Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

Awww, it's ok. It's just your brilliance on all things legal astounds us and we have nothing else to add. Please don't quite writing lengthy posts. We still have much to learn. Thanks for your conservative insights into academia.

Now, if you could just take the "moderation" off the comments, this could be a lively place for discussion. Otherwise, the torrent of thought has moved along long before our comments are released from Comment Hell.

Sorry Prof. Farts and dick jokes never grow old.

Probably related back to the OJ trial. Nobody admitted to actually watching it, but it had some of the highest ratings of any "show" on TV at the time.

What we *say* we are interested in, sometimes is wildly at odds with what we actually *are* interested in.

Write something negative about Palin. That'll bring the traffic.

Amount of comment =/= quality of comments.

On the PC post, I didn't think a "yeah, I hate these folks who work so hard to be 'victims' and are just a pain" type response was adding much.

OTOH, I didn't feel a need to add to the moron on Twitter, either.

Bacon

Back when I actively blogged I noticed the same thing whenever I mentioned bacon in a post. Comments would easily be 3x normal. Even a gratuitous mention would generate a noticeable uptick.

1. Fwiw, I read the Widener post and ignored the one that mentioned Weiner's name.

2. It's been my impression that you haven't decided what your target audience is.

3. Radley Balko explains how the punditry business works: It doesn't matter if those personalities have the slightest idea what they're talking about. They're on TV not because they have specialized knowledge about a given story, but because they're talented at applying standard partisan talking points to a wide variety of issues...Their job is to tell the portion of the audience that already agrees with them what the audience already thinks it knows. Everyone is stupider for it.

Everyone is stupider, but a few people get rich.

A nation that does not want to confront its systemic decline is especially receptive to black-and-white partisanship. Everything wrong is the other guy's fault.

4. Btw, the posts in which Kathleen says affirmative things are worthwhile and interesting even though I rarely comment. When she tries to be a witty critic, meh. Caveat: catering to tastes like mine could be a recipe for failure in today's politics and journalism.

Just because we don't comment doesn't mean we didn't read the post. Easier to comment on edgy, funny posts than on serious posts. Takes much less thinking.

On something gs brought up about target audience: on blogs, don't worry about targeting your audience. If you are good, your audience will find YOU.

/agree with Phil.

People have RSS feeds, so it's not like three of five posts being something they're not interested in will mean they don't visit, they just skip those posts. (You have 7,360 subscribers on google reader alone; you're doing fine on your topic choices!)

People share things that make them think-- facebook, twitter, ect-- even if they don't comment.

I feel his pain. I do a lot of poetry on my blog and sometimes you just go through all the mental suffering and poor bloody fingers from typing, just for the reward of creating something that you hope will last through the ages. I hope this will be popular in 2111:

I Am Thy Fool
by Squeeky Fromm

How do I worship thy One-derfulness?
Shall I measure slobber by the barrel,
Or celebrate thy Blessed Birth in carol
Circulated free by the Main Stream Press?

Or shall I be discreet, and not confess
Nor speak of fascination so feral?
Hiding away Love’s risque' apparel
As if it were but some blue stain-ed dress.

Yet, when every momentary stutter
Or pregnant pause is cause for happiness,
Must I draw the shades and close the shutter?

There, in Dark, lest thrill’d legs and lips a-drool
Proclaim, in involuntary mutter
For all the world to know. . . I am thy Fool.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Professor, I am always a bit dismayed when I check the source of my daily hits and find that something salacious, posted long ago, is the most visited. But, but, but what about my brilliant post on (this or that)? Eight hits.

Nevertheless, I have posted nothing about Wiener's strange tweeted photo and refuse to do so. For one thing, it kind of makes me nauseous.

Squeeky, couldn't you choose a better pen name than "Squeeky Fromm"? Squeeky Fromm is the Manson Family gang member who is serving a life sentence for attempting to assassinate President Gerald Ford.

That was Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme. Mine is spelt differently on both words. Plus, I always sign off, so people will know I am NOT the same one, as:

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

You seem to be such a bright guy so, what took you so long to figure it out? :-)

My apologies for not linking to this earlier. It could have saved you hours of self-doubt and flagellation. But I thought you already knew it.

"K said...

Bacon"

I honestly have no idea where the irresistible compulsion to reply to this post is coming from.

I actually did read the entire PC post at the time... and I think it's obvious to most people that a lengthy well thought out post leaves comparatively little left needing to be said.

Dude,

You write a post on sex and it gets hits FOREVER.

One of mt favorites is my adventure building a sex machine. And guess what? There was absolutely no sex in the post. And the women were walk-ons. Most amusing.

Sex Machine Underground

I understand how you feel. My husband has been blogging since 2003 ( so have I, but I've almost completely given up), and he is just not willing to pander to people who want to comment, and yet, he has still had over 6 million visitors. It's still important for you to write what you think is important. A lot of us do read those things, we might not think we are worthy enough to comment.

Sounds like one of the rules for drawing hits: "Short poss using lewd or suggestive phrases draw multiple sets of eyes and comments."

That and post pictures of hot babes using suggestive titles.

Anything else is ego publishing.

Now just repeat the same things over and over again and you're ready for the big leagues.

The internet rewards repetition and banality. Think hard about whether it's a good use of your time.

And guns, especially a gun with long a barrel, on a big full-tracked chassis ...

Cheers

And it doesn't hurt to get linked at Instapundit and Althouse, either.

I'm with Pasadena Phil. An off-the-cuff comment or funny remark is easy about the Weiner story which, except for the technical stuff about hacking Twitter, seems easy.

But, you really have to know something to make an intelligent comment about a serious, focused issue like academic freedom.

If it makes you feel any better, I value your posts for the serious issues and thinking not covered by others. Thanks!

"nothing"? Hmph!

I like both post styles but prefer your longer posts; people respond to pointed questions, though. So perhaps add one to your lengthier posts? Or some kind of direct invitation for feedback? I think that commenters tend to read longer posts as articles, not always requiring input or a response.

Stacy McCain's 'How To Get A Million Hits On Your Blog explains the whole strategy.

The key is to post the tabloidy stuff in the hope that some percentage of the people who read it will stay around and read the other things you post. I've made a lot of new Friends In The Ether that way.

Snark. You need more snark. It's all about the snark.

In my day, it was all about the snipe.

Some people have short attention spans prof.. ooo, a butterfly!