What’s lazier than writing a ‘top 10′ blog post? Writing a blog post about a ‘top 10′ list already compiled by someone else.
The ‘someone else’ in this case is ReadWriteWeb and the top ten list is the ‘The Most Influential Websites in the World’ according to web service ://URLFAN. It caught my eye on Tweetmeme yesterday morning. So what’s different?
://URLFAN ranks websites by popularity, based on blog mentions. Unlike analytics services like Alexa or Compete, ://URLFAN doesn’t measure website traffic. It’s similar to Technorati, only ://URLFAN ranks all websites and not just blogs.
So these are the URLs that pop up the most in the 302,023,552 blog posts from 5,948,937 blog feeds that were analysed:
-
- en.wikipedia.org
- youtube.com
- flickr.com
- twitter.com
- google.com
- myspace.com
- facebook.com
- imdb.com
- nytimes.com
- apple.com
I find it interesting that the list looks at not just at blogs, but at citations for all different types of websites. Social media / networks are certainly well represented in this group (surprise, surprise).
But what’s this list really measuring? All of these websites are certainly popular (we know that) but does it matter that they are linked to in blog posts? And does that make them influential? Or put another way, are they influential in the sense that matters for traditional PR, online PR and social media agencies?
Measuring the influence of a blog/blogger by looking at how much it/he/she is cited by other blogs/bloggers is a very useful practice. It demonstrates that the opinions of the blogger in question are of a high enough standard for others to want to cite them, give them credit or reproduce part of the post. Much in the same way that this is done in academia. Groundbreaking research and theories are given specific reference based on merit. You become influential in a field by being cited a lot, and your writing carries weight.
So let’s look again at the list of what RWW called the most ‘influential’ websites then. Are they?
If influence is purely a popularity contest then sure. But if we’re talking about influence as in “the power or ability to affect someone’s beliefs or actions“, the maybe its just the New York Times, Wikipedia and IMDB that fit the bill, since these three sites each have an editorial component.
As for the others…
YouTube is a repository of videos, many of which involve LOLCATS and kids getting kicked in the nuts. Flickr is a fabulous place to find images. Google powers the majority of the world’s web searches. These seem to me to be great ’sources’, which is why they are probably on the list. Twitter, MySpace and Facebook? Well, I’m guessing these appear as links through to personal ‘profiles’ in posts. And Apple? One word: fanboys.
In sum, I don’t find this ://URLFAN list all that useful. I get the sense that it was trying to be positioned as some sort of improvement on Technorati, by ranking all websites mentioned in blog posts, not just other blogs. But I find it offers nothing of real value in terms of measuring influence.
