Caveat
lector: This piece has as much substance as cuppacino froth. It is,
after all a blog about bloggers. Please bear that in mind before you
get your Y-Fronts in a wrangle. There was a flurry of debate before and after the MoneywebLIFE story I did about “SA’s Ten Most Influential Bloggers.” Much of it had to do with the subject of influence and whether local bloggers wield influence.
And blogging is the battlefield of ideas. That place where the cerebellum meets the cyber. It is nothing but ideas given form by virtue of words or pictures or videos. And what surrounds that is complete freedom. There are no editorial pressures, little legislative pressure, the liberation of anonymity for those who want that, freedom of speech and the ability to blog at your own frequency on the exact topic you desire. From love to lunchboxes, tyranny to titillation, politics to polony, design to deckchairs, the subject matter is whatever you want it to be. Then the audience is everyone. Your audience can be as big as the world or as solitary as a journal for one. All you need are the means - an internet connection and a device to blog from.
Give the liberation and democratization of publishing why hasn’t South Africa rushed headlong into the opportunities offered by blogging and citizen journalism? There’s money to be had in those there free blog engines – if so why aren’t we making it. More so why do local bloggers wield such minor influence. Why aren’t we taking on corrupt politicians, bad business deals, becoming online advisors to the world, story tellers to the globe?
The first answer is of course access. Telkom should be the most reviled brand in South Africa largely because their selfish and myopic stance robbed this country of the benefits of bandwidth. If we were a bandwidth rich country, things might be different. That said, the tide is turning and in two years we’ll be in another country from an access perspective. It will take a while for prices to level but the infrastructure investment for 2010, liberalization of the telecoms industry and laying of three more sea cables will bring a boom.
My intuitive answer to why we’re not on the global stage is that we are myopic. We are fools to the inward stroke. By this I mean that we are a nation of whingers and whiners who spend our time berating our lot, waiting for hand outs, and being blinded by our own reflection. That’s when we’re not serving self-interest or back slapping co-admirers in the legendary digital circle jerk.
Our sight has become so myopic we see nothing but our selves, and because of this we’ve lost sight of the bigger picture. There is a whole world out there that is our market place. That is our audience. That we can switch on to if we merely adjust our focus.
But back to blogging. There’s no empirical measure of influence for local blogging (how do you measure the density of froth?), so I devised my own. I did because my last blog was gut. I wanted something more. I wanted to crunch a few numbers. I took the Google result (name) score for most of the bloggers mentioned in the last article, added a few more I noticed were missing. If I missed you or left you out, please let me know so I can post you a box of Kleenex. Then I took the Google News result (name) count, and the Google Blog (name) result count. I gave the news count a factor of 100 (x100) and the blog a factor of 10 (x10). This because the ability to affect the media agenda or get the media to talk about you indicates great influence. Then blog word of mouth is powerful, but much less so than the media.
By doing this I came up with a methodology* I call the “GForce” or the amount of Google influence you have. Here are the results (download the spreadsheet - Download The Google Meister ):
|
Rank |
Name |
GCount |
GBlogs |
GNews |
GForce |
|
Above
God |
Nelson
Mandela |
6730000 |
7954310 |
1215000 |
15899310 |
|
Satan |
Robert
Mugabe |
5210000 |
6640600 |
2319700 |
14170300 |
|
God |
Huffington
Post |
9270000 |
221630 |
328000 |
9819630 |
|
Not
God |
Jacob
Zuma |
650000 |
298580 |
688900 |
1637480 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Rockstar |
510000 |
2160 |
800 |
512960 |
|
|
2. Rockstar |
47,400 |
4690 |
33700 |
85,790 |
|
|
3. Rockstar |
66000 |
3220 |
1200 |
70420 |
|
|
4. Rockstar |
53400 |
420 |
2100 |
55920 |
|
|
5. Rockstar |
53000 |
2400 |
900 |
56300 |
|
|
6. Rockstar |
48,880 |
280 |
400 |
49,560 |
|
|
7. Rockstar |
48000 |
190 |
200 |
48390 |
|
|
8. Rockstar |
32700 |
3840 |
100 |
36640 |
|
|
9. Rockstar |
34400 |
400 |
200 |
35000 |
|
|
10. Rockstar |
34100 |
320 |
100 |
34520 |
|
|
Pop icon |
28000 |
2660 |
500 |
31160 |
|
|
Pop icon |
26200 |
310 |
200 |
26710 |
|
|
Pop icon |
19700 |
240 |
2800 |
22740 |
|
|
Pop icon |
22100 |
270 |
200 |
22570 |
|
|
Pop icon |
18300 |
180 |
700 |
19180 |
|
|
Pop icon |
15900 |
80 |
2900 |
18880 |
|
|
Pop icon |
17700 |
220 |
500 |
18420 |
|
|
Pop icon |
14200 |
2860 |
200 |
17260 |
|
|
Pop icon |
16600 |
120 |
300 |
17020 |
|
|
Pop icon |
13300 |
70 |
0 |
13370 |
|
|
Lead singer |
12400 |
250 |
200 |
12850 |
|
|
Lead singer |
12200 |
70 |
100 |
12370 |
|
|
Lead singer |
11900 |
70 |
500 |
12470 |
|
|
Lead singer |
9910 |
770 |
100 |
10780 |
|
|
Lead singer |
8420 |
1920 |
100 |
10440 |
|
|
Lead singer |
9770 |
150 |
400 |
10320 |
|
|
Lead singer |
9390 |
400 |
300 |
10090 |
|
|
Lead singer |
9480 |
190 |
0 |
9670 |
|
|
Lead singer |
7950 |
1040 |
100 |
9090 |
|
|
Lead singer |
8410 |
210 |
100 |
8720 |
|
|
Niche/edge |
7990 |
190 |
200 |
8380 |
|
|
Niche/edge |
7940 |
60 |
200 |
8200 |
|
|
Niche/edge |
7840 |
110 |
800 |
8750 |
|
|
Niche/edge |
6410 |
130 |
100 |
6640 |
|
|
Niche/edge |
5450 |
80 |
600 |
6130 |
|
|
Niche/edge |
5330 |
120 |
100 |
5550 |
|
|
Niche/edge |
4270 |
60 |
100 |
4430 |
|
|
Niche/edge |
3510 |
110 |
500 |
4120 |
|
|
Niche/edge |
3400 |
110 |
200 |
3710 |
|
|
Niche/edge |
3190 |
10 |
0 |
3200 |
|
|
Bit player |
2650 |
150 |
100 |
2900 |
* The
methodology is fraught of course because specific names are at a disadvantage
to generic names. I was more careful about weeding out non relevant results in
the “News” and “Blog” results because these were more manageable. But wading
through Google to see some responses one gets a sense that the heavyweights
deserve their rankings despite the addition of irrelevant results. Then this is
time bound – the figures will change in time.
The gods (Mandela/Huffington)
and demiurges (Mugabe) are added to offer contrast. To show by relativity what
real influence is in terms of numbers.
What is interesting with
the GForce table is how the design heroes have become the gods of the internet
(Adii/Mark Forrester). This picks up on something Simon Dingle tweeted today: “Web 2.0:
transforming web designers into messiahs.” If you look at the local and global
design heavyweights he’s absolutely right, and I bet that the design gurus will
be the first to operate on a global platform. Then there are the suprises like
Skinny LaMinx who achieve the numbers because of the extreme creativity and
value offered. If there’s one person who deserves to be a global guru it’s the
LaMinx because of her extreme smarts.
As expected those who
are the most vocal on public forums are not necessarily the most influential. Those who are influential offer value of some
or other kind – they lead thinking, trends, news, opinion. Be it knowledge,
information or advance sight to niche audiences – they lead content.
Then in terms of the categories:
- The rock stars – these are the people to watch, the thought leaders, the cultists.
- The pop icon – they cause waves of influence and attract interest, but don’t have the broad reach or influence of a rock star.
- The lead singers – They’re hot but either appeal to a specific niche audience or are still fledgling rock stars.
- The audience : Either they don’t give a damn about influence, are on their way up, on their own mission or are a lot less influential than they’d like to think.
- Bolton deVenter : A bit player invented by a rock star.
To confirm that the
rock stars lead opinion by adding value I plotted a Blogopticon – which is an
idea I got from VanityFair.
Given I do have a day job I only plotted the top ten, but you can download the file here if you want to take this further if you’ve got nothing better to do with your life. Download BlogOpticon
Lastly, I believe there is huge potential in local blogging (and local Web technology and services) but that the success of this will be determined by an ability to see beyond ourselves. By adding value to the audiences we want to reach.

Fantastic concept! We need more of this. Be interesting to do one based on readers per week or something as well, although I suspect that'll be unfair to some. So Keo will jump up, and someone like Heather from Skinny LaMinx will disappear, which of course has little relation to influence or worth.
Posted by: Chris Roper | 13 August 2008 at 14:04
I would be interested in knowing where I would rank in that mix..
Posted by: Chris M | 13 August 2008 at 14:47
This would be great, but I am not sure I understand the correlation between Google News result and blog influence? Just because someone has a high Google ranking, does that make them a more influential blogger? For example, what if you have a high Google rank because you are notorious, but you blog about your cat's kittens? Does that make you influential blogger?
The list I outlined to you in my email, which was all about bloggers and number crunching, is based mostly on Technoratti ranking which, although still frought with issues, allows you to compare oranges with oranges. You are, after all, confining yourself to the blogosphere and not the websphere.
Recently, a blog post made the rounds on the top 100 people in the web world. This was measured by the Google result numbers, and was actually a clever way to assess CELEBRITIES, but not influencers (which the author of the blog post acknowledged). For instance, Perez Hilton scored considerably higher than Larry or Sergei, but I think we can at least agree on who really has had more influence on the world.
http://www.techcult.com/top-100-web-celebrities/
Incidentally, the clever Google boys have an algorithm in place that ranks the influence/authority of blogs. This PageRank, a closely guarded algorithm, is the most pursued number by professional bloggers. On a scale of 10, the higher your rank, the more influence you will have (due to other applications of the PR rank).
Quirk has a very clever tool that allows you to see the PR of a website. Amatomu ranks local blogs according to Technorati rankings (which I would put my money on). I used a similar approach (the one I outlined in my email to you) in my Thought Leader posts. When I wrote it, there were 51 local blogs ranking higher than 100,000 on Technorati.
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/evedmochowska/2007/10/03/sas-top-51-blogs
I will republish the list, with updated results, this week. It will be interesting to compare how the blogosphere has evolved - or not - in the last year or so.
Posted by: Eve Dmochowska | 13 August 2008 at 14:50
You've raised some interesting points...I'm also inclined to look at the PR value (it's what often matters to potential blog advertisers)
However, my PR is pretty good (better than most) but yet I'm rarely on 'the' lists so I dunno...all a matter of opinion I guess :)
Posted by: Melissa | 13 August 2008 at 15:09
Haha, Eric Edelstein ranks higher than Vinny Lingham. Vinny won't be pleased.
Posted by: Andrew | 13 August 2008 at 16:13
Wow... There can be only one someone once said... Rockstar that is... :)
How the hell did I manage to kill that one? :P
Posted by: Adii | 13 August 2008 at 21:50
http://www.amatomu.com/
Click on the Technorati tab on the homepage and that should give a global view of where everyone in the Amatomu blogosphere ranks worldwide.
How you like them apples Eric? :-)
Interesting post Mandy... coincides with something I read a few days ago - "the more interesting your life becomes, the less you blog" :-)
Posted by: VInny Lingham | 13 August 2008 at 22:42
well, i'm thinking of giving up blogging and going into gardening. I feel the need to care for a Eucalyptus
Posted by: Matthew Buckland | 14 August 2008 at 00:23
I think Bolton DeVenter was actually invented by someone who aspires to be a rockstar.
Posted by: Richard Catto | 14 August 2008 at 10:15
It's just occurred to me - I've been wondering how it's possible for Steve Hofmeyr to be so far down the list. I see you've spelt his name incorrectly. Think he'd be higher on Google with the correct spelling, or is that error page specific?
Posted by: Chris Roper | 15 August 2008 at 13:23
@ Chris - That SkinnyLaMinx is quite something. Major find. Awesome creativity. And damn it. You're right about Hofmeyr. But I'm unfairly prejudice to Koos Kombuis - so I'll leave things as they are for now. But will have to change it the next time I'm trying to 'win friends and influence people.' ;)
===============================================================
@ChrisM - Thanks for the email and letting me know about your blog. And yes - nice to hear about what you're up to.
===============================================================
@EveD - We obviously have different understandings of influence. Kudo's to http://marco-za.blogspot.com/ and http://ninjamonkeys.co.za/ for their reach, but reach or page views does not equal influence in my book. If you go through those you will see they there's not huge interaction on those blogs. This - together with the Clickatell corporate web site (http://www.clickatell.com/) ranking at 14 on the Technorati/Amatomu list shows that the ranking is fraught. Then influence can be positive or negative. Mandela is influential, and so is Mugabe,they just choose to wield their influence differently. Lastly real influence in part includes the ability to affect the media agenda and public agenda. (And nope -nobody on my list blogs about kittens, although I haven't checked Matt Buckland's blog lately. Your list though includes people who blog about bunnies, trap jaw ants and chard. Isn't the internet a wonderful thing - all that freedom of speech. But I wouldn't take all this too seriously. It's just blogging about blogging. Hardly earth shattering stuff.)
===============================================================
@Melissa: I reckon you're profile's growing nicely. I've been aware of you for a while. Long before I got back into journalism anyway.
===============================================================
@Adii: Nice one - but interesting what Simon Dingle said on Twitter, that designers are the new messiahs of social media. That's a question I've put to Matt Mullenweg who I'm doing a story on for Brainstorm. Will be interesting to see what he says about that.
===============================================================
@Vinny - you make me laugh big time - "how'd you like them apples.".
===============================================================
@Matt - Damn. When I quickly glanced over your response I thought you said you were going to forgo blogging to learn how to strum the ukalaili. Music's loss if flora's gain.
===============================================================
@Richard - The thot plickens. I have my suspicions about the author of the Bolton scandal. My undercover journalists are tracing the source of that story as I type this. No stone will be left unturned.
===============================================================
@Chris Roper - Damn. Damn damn damn. I hate it when you're right and I'm wrong.
Posted by: Mandy de Waal | 15 August 2008 at 16:39
Okay, I will come right out and say it.
I believe the most likely suspect for the creation of Bolton DeVenter is actually Guy McLaren.
Posted by: Richard Catto | 18 August 2008 at 22:09
poetry is just not hot. *woe is me sigh*
Posted by: amandzing | 19 August 2008 at 17:24
@Richard Catto: Guy McLaren - really? I reckon it will be one of those mysteries. Whomever it was - very smart. Great sense of humour.
@amandzing - Poetry is so hot!
Posted by: Mandy de Waal | 20 August 2008 at 08:11