Fear and Loathing in DC

That’s right, New York has it’s 50 Most Loathsome, but somehow in DC, we can only come up with 28 Loathsome people. Dude. 28. I can find 28 Loathsome people, and that’s just in one quarter mile of one lane of Beltway traffic during rush hour!

It’s no surprise that snark is the order of the day in this town, given all the political canoodling, protesting, and amazing bitterness that resides here as part of the “ambience” of the city. Here are some folks that ought to have been on that list:

James Carville – Have you ever seen this guy? Have you ever heard him speak? Brilliant, but oh so very loathsome.

Mary Matalin – Hey, they are the most loathsome couple in politics? Who’s the dom and who’s the sub? It’s not even fun to guess.

Abe Pollin – Dude, the guy chased Michael Jordan out of town. That’s pretty loathsome.

The Family Research Council – I feel dirty just writing that.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas – Just ask to see his Long Dong Silver Collection…

Senator Ted Stevens – The guy wants to regulate HBO. Fuck him AND his high horse.

oh, and last but not least…

DCist Art Critic JT Kirkland who seems to think DCist gets about 10 times as much traffic as it actually does.

Damn that snark!

Update: Just a quick update for JT’s benefit, I don’t think you’re the most loathsome person in DC, that honor clearly befits the driver of the Tour Bus who parked his ass on 14th street during rush hour the other day. HE is clearly the most loathsome mofo in DC. You, however, are just loathsome. Oh, and JT, the least you could do is spell my name right. Of course, you are loathsome, I don’t expect much more from you.

Update 2: JT and I are cool now (spelling my name right would be a plus, btw). I no longer find him as loathsome as Stevens, Thomas and Carville. I’m also cool with all of DCist. Jake, however, I am not cool with. So let’s add Jake as an honorary DCasshat instead. Claiming the moral high ground when in fact you possess no ground at all is craptacular, Jake. Don’t treat us as a pity case. We’re your peers, like it or not.

33 Comments so far

  1. DCist catherine (unregistered) on April 12th, 2005 @ 11:18 am

    1 – JT kirkland’s url is http://thinkingaboutart.blogs.com/art/

    2 – true, we don’t get 10,000 readers a day. i don’t know where he got that figure. but according to our stats we do get about 8,000 visits a day.


  2. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on April 12th, 2005 @ 11:27 am

    Thanks Catherine, I muffed the copy and paste of his link. JT is no James F, that’s for sure!

    We’re not sure where JT gets his data, but if he gets it from the same place he gets his art critiques…


  3. Marcos (unregistered) on April 12th, 2005 @ 11:39 am

    Cathrine, you should probably recheck those stats. I think you are probably confusing Visits with Hits, or Uniques with Visits. Or any of those RSS pulls. It looks more like you get about 1000 people on the site a day, perhaps they visit 8 times each?


  4. DCist catherine (unregistered) on April 12th, 2005 @ 1:38 pm

    i do totally get confused by hits/visits/blah etc, but i’m just using our internal server stats – it says we get 8,000+ sessions a day, and then defines sessions as “a series of hits from one visitor (as defined by the visitor’s IP address) wherein no two hits are separated by more than 30 minutes. If there is a gap of 30 minutes or more from this visitor, an additional Session is counted.” so you’re right, there are probably a fair amount of repeat visitors. i will try to figure out more exact stats and get back to you.


  5. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on April 12th, 2005 @ 1:43 pm

    Catherine, MT stats are a bit tricky to actually measure site traffic with, due to some wonkiness with including RSS hits as sessions, which may or may not be an accurate stat to include. Just a fair head’s up :)


  6. Marcos (unregistered) on April 12th, 2005 @ 1:49 pm

    IPs are no good, as pretty much anyone with a DSL line or in an office building had random IPs which means one person could be counted hundreds of times.


  7. jake (unregistered) on April 12th, 2005 @ 2:19 pm

    i am a bit of a traffic expert- and i am not fooled by sessions or RSS. DCist does about 8000 sessions per day, at 1.2 page views per session, or close to 10,000 impressions per day. I make no conclusion about the number of visitors this equals- but our experience from our sessions to uniques traffic is about an average of 2 visits per day, so I’d guess around 5000 visitors, per day.

    Incidently, you can validate this using the traffic stats from Blogads, which both DCist and DC.Metroblogs use. For the last 7 days, Blogads shows about 49000 impressions for DCist, about 7000 a day- this makes sense, since about 30% of our readership is RSS. To compare, the entire metroblogging family of sites did 65,000 impressions last week on Blogads- or just about 30% more than DCist did by itself. DC.metroblogs.com did only 2200 impressions last week on Blogads (that means DCist did a stunning 22 times as much traffic as you guys did.)

    Sorry to lay down the science on you, but I can’t stand to see people talking smack when they have their numbers wrong. Much love!


  8. DCist catherine (unregistered) on April 12th, 2005 @ 2:44 pm

    well i didn’t know jake himself would come comment here – i emailed the DCist editors with the stats query and they in turn emailed jake to find out more details. i guess in the end it is pretty impossible to find an exact number on unique visits. my preference would be to install a public sitemeter a la wonkette so readers can check out the stats for themselves if they care to.


  9. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on April 12th, 2005 @ 2:49 pm

    Jake, thanks for chiming in, and letting us know what the stats really looked like on your end, I appreciate that a great deal. I’m not 100% sure why your numbers don’t jibe with what Alexa is reporting, though.

    Catherine: Looks like it’s my turn to eat crow *gnaw gnaw gnaw*


  10. DCist catherine (unregistered) on April 12th, 2005 @ 3:13 pm

    oh i definitely didn’t mean for anyone to eat crow or anything. i clearly don’t know much about the stats so i’m glad to have input from all sides. but like i said, i think a public sitemeter is the best way to deal with it so there are no issues of transparency.


  11. sean bonner (unregistered) on April 12th, 2005 @ 3:58 pm

    Jake – seriously, I’m only asking this because I care – What the fuck is wrong with you??

    Do you really want to go through this crap again?

    Do you have that little confidence in your own project that you can only make it seem worthwhile by comparing it to others? Really, what is the deal?

    Tom posted that some numbers were exaggerated. someone said 10,000. Alexa says 1,000. You say 5,000. Who fucking cares, it’s clearly less than 10,000 which is all the post was about. Did you see any mention in that post about our traffic? No, because you are the only one who thinks this is a dick size contest.

    Then you have to start this shit about how DCist gets almost as much traffic as ALL the metblogs combined? Prefaced by the fact that you are an “expert”? Unfortunately you are proving quite the opposite. All those numbers show is that the blogads on DCist get almost ad much traffic than the blog ads on metblogs. Ad traffic if NOT blog traffic. As was pointed out to you on other occasions is that WE DO NOT RUN OUR BLOGADS ON EVERY PAGE. We load some ads on some pages, and not on other. Our ad scripts are dynamic. Jesus, i thought you would have figured that out by now.

    And just to give you some other numbers to obsess over for the next week, out smallest site, the one with the least amount of traffic gets over 1000 visits a day. We have almost 30 sites. You do the math.

    (and just so this is clear, this post is be ME sean bonner to Jake Dobkin. I’m not picking a fight with the folks at DCist, nor am I speaking for anyone on dc.metblogs.com)


  12. jake (unregistered) on April 12th, 2005 @ 4:44 pm

    Hey- I didn’t start the fight- someone on your staff said DCist was getting 1/10th the traffic it really gets, and the staff asked me to respond. Clearly, your writer was in error, and two comments above, they apologized for the mistake. Seems like end of story to me.

    And to be clear, I draw no conclusion about how much traffic you are doing- just how many Blogads you served (“To compare, the entire metroblogging family of sites did 65,000 impressions last week on Blogads- or just about 30% more than DCist did by itself.”) Note that I say nothing about your total traffic.

    Maybe your Blogads run only on one out of every 10 page loads- who knows? But if that’s your policy- I’d suggest revising it- our experience is that Blogads do very well (for right column positions), and you’d make a lot more money if they ran on more of your pages.

    Bottom line is that we wish you guys the best- we just don’t want to be disrespected, as we were in this post.


  13. J.T. Kirkland (unregistered) on April 12th, 2005 @ 4:53 pm

    Whew… all I can say is thank you for the clarification, Tom. I was in the middle of drafting my suicide letter. And yes, I got it from the same place I got my data and critique (I had no idea I was writing a critique, by the way… but thanks for reading).

    Now I will go back to not reading this site as I’ve done every day prior to this one. Please feel free to do the same with my site. We will carry on somehow.


  14. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on April 12th, 2005 @ 4:54 pm

    To clear something up, here, Jake. We’re not interested in a tussle here, we’re interested in transparency and honesty and truth-in-reporting. When one major public source of traffic data says one thing and your columnist says another, that’s a problem. I was calling out JT, not you, not DCist. You chose to make this a personal issue, and I’m sorry to see you’ve done so.


  15. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on April 12th, 2005 @ 4:55 pm

    JT, shocking that you hadn’t heard of you, it’s not like we’re not peers or anything.


  16. Tiffany (unregistered) on April 12th, 2005 @ 5:03 pm

    It was mentioned here because of the clearly inaccurate and penis-comparing statement. And considering the petty, childish bullshit DCist has pulled before on this very blog (at your instigation and encouragement, if I recall correctly), you can hardly claim the moral high ground.

    In addition, you very clearly said that your traffic numbers can be validated by Blogads numbers, which the Blogads site itself refutes. You then backpedaled on that statement in your last comment, which doesn’t exactly support your “we just don’t want to be disrespected, poor innocent DCist” line.


  17. catherine (unregistered) on April 12th, 2005 @ 6:06 pm

    And considering the petty, childish bullshit DCist has pulled before on this very blog…

    i’m sorry, i really don’t remember what this is referring to. can you clarify?


  18. Tiffany Baxendell (unregistered) on April 12th, 2005 @ 8:18 pm

    Eh, I suppose I was too quick to assume it was actual DCist authors doing it. Looking back on it, it seems far more likely that the person whose bright idea it was did it on his own- Assorted troll-y comments posted here in the immediate aftermath of the LAist/Blogging.la dick-measuring stats comparison fiasco with the rather transparent purpose of goading us into some kind of ridiculous blog-feud with DCist. All were promptly deleted and the affected MB cities were asked not to rise to the bait. I understand someone in New York thought it would be great for traffic…


  19. catherine (unregistered) on April 12th, 2005 @ 8:41 pm

    well you can be assured that no one on DCist even had an idea that that kind of stuff was happening, to the best of my knowledge. i wasn’t even aware of the LAist thing until i read about it in this comment section.


  20. Tiffany Baxendell (unregistered) on April 12th, 2005 @ 9:51 pm

    I’ve talked to Rob a bit as well, and that’s become quite clear, so I of course retract any accusations of assholitry I’ve directed at *DCist* staff. I’d redirect them, but it’s late and I’m tired. ;)


  21. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on April 12th, 2005 @ 9:52 pm

    Catherine, I’m very very glad to hear that, thank you. Now if Jake could confirm that, I’d be appreciative.


  22. jake (unregistered) on April 12th, 2005 @ 11:49 pm

    Gothamist has no idea what you guys are talking about- this whole DC traffic thing was a total surprise and disappointment to us.

    In other news: does anyone realize that Metblogs is squatting on NewOrleanist.com? That is, they are captializing on the Gothamist.com traffic and redirecting it to the New Orleans metroblogs site? Squatting is an abhorrent tactic usually employed by spammers- I’m surprised to see Metblogs using it- totally low down and gross.

    If this is a mistake, I’d gladly pay for the domain to be transferred to us. Otherwise, I challenge Sean to explain Metblogs stance on domain squatting to the blogging community.


  23. sean bonner (unregistered) on April 13th, 2005 @ 2:09 am

    Jake- we don’t own Neworleansist.com so I’d prefer if you didn’t accuse me of squatting on it. If someone else bought it and is pointing it to the New Orleans metblog then you should probably contact them as we have nothing to do with it. An apology would be nice as well since you are accusing us of something you know not to be the case.


  24. jake (unregistered) on April 13th, 2005 @ 9:37 am

    that’s just crazy talk- who would register a domain and point it to someone else’s site? that makes no sense. either you, someone at metblogs, or metblog’s new orleans site obviously registered it- so i think it is entirely reasonable to hold metblogs responsible for the squatting.

    so sean, i’d like to see you come out with a strong statement- something like “neither metblogs or anyone who works or writes for metblogs supports domain squatting” and send an email to the entire new orleans staff to get to the bottom of it. but it sounds like you are trying to avoid responsibility, right?


  25. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on April 13th, 2005 @ 9:45 am

    Jake, I don’t appreciate your tone here, but I understand where you’re coming from, but I also can’t find the whois records for neworleansist.com or neworleanist.com.

    This is, however, a separate issue, and I would recommend taking it to a more topical forum like email instead of in the comments of an unrelated story. This post will also be emailed to you, and I would ask that we move this offline for now.


  26. jake (unregistered) on April 13th, 2005 @ 9:53 am

    Respectfully, i’ve got to disagree- it’s a related issue: Metblogs trying to get attention for its sites by starting stuff with Gothamist. I just can’t believe it- talking smack and squatting in one day? Totally wack behavior- and totally pointless.

    As of one minute ago, NewOrleansIST still resolved to metblog’s New Orleans site- that’s just sad.


  27. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on April 13th, 2005 @ 10:01 am

    Jake, none of this has anything, AT ALL, to do with DC Metroblogging or DCist. Any complaint with the Metroblogging network needs to be taken up with Sean and Jason and not with the client sites.

    Continuing the discussion here will not solve anything, as I have no control over the neworleansist.com, nor does anyone who writes for DC Metroblogs.


  28. sean bonner (unregistered) on April 13th, 2005 @ 11:02 am

    Tom is right, this is not the place for this discussion in anyway. It’s going on via e-mail and should be dealt with there. That said, there are over 400 volunteer contributors to Metroblogging and there’s no way we can be held accountable for someone one of them does on their own. You know who owns the domain, you have their contact info, you could be contacting them about this issue, not blaming me. Outside of contributing blog posts to a site, I have zero say in what that person does. You are trying to paint me and metblogs as the bad guy in something we have nothing to do with. Again, it would be very nice if you could correct your false statements.


  29. jake (unregistered) on April 13th, 2005 @ 12:36 pm

    As I said before, I believe that the publisher and the site has to take responsibility for the actions/mistakes of the writers on the site. That’s our policy at Gothamist, and that should be the policy here at Metblogs. That means correcting and cleaning up when mistakes are made, and setting policies to prevent them happening again.

    That’s how you run a large business- the buck stops with you, Sean.


  30. Mike Hoffman (unregistered) on April 13th, 2005 @ 3:50 pm

    Hi. My name is Mike Hoffman. Yesterday I registered the domain name “neworleansist.com” on my own accord. I pointed it, again at my own free will, to New Orleans Metroblogging. Sean and everyone at Metroblogging is not responsible for my actions.

    You beliefs are not laws. Your own policy is exactly that, your own. Despite what they say in seedy chat rooms, Sean is not my daddy. Mistakes are intentional – I did it on purpose for the sake of humor. And no, jake, you don’t get any french benefits.


  31. jake (unregistered) on April 13th, 2005 @ 5:59 pm

    Mike’s comment looks really bad for Metblogs. Writers do all sorts of bad things, and Sean denies any accountability. Makes it seem like you guys are going to do whatever you want, without respecting other sites. But there is a solution:

    Mike, you could give us the domain name (we’ll pay for it and the transfer costs). If you choose to keep it, to protect Metblogs’ reputation and to make it clear that Metblogs doesn’t support domain squatting, I think Sean should ask you to resign from the New Orleans site.


  32. JennB (unregistered) on April 13th, 2005 @ 10:15 pm

    Tom is right, this is not the place for this discussion in anyway.

    Please get the hint.


  33. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on April 14th, 2005 @ 7:28 am

    Jake, I have asked you nicely to take this somewhere else. I’m not going to ask again. I’m sorry that you’ve had to turn this into a giant pissing contest when it just wasn’t necessary at all. Your behavior in this matter has been worse than anyone else’s and I’m frankly tired of your bullshit. I am now closing comments on this entry. Should you try to take it to another entry on this site, I will consider it harassment and take further steps to prevent you from harassing me or my writers.



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.