Same on Linkedin and people advertising in their username the thousands of contacts they have. What is the purpose other then revving the engine and burning rubber.

The only ones that should pay attention are the marketers and advertisers who are sold eyeballs. Don’t mind that role reversal for a change.

Cowboys will get caught out sooner or later.

Cheers

As an aside: the reason I’m pushing back is because I have high standards for “blog journalism”, and I think you (and Pete) do too.

Proactively getting your blog added to a default feed list is a different matter entirely

I disagree, but in any case: with zero evidence that any of the 91 blogs did so, where’s the “scathing expose”?

You’re right that all these third-party data sources are flawed — but sitemeter, for example, miscounts everyone in the same way. Proactively getting your blog added to a default feed list is a different matter entirely — sure, a small percentage of default subscribers may convert to real subscribers. Some people scammed into subscribing to magazines end up subscribing. That proves nothing.

There may not be any true “scandals” yet, but Pete’s data shows how slippery the slope is. Taking subscribers in bulk from third-parties is what got magazines and newspapers in a heap of trouble. That comparison to blog feeds is just to striking to ignore.

So, if I know my (page views) are inflated by (undeclared robots) and I provide Sitemeter stats to advertisers ….

So, if I know that the Technorati 100 counts all sorts of things that aren’t links in posts …

Er, no, I don’t think that providing objective (if flawed) third-party data (or internal server logs) is “pumping up”. Every data source has flaws, including the ones that companies pay big bucks for.

Nor would I fault a blogger for trying to get on a default list, not least because some of the “incidental” subscribers will become real readers and commenters.

Pete did a great service by finding some very specific problems with a small number of blogs. I won’t be surprised when I see genuine scandals around bloggers who cross very bright lines in order to artificially boost their numbers. But neither you have provided any such evidence.

So if I know my subscriber numbers are inflated by my feed being on default feed lists, and I display my Feedburner feed count without any caveats or footnotes, then I’m not really “pumping up” my numbers, right?

Right.

Er, what evidence did Mashable include that blogs intentionally “pumped up” their numbers?

Pete gathered some great data on what appear to be Google errors, but drew lousy conclusions.

Web metrics are imperfect to begin with. RSS metrics are even less reliable.

Inflating readership is the status quo in both mediums. If you don’t fudge your numbers, you’re fighting on an uneven plane.

The practice is especially rife in e-newsletters – publishers has software to track how many people are opening emails – but they report how many are sent out.

I hope bloggers can steer clear of this but as you point out, many of us will learn the hard way.

vb

I’ve often wondered though, why it is major national publications would sink to this kind of quite-obvious fudging of their circulation numbers. Don’t they think their subscribers notice?