I repeat, I did not compare FMH to porn. FMHLisa, by her own admission, drives traffic to her site with salacious material. That is a factual observation supported by clear first-hand evidence, not my opinion.

The third quote above identifies a type of blog which would clearly not be on par with T&S and BCC but which would have high statistics: m0rmon pr0n. The argument being made here is not that FMH is porn, but that high stats do not constitute a means of comparison with BCC and T&S. A m0rmon pr0n blogsite with stats that exceed FMHs would not be “big” even though it had “big” stats like BCC and T&S. In other words, stats alone do not qualify as “big”, whereas content, style and substance do. That has been my clear and consistent argument.

If the presentation of plain, obvious facts and a well-reasoned position to support my opinion ruins our friendship, then so be it, Ms. Anne. I never held differences in opinion against you in the past. If you want to hold them against me, that is your prerogative. I hold my opinions regardless of popularity. And, quite frankly, among this crowd of petulant narcissists, popularity is not something to strive for. As Kaimi noted above, he is only “happy to hear positive reviews of my blog”, in other words, he is not interested in anything but praise and adulation.

If you can convince me FMHLisa does not in fact drive up her stats using salacious material, and that stats are all it takes to constitute “big”, then be my guest. Take a whack at it, Ms. Anne.

“You yourself posted a piece entitled “Sex sells”

“Porn sites have high hit counts too, Lisa. So if someone starts a m0rmon pr0n blog and gets a lot of hits, more than FMH, then does that make them big? No. FMH is not on par with BCC and T&S.”

Sounds like you compared FMH to porn to me.

Were we once friends and you’ve turned into your evil twin?

I for one am disturbed by it. But I do not mistake my opinion for the correct course we should take as a community.

The Wiz asks:
“Why, Lisa do you track BCC’s stats? Just curious.
Also, my stats on the sitemeter and the stats pulled right off the server for our blog are completely different. Which one is more accurate?”

I only recently started tracking them as I’ve discoved a previously deeply buried competative streak. I never much cared if I won monopoly or volleyball, I don’t much care for gambling even when I win, but suddenly as my stats got closer and closer to the big guys, I found I wanted to “win”. (Although how one “wins” is totally subjective of course.) And so I started to keep track (actually just a few months ago) because while Steve and I do sometimes swap stats, I didn’t want to be the annoying sister constantly asking, so am I beating you yet, huh huh?

Which brings me to your second question, I don’t know which is more accurate, but as I been trying to figure it out, it’s is clear that it really is an apples and oranges comparision, in other words, the figures I give above compare my JaguarPC apples with sitemeter oranges. I used sitemeter on the old fMh blogspot site, but J (who built the wordpress site) claimed that the Jaguar stats were more accurate so it was unnecessary to transfer the sitemeter stats, which he thought (back then) were quite inflated, but after talking to him now I don’t think he is still of this opinion. I don’t know, the whole thing is very confusing. Apparantly BCC has another counter and their stats on it are significantly higher than the sitemeter stats, and the results would make BCC a bit larger than fMh, but he wasn’t specific. Anyway the thing I should do now, if we want a valid comparison between all three is probably to add a sitemeter counter to fMh, and if I can stop being flaky long enough and cross off of some of these to-dos, I might just do that. Anyway the rambling point being that the BCC guys are of the opinion that BCC is actually larger, and they’re probably right because they do know more about it than I do. I don’t know what the T&S folks think, as none of them have brought it up to me.

That is a dangerous mixing of unstable elements.