Dave Sifry once again reports on the state of the blogosphere today. Lots of interesting data, but here is the summary:
Of course, what’s fascinating is the data about A-list bloggers, or bloggers have a high rank and “high authority”. According to the Technorati data, one of the things which differentiate them is their posting frequency. They post, on average, almost “twice a day”.
This information is interesting for those keeping an eye on A-listers, or those who want to be A-listers.
So, is the secret to being an A-lister post frequency?
Should we all start pusing towards multiple posts per day — or at least once a day?
I think the answer is a little more complicated than that.
Clearly if you post only once or twice a week, I think you’ll get a dramatic increase in your rankings, exposure and traffic if you start posting more frequently. And I think this will be primarily driven through Google or search engine traffic as you’ll probably show up more in the SERPs — as my understanding is they like fresh and frequently updated content.
However, linking strategy also has to do with it. I don’t know if there is any data on this — but, if you’re posts were to start linking other blogs out there to increase your own visibility within a community of bloggers, they would get to know you, and hopefully start linking back to you.
Chris Pearson also has a good point. Above and beyond increasing your post frequency, changing blogging platforms and optimizing your theme for SEO has important implications for Google traffic — and probably increasing the frequency of links.
For the other end of the spectrum, post frequency also, I think is only part of the story.
If you examine the top 100, for example — they are up there because they have tons of inbound links to them. Many of them post multiple times a day; but most probably on average, once a day.
Clearly for them post frequency is necessary, but not sufficient.
Why?
It has to do with why they are in the top 100 in the first place — and the answer to “why are popular blogs popular?”
Popular blogs, like popular sites with lots of traffic, produce real original content — they don’t just repeat what’s on the net (echochamber). Original content can come in a few forms: reporting news, commenting on news, or providing worthy information or entertainment.
Think about it.
If you’re a blog, and you’re going to link to a site — you’re going to link to something that’s newsworthy. A post that is either reporting news in and of itself, something that enriches news by offering a unique commentary or instruction, (or, is done by someone who is well known, in spite of that commentary), or, something that is entertaining, which may complement or be independent of something that’s newsworthy.
Gizmodo and Engadget — these are sites which report on gadget news, and host unique videos and photos that people can’t get anywhere else, or get before these sites. Hence — the inbound links.
TechCrunch and GigaOm — because of the contacts and juice they have within the Web2.0 community, they’ll be able to break news that even mainstream journalists won’t able to get (and have done)
Guy Kawasaki and A List Apart — instructive content on the art of the startup versus a web design and standards site with a long rich history on the net.
Michelle Malkin and Robert Scoble — offering commentary and sometimes news in the political and technology domains respecctively
Now, none of this really has nothing to do with blog frequency — but blog content. And in some respects, the actual blog author, or even, how old the blog is.
Sifry touches on this — but doesn’t, I think, give it justice.
There are some blogs that are as old as Technorati — and older. They have received lots of links simply because they have been around long enough to accumulate links. In those circumstances, it may have ery little to do with what they’re writing about, but because of, say, old and existing blog roll links, which are sitting on the front page of every blog regardless of the content.
I’m not sure if Technorati makes any distinctions between the kind of inbound links — those on blog posts, versus those of blogroll links.
(I don’t think it does)
Summary of this Long Rant: Posting Frequency is Sufficient But Not Enough. probably necessary but insufficient (That’ll teach me for watching Entertainment Tonight when I Post!)
Some parting thoughts:
1. If you’re on the long tail of the Technorati authority list, chances are you aren’t posting enough; its certainly worth a try. Post at least once a day
2. Posting frequency is necessary (probably!) but not sufficient; link to other people in your blogs, participate in your part of the blogosphere, improve your SEO, find off-line buzz — whatever! You may yet find that there are reasons other than post frequency to increase your inbound links
3. Content matters! If you’re not already famous, or have a reason to become famous, then you’ll need to find a way to produce original, link-worthy posts; they might be insightful, entertaining, informative, or newsworthy in and of themselves.
4. Hang in there: .. and one day you’ll be on those blogrolls too! (although they’re sort of falling out of favour)
November 6th, 2006 at 10:08 pm | Permalink
I, for one, think posting frequency is an awful thing to be planting in the heads of would-be A-listers.
Earlier this year, I tried to go the “one post a day” route with my personal blog, and I found that I produced about 90% crap. I received few comments, and I was becoming less and less involved from a mental standpoint.
In late June, I decided to eschew the frequency philosophy, and this decision has basically sent my site — from metrics to comments to subscribers — to an entirely new level.
Now, I focus solely on quality, and I have stopped worrying about the fact that I might only produce 3 or 4 good entries a month. Lately, this has resulted in over 75 trackbacks in October alone.
So, I guess the point of my comment is that David Sifry is looking at a snapshot of popularity, but not necessarily what’s good or effective.
As far as single-author sites go, looking at the Technorati top 100 and deciding on a trend is just ridiculous to me. Let’s face it — most of us run single author sites, and most of us aren’t ever going to see the Technorati top 100.
In my mind, Sifry is speaking to the privileged few and not to the largest portion of the audience (that matters the most).
November 6th, 2006 at 11:41 pm | Permalink
I guess the caveat should be “post as often as you can as long as you can keep up a certain threshold of quality, with data suggesting at least once a day” — you’re right Chris, if you publish crap, well, no one will be interested in that.
Quite frankly, I brush up against that threshold all the time — and sometimes dance over it.
But that’s just my style!
As for popular != (effective || good), I suppose that’s a true assumption; however, I was talking strictly in terms of the # of inbound links people were or weren’t getting.
And, I agree, not all “popular” or “A-list” are good; some have a high popularity because of their own intrinsic off-line notoriety, or even, have the case of history on their side.
Thanks for popping by!
t
November 7th, 2006 at 10:48 am | Permalink
great post tony. absolutely great summary. I’ve been serving as a technical “advisor” for an aspiring blogger, my girlfriend. She’s picked a really great vertical that she’s SUPER-passionate about and is just starting to get an idea as to how real blogs work and how they can draw, and keep, visitors. So this is the perfect wrap-up to get her thinking ouutside the realm of her expertise, and into thinking about the medium she’s chosen to have her voice heard.
kudos!
November 7th, 2006 at 11:12 am | Permalink
Thanks Joel — very kind words indeed ;)
Let us know how your girlfriend-blogger-project works out!
Cheers
t @ dji