• Among my high-school crowd, it had to do with how many digits of Pi one had memorized;
• Within my evangelical crowd, it's a matter of how quickly one can come up with a chapter and verse from Scripture, given its content;
• When I'm with my husband's friends, the goal appears to be coming up with that one line of the evening that has a roomful of jaded people laughing out loud;
• Some men appear to think it has to do with how much money they make, and this is the dullest kind of macho out there;
• With my gay male friends it's often "who has the nicest home?" (And, please: do not tell me gay men aren't macho. That's an urban myth. It's just a bit subtler: men are men, whether they're gay or straight.)
• Among bloggers, it all comes down to 1) traffic, and 2) whether you've actually made a dollar or two off of this bad habit, or might be likely to.
1
On the macho blogger scale I see I score precisely -zero-.
I've seen some blogs where the blogger decides not to have a sitemeter. I've read some who say the traffic doesn't mean that much to them.
But - while I'm sure some exist - I still haven't found another one that does have a sitemeter, but one that's been broken at zero hits since its inception. By Sitemeter's reckoning, I've had exactly no visits from anyone, anywhere, anytime.
By my accounting I've made exactly $-0- from my blog. I've had no ads of any kind. No one has ever hit my Donate button, no matter how much they say I've entertained them, no matter how many trees the hurricane blew on my roof as I live-blogged it, dodging flying glass inside my home office.
Of course, I haven't spent a penny on these activities either. Which is a good thing since I have none to spend.
Worse yet, this state of affairs seems perfectly normal to me.
I see I am a complete limp-wristed unmacho wuss.
Posted by: k at January 15, 2006 10:05 PM (Ffvoi)
2
Well, you know: in order for the SiteMeter to register hits, I think you have to install it on your main page. You might look around for the code that specifies "archives," and put it just below that. Somewhere on your sidebar will be fine.
And while you're in your blog's innards, you might set it so that it only displays the past three days' posts, or the last 10 posts, or whatever--you've got nearly everything on your main page, and it make your blog take a wee bit longer to load. People can go to your archives for the old stuff.
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 15, 2006 11:00 PM (/y+/O)
3
Oh.
the Sitemeter thing? I don't want to fix it. Probably I will down the road. For now it's still too fun as is.
The way the whole blog comes up was on purpose. BUT! I didn't know it takes longer to load that way. That part I don't like. So I'll probably actually take care of that in the nearer future.
At least now I police-up the spambots...in a sort of timely fashion...!!!
Posted by: k at January 16, 2006 07:39 AM (y6n8O)
4
I thought one of the blogger macho things was how many blogwars one manages to either start or get in the middle of somehow.
On that score, I'm going to break into a Village People tune momentarily.
Posted by: Desert Cat at January 16, 2006 10:45 PM (xdX36)
5
Anything to do with this?--
http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/one_of_the_biggest_no_names_in_the_world/#130812
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 17, 2006 03:22 AM (/y+/O)
6
That's one of a recent string, yes.
Pretty ridiculous inference he made there, but whatever. That's Jeff when he feels slighted.
Posted by: Desert Cat at January 17, 2006 02:47 PM (B2X7i)
7
Presumably he'll get over it. But it's always so odd when that happens.
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 17, 2006 03:32 PM (/y+/O)
8
Why must you people talk about me on our blog like I'm some sort of lab speciman?
If my personality or idiosyncricies grate on you, don't read me. It's all the off-site psychoanalysis of myself that I come across quite unexpectedly while reading people's site that drive me to distraction.
It's why I read fewer and fewer blogs.
Posted by: Jeff G at January 17, 2006 10:01 PM (YAOAH)
9
There are certain species of moths that have antennae so sensitive that they are capable of detecting a single phermone molecule emitted by another moth from miles away.
It's really quite fascinating when you think about it.
Sorry. Don't mind me. Apparently I'm emitting some pretty powerful "asshole" rays lately.
Posted by: Desert Cat at January 17, 2006 11:31 PM (xdX36)
10
There is a difference between these two statements:
1) "So-and-so is sensitive." and
2) "So and so is an insect, wriggling on a pin, a la "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock."
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 18, 2006 02:31 AM (/y+/O)
11
True, and I don't think the eternal footman would have such an easy time of it in this case. Because of the hypocrisy, of course.
"In the room the cats come and go
Yakking up Michelangelo"
Posted by: Desert Cat at January 18, 2006 11:16 AM (xdX36)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
