“DBKP Reports has released its ratings of the top 50 most popular Libertarian websites on the Internet. Ratings are based on the sites’ 3-month average of Alexa worldwide traffic as ranked on July 13-14, 2011.”
Led by LewRockwell.com, the Mises Institute comes in third and Ron Paul forums takes sixth. NolanChart is down from a previous ranking of 25th, a possible reflection of the Chart’s expanded list of contributors to include liberals, centrists, statists and conservatives, reflecting the viewpoints the chart itself represents.
The views expressed
in this article are those of Larry Warrick only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Larry Warrick is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: rwilymz
Date: July 15, 2011 01:54:23 PM
NolanChart is down from a previous ranking of 25th, a possible reflection of the Chart’s expanded list of contributors to include liberals, centrists, statists and conservatives...
The ranking is a 3-month average. The inclusion of non-libertarian entries predates the rating perioid.
The drop of six spots is due to other factors.
I'm going to suggest something far more structural: the place is generally boring.
There's only a few of those who clack out original entries who are good writers. I don't mean they write things that are agreeable; I mean they use punctuation, syntax, grammar and words themselves in interesting and provocative ways. A good scenic description can mean the difference between an Econ101 lecture you sleep through and a riveting story that commands your attention.
A good writer can be disagreeable to one's political sensibilities - and that is nearly always certain with me. No one that I've ever read has consistent political sense, but some are good writers nonetheless. A bad writer ... who knows? I find it difficult to read them.
Next, controversy is frowned upon. Controversy means people are rude and stubborn and inconsiderate and forceful. What's left when you erase all the natural human impulse to champion your political philosophy in the face of, and despite, other philosophies is ... teletubbies. And along with this is the proscription of "bad words". Sometimes that compelling description that garners rapt attention simply needs to use the term 'bull****' to succeed. And frankly, there's many aspects of every political philosophy around that is grounded in unadulterated bull****.
Political philosophy that cannot be effectively challenged cannot be rethought; political philosophy which cannot be rethought cannot be improved upon. You don't get improvement in ANYthing without getting bruised and beaten up from time to time. Discussion, if it is to be meanful, means bruising. There is almost no discussion here, and apart from my responses which identify where and why a stated position is wrong or foolish, there's virtually no attempt to start any.
I was here a few years ago; it was significantly more lively then, even if it did include drive-bys who were only capable of "yeah, me too!"-type responses. When the site went to the new format and declared new rules and I saw my responses disappearing ... that's the mark of an institution which doesn't tolerate dissent or challenge. And for one that purports libertarianism...? Ironic.
I read that Nolan died several months ago, and I've been back when I've gotten time. But the place is dead. The current crop of original contributors consists of a limited supply of screedists ranting about their pet peeves, frequently incoherently, and occasionally in shades of conspiracy theory. Gack! It's the internet version of vanity publishing. Not that I'm above that - I've got my own collection. All critical writing concerns pet peeves, and everyone is both incoherent and paranoid from time to time; it's the human condition.
But politics in a vacuum is masturbatory nonsense. If you take a position, you need to be willing to accept challenge; and if your position is rational and thought out to any degree, you ought to be able to defend it.
As my first (and favorite) site to write to, I am having a lot of difficulty standing back and taking a critical look at what we have all created. I've had many an eye-opening moment browsing through this site, and I'm sure others have too. I'm proud of what we've achieved.
So what do you think? Is there room for improvement? Do we 'Frown on controversy' as he puts it? I don't sense that. Are we all 'vanity publishers'? I don't think that my own publishing habits would suggest that - I can go for months in silence... Even so, it would be a rush to give Lew a run for his money. So what is it that makes us so...... Average?
Let's prove to our friend that we're better than that. Give me some feedback.
Posted By: rwilymz
Date: July 19, 2011 01:56:09 PM
I reviewed the most recent fifty essays on this site.
crabbing about the quality of articles - a point that I think is very limited in reality across the site
The authors who strike me as being generally poor writers are:
Brian Irving
"drugsrus48"
James Luko and
Mark Vogl
The authors I find horrible are:
Gwen Caldwell and
BJ Wellington
The rest are decent enough.
This consideration is, granted, subjective, and based on the relative occurence of poor construction, syntax and grammar. Your mileage may vary, but I'd be puzzled by an attempt to explain to me how some of these people I've identified are actually "good writers"®
his comments about the feedback sections are not grounded in reality either
I looked at the 50 essays most recently written. As of the time of my review:
19 have no comments - nearly 40%.
10 have only 1 comment [20%], 4 of those, the only commentator is me [5%]
Only 1 has more than 10 comments, the only one you cite as the example of how robust and participatory this place is. It has 58 comments.
Of the 123 comments made on the current 50 most recent essays, 20 are mine.
Of the 123 comments made on the current 50 most recent essays, 47% belong to the essay that arguably doesn't belong on a web site devoted to the discussion of competing political theory.
I have not looked at the "most viewed" essays; many are years old and have had virtually no meaningful commentary in months. ...since I was last here. And several of them have had my remarks obliterated from them.
I've long ago forgotten the statistics I ever knew, so you can probably tell me that these raw numbers don't mean what I think they do and make a pretty good show of it. But I think they point to inbred ambivalence and sloppiness - the qualities I see most prevalently. You may not arrive at that conclusion, but that's most of the point in being two different people.
