on UK usage”
Visits are not unique users.

Iain has done exactly the same. In this post said: “March saw 239,368 unique visitors“, when the accompanying screen shot shows visits. Visitors and Visits are not the same.
And again in this comment he does it again: “Google Analytics uses the term Visitors… Google counted 239,000 for me in March”.
No it didn’t. it counted 239,000 visits!!

Both of these jokers keep saying unique visitors or absolute unique visitors but their screen shots clearly show the figures are actually visits.

Iain, Paul, if I can work it out then you really have lost.
Stop being gits, you’re just embarrassing yourselves now.