TheBirdman.Org and the Unreliability of Alexa Rankings
14 February 2006
Note that Webalizer statistics of 32 million hits in March 2006 make clear that TheBirdman.org is one of the most popular sites on the Web.
I have long believed that the Alexa ratings of my webpage, thebirdman.org, are being deliberately sabotaged, most likely because there are Jews who want my page to look as insignificant as possible, and who have the money or inside knowledge to see that such sabotage is accomplished. For me, the sabotage is less than crucial, because I don't host advertisers, and am not concerned with attracting them by my 'big stats'. But if not crucial, the rankings are nevertheless important, because they are a measure not only of my site's place in the cybersphere, but of how well the controversial information I host -- and particularly the information about the Self-Chosen -- is getting out. More particularly, Establishment Jewry doesn't want this information getting out, certainly doesn't want people thinking that it is getting out, and especially doesn't want people thinking it is getting out by the truckload and exposing -- and thereby threatening -- the program of Jewish destruction of the West. And of course they don't want the Birdman to be recognized as a popular and high-status Netizen who dares to criticize the Eupees, aka UPs, or Uncriticizeable Persons: Besides good stats being a psychological hit on the Foreskinners, it helps encourage reader contributions that could add some real momentum to what thebirdman.org is doing.
Now if I am right that my Alexa rating is fabricated downward, then there are basically two things which I must do to prove my case: First, to show that my Alexa rating is unreliable, and second, to show that other objective facts demonstrate my site's significant and continuing popularity. This I do below:
1. Proof that Alexa is unreliable
(a) Alexa's irrational fluctuations
My page is very stable in content, with most of the change on the Daily Reads page, which hosts approximately 10 new stories per day. And yet the Alexa ratings have been all over the ballpark, from 19,000 or lower (very good) to as high as 200,000 or more (currently 133,000 - not so good).
(b) The case of the differing numbers
In the most recent comparison of my Alexa rating with the ratings of other similar and competitive sites (see link on Home Page), I was getting numbers that were almost unbelievably good. But then a very strange thing happened -- people started telling me that they were not getting these same numbers from Alexa, but instead they were getting different (and less favorable, tho still good) numbers. I wrote Alexa about this, but never got a response, altho I had written them a few months earlier about another matter and had received a courteous reply -- all of which suggests that Alexa did not WANT to answer the second letter. So what can we make of this? I can't be sure, but the most reasonable explanation I can think of is that Alexa was putting out cooked numbers on my site to the general public, but the programming by which this was done apparently bypassed my site, probably because it was my site that was being (mis)measured. That is, if Alexa were giving the public wrong numbers, they still probably wanted to have the correct numbers, and because these numbers came from my site, this may have caused them to accidentally feed me the right ones.
(c) The case of the missing links
At one point in time, Alexa had me listed with more than 130 sites that linked my own. Links, of course, are a measure of how important others think your site is. But currently, Alexa lists only about 30 links, which makes no sense at all -- it is unlikely that so many sites would have 'dropped off the map' or dropped my listing, and the reduced linkage is even more unlikely if the popularity of my page is increasing, which, by other indications discussed below, it is. Hence, more evidence of cooked numbers.
(d) The trouble with the stated links
In its discussion of my links, Alexa lists the actual sites which link into my site. But there is one small problem: Its list contains at least two sites (carolontheweb.com and russgranata.com/rg-links.html) that haven't been up for more than a year, and another (macbigot.com/jdoblak) which doesn't have a link; while it DOESN'T list at least one site (and probably many) that DOES have a link (http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/), and in fact has had one for approximately a year. Clearly, then, Alexa's information on links is completely screwed up, hence completely unreliable; and thus it would be irrational to put any confidence in its rankings.
2. Objective indications of my site's popularity
(a) The Wiki 'stub'
Just recently I discovered that Wikipedia had an entry for me, altho it was just a place-holder entry, waiting for some bright fellow to take me to task for my 'neo-nazism'. That is interesting in view of the fact that Wiki rejected an entry for me a few months ago on the basis that I was a 'nonentity': Something must have changed their minds, most likely my site's growing popularity, because I don't think it was based on the fact that I have a record-breaking THREE entries in crank.net.
(b) Mail volume
My mail has increased by approximately 3-fold over the last two years. I used to be able to look at everything, but now it is just impossible, and in fact I have more than 1700 emails from the past year that I was never even able to open. I now have to work on a triage basis -- I give priority to newbies, old reliables, and anything with an interesting headline, which means that the other half or two-thirds of the mail goes into the 'maybe sometime' bin or the trash. But an increase in mail means an increase in readership and interest -- need I say more?
In doing a search for 'Birdman Bryant' on Google as little as 2 years ago, I would get only about 3,000 returns. About a year ago it had grown to 10,000 returns. 3 months ago, this had jumped to 44,000, and now it is 78,000. These numbers are a little misleading, because a search for the EXACT term 'Birdman Bryant' gives only 11,500, whereas the other search draws in links that may have only one of the words. However, they are a good measure of the exponential growth of the awareness of my site. More evidence of popularity, contra Alexa.
(d) Site hits
About six months ago, when I was being hosted by 1stAmendment.net, I was getting abut 1/3 of a million hits per month. In contrast, the hit count for January on my current host, Heretical.com, was close to double that, 597,920, which itself was up from December, at 522,134. Again, our popularity is clearly growing.
From the above considerations, it is clear that Alexa is either cooking our figures downward, or else is a madhouse of incompetence. We are grateful that we have the means to correct the Alexa slur and thereby finesse the Foreskinners. But then that's what our site is all about anyway.
isn't free! To insure the
continuation of this website and the survival of its creator in
these financially-troubled times, please send donations directly to the Birdman at
PO Box 66683, St Pete Beach FL 33736-6683
"The smallest good deed is worth the grandest intention."
contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all
Remember: Your donation = our survival!
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *