ERV is probably right. No one reads Uncommon Descent.
I’ve noticed this before, and others have written to me about it. A link on any of the blogs of the creationist flavor, including UD, probably the most “popular” of the ID bunch, brings negligible traffic. I’ve been linked to with outrage and disparagement several times by UD and Evolution News and Views (remember Egnor?), and noticed no uptick in traffic, and they don’t even show up in the few times I’ve looked at the referrals on sitemeter (although, to be honest, those aren’t very useful anymore—getting to see the last 100 visitors means I get a snapshot of less than 5 minutes of traffic). ERV’s got less traffic — but deserves more! — so she can more clearly see the effects of a hot and heavy link from that bastion of IDiocy, and it’s remarkably pitiful.
Really, the last thing you want to hear from a young woman is “it’s so small, and I scarcely even felt it.” I should think it’s especially embarrassing when it’s trumpeted in public.
Now they do get some visitors and comments. I think ERV is also right when she suggests that probably a large proportion of that traffic comes from the science blogs that are pointing and laughing at them — traffic that comes from us already, so links back to us are ignored. I know DaveScot has bragged about their growing traffic at least once before; it puts a different perspective on it when you realize that that growth is from greater numbers of blogs and people making note of what amusing wankers they all are.
There is another possibility we shouldn’t ignore, though. Maybe there are mobs of true believers regularly going to the creationist blogs, but they are as a whole so deeply incurious and afraid that they never click through links to sites about evolution. Whatever the answer — an absence of traffic in spite of heavy PR, the bulk of traffic from visitors laughing at them, or a body of readers who are insular and frightened of leaving the boundaries of their safe little creationist world — they’ve got nothing to make them proud.
P.S. Another amusing reason to read ERV’s comment thread: the hopeless creationist “For the Kids” emerges from her cave (she has closed off her blog so only registered readers can see it) to whine irrelevantly about atheist crusades or something.
The anti-evolution irregulars are having some fun with this. They’re probably the source of most of UD’s traffic — they’re professionals at poking dead things with a pointy stick.
Maybe we should all agree to hold our breath and not read UD for a day, and see if DaveScot or Dr. Dr. Dembski comment on the fact that they only got 80 visits that day. All of them will probably be from Sal Cordova, before he allegedly heads off to Johns Hopkins for graduate studies in (wait for it!)
engineering.
I am always accused of being “impolite” when I argue against religion, yet when they argue against my thoughts it is deemed proper. Uneven, at best. Infuriating, actually.
“religion is love” I was told, and “and you talk of hate if you talk against god…”
I had a field day with that one, but the impression was still that it is impolite to denounce religion. WE need to intellectually battle this stigma.
I’d take this almost as a given. After all, researching such things would be questioning one’s faith, and that act is in direct opposition to what it means to be a true-believer in the first place. If one already has The Answer, what point is there to further investigation? Enough of that sort of thing and one might turn into a scientist, or even a BIOLOGIST (*gasp*).
I suspect, too, that in the warped world of science denial, having never read the counter to an argument preserves one’s credibility when one again invokes their debunked assertions. I mean, if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? You evolutionists still haven’t answered that one if I’ve never read your replies!
We’re all kind of waiting to see what the next creationist strategy is. The rebranding as ‘Intelligent Design’ didn’t work. They don’t even pretend to publish their fake journal anymore.
Now watch what inbreeding will do. :-P
Oh, and “Frak the Kids” is competing with Slimy Creationist Salvador Cordova for the OI Prize (Oblivious Ignorance) – the commenter addresses said young woman as “hon” and “luv” while complaining about “sarcastic” commenters among other self-mocking practices.
Now watch what inbreeding will do. :-P
Oh, and “Frak the Kids” is competing with Slimy Creationist Salvador Cordova for the OI Prize (Oblivious Ignorance) – the commenter addresses said young woman as “hon” and “luv” while complaining about “sarcastic” commenters among other self-mocking practices.
The dilemma of UD is that it’s too intellectual for those who’re inclined to believe ID and too mindless for those with a reasonable grasp of science. DI folks haven’t discovered how to market to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society mentality.
Meh… Creationism to me is nothing more than a big shiny gumball machine. Put in a nickel, turn the crank, get a gumball and live happily ever after in blissful stupidity with your jaw flapping wildly.
I think “amusing wankers” might be the best description of IDiots ever.
PZ,
I’ve merely shut my blog down for the time being.
It hasn’t been up and running for a few weeks now. I’m working on something to save me time when bombarded by all the lovely little trolls that seem to find their way from anti-ID sites to mine on an hourly basis. I felt it necessary to completely shut down in order to concentrate on that endeavor, reflect, and regroup.
After a year of blogging I needed a break from the sheer nastiness of many of the comments that I receive.
So, not to worry, everyone will have full access to my blog soon…coming back with both barrels loaded so to say.
Btw, I certainly have no problem with atheism in general. In fact, I think your new atheist group at the U of M is a great idea as everyone should have a voice. My problem with the group would be it’s choice of anti-theist leadership.
It’s only those self proclaimed militant atheists that want to snuff out religious altogether that I seem to find myself quite frustrated with lately. They all seem to have the same horrifically nasty little attitudes and appear to be on a mission of hate, prejudice and bigotry.
Have a great Labor Day weekend, luv.
At AtBC two weeks ago we predicted FtK’s blog shutdown would be temporary. Looks like we were right.
Need a tissue?
Albatrossity – I like your “Say No To UD Day” idea. Why don’t you suggest it at ATBC, pick a date or two, and we’ll see what happens.
We might also consider doing this via PM, so we don’t tip our hand, and it will be more of a surprise… Too bad we missed Dr. Dr. Demsbski’s birthday. Anybody know when Davey’s is?
Not only does nobody read Uncommon Descent, nobody even social bookmarks it. A couple months ago I caught william dembski and davescot creating their own accounts at reddit.com where they would write a blog post, submit it, then be the only ones to comment on each other’s shit and act as if they’re popular. Sad business, really.
My sad experience from years of reading comments from the population at large is that only unjustly prejudiced, hateful bigots find gentle corrections of gross science or history error to be “a mission of hate, prejudice and bigotry.”
Yeah, the truth will set you free. But if you’re seeking to oppress others, the truth stings like hell.
“Maybe there are mobs of true believers regularly going to the creationist blogs, but they are as a whole so deeply incurious and afraid that they never click through links to sites about evolution. ”
this IS actually the problem …a lot of creationists are told that they cannot look at scientific explanations that contradict their bizarre beliefs ..they’re afaid of going to hell
I was thinking this just today. Two days ago Denyse O’Leary linked from all the blogs she participates at (which is like what a dozen?) a post ranting about an article on a site I help run. This includes Uncommon Descent. The total increase in traffic from all the links she posted was 100 people over 2 days. About half form UD, the other half split up amongst her other blogs. It was certainly far less than I expected.
“They all seem to have the same horrifically nasty little attitudes and appear to be on a mission of hate, prejudice and bigotry.”
Care to give us some examples?
Somewhat related to this subject, what do people think about this comment I found by Salvador Cardova?
Is this a case of projecting? Or is it just assault on irony?
I went to UD and read an article about Pivar dropping out. What was interesting was the comments. Many were accusing PZ of being intollerant and whining about “hard core” atheists (like being an atheist is akin to porn or something) attacking faith. Well, I am one of those “hard core” ateists too and I don’t have such a thin skin that I can’t handle someone saying bad things about my beliefs or lack of beliefs. I have found that many fundies have described healthy criticism of their beliefs as attacks. This is far from the truth. It’s just criticism. I may say that their beliefs are irrational (not an attack), but that’s not the same as burning a church down (an attack). They need to get over it.
For the Kids has one good point (insert cliche “on top of head” joke here). A lot of religious people learn what to think and believe from church. We atheists think for ourselves and get information from a variety of sources, including biology professors who blog on the internets.
Although it is fun trying to imagine an instance where a commenter would ever ask PZ for support or guidance…
I got nothing.
There is one reason that nobody reads UD: They don’t have an RSS feed. It’s just that simple.
Oops. They apparently have an RSS feed now.
I’m going to start reading them now. They’re hilarious.
Why, afraid you can’t compete in hate? Personally, I think you’re so far ahead the “militant athiests” will never catch you. Here’s a cute one, from the July 13 edition of the Corydon Democrat, and they’re not even Fred Phelp’s nutjobs:
Google Trends shows that searching for ID has been stagnant for a long time and is slowly declining, and that Dawkins, a single celebrity atheist, is loads more popular than the entire ID movement.
Alexa shows that UD’s rank is shrinking. ScienceBlogs.com, according to them, has taken a veritable nose dive on the other hand, so this might be inaccurate, since the traffic here is flaunted so much.
Ah, crap, I should have searched for “Richard Dawkins” instead of just “Dawkins”. It’s still true, though: he alone is much more popular than ID.
So; FTK thinks that the UMMCASH have anti-theist leadership? Imagine that. Cause Lord knows the Newman Center, the Baptist Student Union and other religious groups all have pro-atheist leadership. Right? Right?
No surprise that UD is sinking. It’s Dembski’s personal playground. I don’t want to visualize what he means by that, and I am sure that many others feel the same way.
I guess nobody heard the news! According to Denyse O’Leary, “Darwinism is Losing” And she goes onto provide the big picture of why this is occurring:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-darwinism-is-losing-the-big-picture/
Heres a summary of the reasons why O’Leary thinks Darwinism losing (and I’m not making this up)
* Somebody was denied tenure
* People wrote complaining letters to a newspaper
* She receives lots of ‘riffs’ on her desk about Darwinism
If it wasn’t so downright pathetic, it would be funny. But this is the kind of crap that this so-called “journalist” spews out all the time.
Trouble is, she’s actually quite a talented writer in some regards, so I think many people are taken in by her flowery language, and don’t realize that her articles are completely devoid of any actual content or real thinking.
From TimCol: “Heres a summary of the reasons why O’Leary thinks Darwinism losing (and I’m not making this up)
* Somebody was denied tenure
* People wrote complaining letters to a newspaper
* She receives lots of ‘riffs’ on her desk about Darwinism”
And not a word about whether or not it describes reality. Revealing.
Ive dealt with Sal.
Ftk:
You trying to be “luv”ely isn’t convincing.
Btw, obvious reasons for getting antagonistic replies may be being wrong and/or obnoxious. When in doubt, always try the simplest explanations first.
Ftk:
You trying to be “luv”ely isn’t convincing.
Btw, obvious reasons for getting antagonistic replies may be being wrong and/or obnoxious. When in doubt, always try the simplest explanations first.
Doubt? No doubt is possible if you are a True Believer! To use reason is to use a tool of the Devil.
Their moderator did not help. The entire “blog” is right out of Monty Python’s “argument” sketch:
B: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M: Well, I was told outside that…
B: Don’t give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M: What?
B: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I’m not going to just stand…!!
B: OH! Oh, I’m sorry, but this is abuse.
Need a tissue?
I’d throw in some lube too, we wouldn’t want FtK to get chaffed.
JohnnieCanuck:
Damn! Seems their brainwash doesn’t work well, I still can’t envision how True Belief ™ is supposed to work. I stand corrected.
JohnnieCanuck:
Damn! Seems their brainwash doesn’t work well, I still can’t envision how True Belief ™ is supposed to work. I stand corrected.
Hm…
If you can’t stand the heat, what exactly are you doing in the chemistry lab with your face over the sandbath?
Do you want that more philosophically? If you stare into the abyss that are teh intarwebz, the abyss stares back into you.
Hm…
If you can’t stand the heat, what exactly are you doing in the chemistry lab with your face over the sandbath?
Do you want that more philosophically? If you stare into the abyss that are teh intarwebz, the abyss stares back into you.
I really have to laugh at the tortured efforts of creationists to defend their group delusion from us vile, amoral reality-based folks. Young-earth, old-earth, intelligent (now there’s an oxymoron if I ever saw one)design, whatever back-ass-ward quasi-scientific tripe they come up with to reconcile the bible with real facts, it’s all the same at the bottom – the ever-more-shrill desperation of darkness-loving superstitious cockroaches scuttling away from the light of science and technology. There’s just no way a 3,000-year-old myth can compete with today’s scientific discoveries, but they don’t want to give up on the ol’ rabbit’s-foot, lucky-socks-won-game beliefs. Worse than the merely brainwashed ignorant are the calculating hucksters who have a vested interest in preserving the gravy train they’ve been riding.
If these asshats spent as much time and money trying to solve real social problems as they waste on religion, just think what a better place the world would be.
“In fact, I think your new atheist group at the U of M is a great idea as everyone should have a voice. My problem with the group would be it’s choice of anti-theist leadership.”
There is how I believe and there is how I manage the organisation. Same with Collin. We’ve been keeping anti-theism out of the group because we want this to be friendly discussion between all sides. We don’t want to bar anyone from attending and participating.
As a side note, “your” is incorrect. This organisation was created by students and is run by students. My dad photocopied some pamphlets for us, but I wouldn’t really say that makes him King of Campus Atheists.
Good to see you’re still as blind as ever.
What? I’m not King of the Campus Atheists? But I spent 5 minutes photocopying!