Food for thought Free Speech General interest Media Media Manipulation, Agit-Prop &/or Lawfare Of General Interest UD's Sci-Tech watch

Uncommon Descent ranked well within the top 1% of web sites

Spread the love

A few days ago, frequent commenter Dionisio noted:

>>http://www.ranking.com/ Web Rank

Biblegateway.com 168
MIT.edu 7,280
HARVARD.edu 7,246
Nature.com 7,449
Desiringgod.org 10,105
Answersingenesis.org 11,865
Gty.org 15,018
Icr.org 19,037
Religionnews.com 22,188
Rzim.org 35,858
Samaritanspurse.org 40,274
Truthforlife.org 49,862
Royalsociety.org 53,686
Evolutionnews.org 58,755
Jamesmacdonald.com 60,164
Reasons.org 65,259
Uncommondescent.com 80,763
Pandasthumb.org 106,377
Kodugamelab.com 668,032>>

I took a look, especially at the question of how many web sites are out there. That is a hard question, but the reasonable and somewhat conservative number looks like about the billion, with 75% inactive in one way or another, i.e. the active web overall is 250 million sites or so, maybe up to several times more depending on how you count and when.

I then responded:

“[T]here are over 10^9 web sites, perhaps 1/4 of these active. So the top 1 percent would run out to the 2.5 millionth or thereabouts. All of the above are in the top 1% of global web sites that are active.”

In another thread I happened to mention the result and someone asked a question. I pulled some further information:

>>[T]here was just a comment exchange on this. With credibly 250 mn + active web sites [the real number may be several times that], the top ranking 1% would stretch out to 2.5 million sites. As a comparison, Dionisio listed: Uncommondescent.com 80,763, Pandasthumb.org 106,377. Where also, Evolutionnews.org 58,755 with Samaritanspurse.org 40,274. I add: BBC.co.uk 180,874 [and later: “dailymail.co.uk is 90. Contrast with BBC!”]. Top ten,

1 google.com

2 youtube.com

3 facebook.com

4 yahoo.com

5 wikipedia.org

6 live.com

7 amazon.com

8 msn.com

9 bing.com

10 blogspot.com

In the past day or so, I have been on seven of these sites, some several times. So, the rankings have some plausibility to me.>>

Obviously, the top ten sites or the top thousand probably have much bigger reach than something in the 80,000’s, but being in the top 1% is not to be sneezed at.

[U/D Jan 16: While the above data in my considered view bear no credible signs of being “bogus” — fraudulent, on objections seen below I examined the methods and a small sample of the 2000+ scans of the home page for the rating agency in Web Archive. This showed that c 2012 the data were frozen but left up, unfortunately without a clear notice of archived state. I also note below, as I hinted above, that web ranking is a difficult task and signals of the real world face noise starting with difficulties of method and simply scaling the active web. So, no rating should be taken simplistically at face value. That said, that such five year old data would still have significant signal rather than mere empty noise is reflective of a common pattern that is also mentioned below. Namely, that as a segment or sector emerges we commonly find a dominant cluster or set of “brands.” As an example, the world’s dominant cluster of economies is still much as it was, likewise leading operating systems, leading browsers and leading search providers. Nothing existential has happened to drastically reshape the web’s general landscape and so what was dominant c 2012 will likely remain in the top 1% still. Subsequent data confirms the general picture regarding the robustness of the top 1% status of UD. This leads to the continuing force of the intended main point of the post, just below. KF]

The take-away lesson is, we have some sober responsibilities precisely because of this, whether we are pro or con on any given issue. END

180 Replies to “Uncommon Descent ranked well within the top 1% of web sites

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Uncommon Descent ranked well within the top 1% of web sites

  2. 2
    gpuccio says:

    KF:

    That’s good news! 🙂

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Let’s look at the top 10:

    1 google.com –> Biggest search engine (now with a lawsuit)

    2 youtube.com –> Biggest vid site

    3 facebook.com –> Biggest easy to post personal site

    4 yahoo.com –> Mail news and services including search

    5 wikipedia.org –> Online encyclopedia, notorious for biases

    6 live.com –> Outlook email site

    7 amazon.com –> biggest online shop and bookshop/publisher

    8 msn.com –> news site, connects to email too

    9 bing.com –> MS search site

    10 blogspot.com –> host for small personal blogs, owned by Google

    Interesting. KF

  4. 4
    DiEb says:

    Calling Dionisio a “frequent commenter” is a charming understatement:

    year    #comments     BA77      Dionisio     KF
    2005  8,400                                            
    2006 23,000
    2007 22,000                 900                   810
    2008 23,000                 390                  660
    2009 41,000                 900                  1430
    2010 25,000                2400                 1540
    2011 42,000                3920                 3760
    2012 29,000                1990                 1980
    2013 42,000                4160                  3290
    2014 54,000                4290      2810      2890
    2015 53,000                2680      2330      3250
    2016 28,000                1610      2250      2830
    2017 24,000                 280      4290      2440

  5. 5
    jdk says:

    In 2017, 28% of the comments were by Dionisio and kf: that’s an interesting stat! 🙂

  6. 6
    News says:

    If this is so, it’s amazing, considering the trouble we have had with social media trolls, site pirates, etc.

    But the decline of serious science news may be part of the story. When they stop waving pom poms for “science,” we will need to start doing more real work.

  7. 7
    DiEb says:

    Some threads are virtually monologues of Dionisio:

    Mystery at the heart of life: 1072 edits by Dionisio in 2017, 5 edits by others

    The “beautiful mechanism” by which an egg becomes an embryo: 430 edits by Dionisio in 2017, 5 by others

    Rethinking biology: What role does physical structure play in the development of cells? 229 edits by Dionisio in 2017, 1 by others

    A third way of evolution? 143 edits by Dionisio in 2017, 1 by others

  8. 8
    ET says:

    DiEB:

    Some threads are virtually monologues of Dionisio:

    Do you have a point? At least Dionsio has something to add whereas you and yours are only gossips.

  9. 9
    JSmith says:

    It is certainly good news that UD is highly ranked with respect to visitors. However, the number of hits is not an indication of the quality of the site. Just for comparison, I included the rankings from a few less than reputable sites for comparison. I also included the Trust Gauge ranking which is a ranking of the trustworthiness of the site. Keep in mind that the Trust Gauge ranking is more about accountability than about accuracy of information provided.

    I have also not included the actual urls as I don’t want to make them more available that they already are. However, anyone can play around with Ranking.com to see how reliable the rankings are.

    Evolutionnews.org 58,755 Trust Gauge = 3
    Uncommondescent.com 80,763 Trust Gauge = 1
    Homosexual hate site 43,390 Trust Gauge = 3
    Anti-semetic site 247,820 Trust Gauge = 2
    White Supremacy site 9,558 Trust Gauge = 5
    Pornography site 1,816,618 Trust Gauge = 0

    The Trust Gauge is explained as follows:
    0 = Unrated site; insufficient amount of information is available to properly assign a trust score.

    1-2 = Lacks most basic contact information; recognized as “listed” but with the lowest possible score.

    3-4 = Basic information is provided by this site, recognized as “somewhat trustworthy” by others; average disclosure.

    5-6 = This site makes contact information readily available; recognized as ” moderately trustworthy” by others.

  10. 10

    Long live Dionisio and kairosfocus… The Greats!

    Also, the website ranking is really good news (no matter what the a/mats say). Well done, UD.

  11. 11
    News says:

    What exactly is JSmith’s point at 9? “1-2 = Lacks most basic contact information; recognized as “listed” but with the lowest possible score.”

    But because Uncommon Descent is actually just a WordPress blog (a reader-supported nonprofit in Colorado) whose president is Barry Arrington, a lawyer easily reached in Colorado, what information would anyone be seeking that search metrics do not themselves provide?

    It’s possible to score low on provision of information when there isn’t much to know.

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.

  13. 13
    ET says:

    0 = Unrated site; insufficient amount of information is available to properly assign a trust score.

    1-2 = Lacks most basic contact information; recognized as “listed” but with the lowest possible score.

    3-4 = Basic information is provided by this site, recognized as “somewhat trustworthy” by others; average disclosure.

    5-6 = This site makes contact information readily available; recognized as ” moderately trustworthy” by others.

    “by others” on an agenda.

  14. 14
    DiEb says:

    @ET:

    At least Dionsio has something to add whereas you and yours are only gossips.

    Sorry, English isn’t my first language. What do you mean by “gossip” and how does this term apply to me?

  15. 15
    JSmith says:

    News

    What exactly is JSmith’s point at 9? “1-2 = Lacks most basic contact information; recognized as “listed” but with the lowest possible score.”

    I thought that I made my point clear with this:

    Keep in mind that the Trust Gauge ranking is more about accountability than about accuracy of information provided.

    It uses several factors about the web site and main page to judge its accountability. Things like the presence of contact information, a Contact Us option, privacy statement, etc. As I said, it is about accountability, not accuracy or value given.

    ut because Uncommon Descent is actually just a WordPress blog (a reader-supported nonprofit in Colorado) whose president is Barry Arrington, a lawyer easily reached in Colorado, what information would anyone be seeking that search metrics do not themselves provide?

    UD scored low on the TrustGauge because there is nothing on the main page, or the web site in general AFAIK that would tell someone that it is a not-for-profit, that it is based out of Colorado, that it is run by Barry Arrington. All of the things that suggest transparency and accountability.

  16. 16
    ET says:

    DiEB- gossip is idle chit-chat reserved for the lonely who want to feel important. You are the supplier of the gossip metrics as evidenced by the skeptical zone and after the bar closes.

  17. 17
    Eugen says:

    Congratulations UD!

    (DiEb is complaining about something or the other….)

    Why don’t you join conversation and provide some arguments, let’s see from there.

    JSmith

    Trust Gauge is something like Golden Globe?

  18. 18
    News says:

    Thanks for the tip, JSmith at 15. It had not occurred to us that anyone would wonder. The people who don’t like us are mostly ranting about other things.

  19. 19
    JSmith says:

    News

    Thanks for the tip, JSmith at 15. It had not occurred to us that anyone would wonder. The people who don’t like us are mostly ranting about other things.

    I just did’t want people to equate a low TrustGauge score with poor quality or inaccuracy. That is why I included the scores for the less reputable sites. The white supremacist site has a TrustGauge score of 5, but no intelligent person would go their and expect to find a high quality thought provoking site based on accurate unbiased information.

  20. 20
    DiEb says:

    @ET

    You are the supplier of the gossip metrics […]

    I see: You fail to differ between gossiping and measuring gossip.

  21. 21
    DiEb says:

    @Eugen

    DiEb is complaining about something or the other….

    You are mistaken – I’m not complaining, I’m just observing an interesting oddity: If you plot the number of comments in a thread against the number of commentators, you will spot a very good linear relation. For UD over the last year, there are five outliers – the four threads I mentioned above in #7 and Self-organization paper of interest: Biological regulation: controlling the system from within, a thread started by News to which Dionisio contributed all 24 comments.

  22. 22
    Eugen says:

    Roger on the info DiEb

    I assume you are anti ID visitor.Why not try an argument against ID now?

  23. 23
    Dionisio says:

    Perhaps this information is more interesting, though not reflected in the dry stats compiled by ranking.com?

    GP’s biology-related article, posted last December 21, about 20 days ago, has received over 2,000 anonymous visits so far. Over 100 anonymous visits daily? Not bad for such a highly technical topic, reserved for a reduced audience.

    Several people (DATCG, Eric Anderson, ET, PaV, Mung, and others) have commented in this discussion. Actually DATCG and other commenters provided very interesting information that made GP write a few additional comments for the benefit of his readers.

    A distinguished biology professor at the University of Kentucky, well respected in academic scientific circles, who has co-authored a substantial number of peer-reviewed papers, has kindly engaged in a serious discussion with our beloved Italian doctor GP.

    BTW, so far nobody has been able to make a dent in GP’s strong ID presentation.

    But we expect the professor, who kindly started the discussion, to present a valid counterargument to GP’s OP and follow up comments.

    Here’s a quick summary:

    Discussion between AH and GP
    Index of posted comments:
    AH @25
    …….……. GP @28
    AH @50
    AH @51
    …….……. GP @54
    AH @56 *
    …….……. GP @60
    …….……. GP @69
    …….……. GP @75
    …….……. GP @86
    …….……. GP @98
    …….……. GP @106
    …….……. GP @118 **
    …….……. GP @119 **
    …….……. GP @127
    …….……. GP @129
    AH @130
    …….……. GP @136
    …….……. GP @138
    …….……. GP @146
    …….……. GP @162
    AH @164
    …….……. GP @167
    …….……. GP @176
    …….……. GP @182
    …….……. GP @198
    …….……. GP @200
    …….……. GP @201
    …….……. GP @210
    …….……. GP @211
    …….……. GP @212
    …….……. GP @231
    …….……. GP @242
    …….……. GP @253 **
    …….……. GP @254 **
    …….……. GP @263
    …….……. GP @268
    …….……. GP @294
    …….……. GP @295
    …….……. GP @296
    …….……. GP @297
    …….……. GP @313 **
    …….……. GP @317 **
    …….……. GP @319 **
    …….……. GP @330 **
    AH is the distinguished biology professor Arthur Hunt at the University of Kentucky
    GP is the author of the excellent OP that started this discussion thread
    (*) first publicly admitted mistake @56
    (**) related to the main discussion, but not addressed to professor A. Hunt directly
    (to be continued…)

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-spliceosome-a-molecular-machine-that-defies-any-non-design-explanation/

  24. 24
    kairosfocus says:

    H’mm: looked back at BBC. Trust ranking 7, 8 mn links etc to go with the 180+ k rank. Then some red district sites then Google Pakistan, rated 2 on trust scale. The same Google that is no 1 overall. So, the “trust” scale is not so consistent in its reporting. The baseline fact remains, traffic ranking puts UD about 100k above BBC. Both are in the top 1% of all sites. So, after all rabbit trails have been run to the ground, UD has something noteworthy here. KF

  25. 25
    DiEb says:

    @Eugen

    I assume you are anti ID visitor.Why not try an argument against ID now?

    Yes, I’m a ID-sceptic, contributing to this site since April 2004. But my arguments are mathematical in nature (and yes, they may have lead to one or the other erratum at evoinfo.org’s publications), so I don’t want to repeat them on every thread.

    This post seems to be well suited to state some purely quantitative information on UD in 2017, and I have just looked into the number of comments and editors.

    The administration could enlighten us about page-views, I can only say that 24,000 comments in 2017 were fewer than half the number of comments of UD’s most active years 2014 and 2015, and the smallest number since 2008.

    In fact, Dionisio’s contributions alone helped 2017 not to be the worst year in UD’s history other than its very first year 2004.

  26. 26
    gpuccio says:

    DiEb:

    “Some threads are virtually monologues of Dionisio:”

    I don’t think they are “monologues”.

    They are threads where Dionisio has been providing many interesting links to many interesting papers which could be of interest to the ID discussion.

    That is a very useful activity, which certainly contributes to the interest of this blog, where the discussion about biology should be prevailing.

    Personally, I have found many reasons of inspiration and of personal research in the links kindly provided by Dionisio.

    A monologue is a scenario where one talks by himself. Dionisio’s contributions mentioned by you are rather lists of scientific references. One can find them interesting or not, appropriate or not, whatever, but they are not a “monologue”, but rather a resource.

  27. 27
    Dionisio says:

    News @6:

    If this is so, it’s amazing, considering the trouble we have had with social media trolls, site pirates, etc.
    But the decline of serious science news may be part of the story. When they stop waving pom poms for “science,” we will need to start doing more real work.

    You’ve done very well starting many discussion threads by posting references to interesting topics you have found out there, which have motivated other people here to post many comments with related information.
    Thanks.

  28. 28
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb @25:

    Yes, I’m a ID-sceptic, contributing to this site since April 2004. But my arguments are mathematical in nature (and yes, they may have lead to one or the other erratum at evoinfo.org’s publications), so I don’t want to repeat them on every thread.

    What’s the current ranking of that website you referred to?
    Just curious,
    Thanks.

    [emphasis added]

  29. 29
    DiEb says:

    @Dionisio – I have not the slightest idea what the ranking of evoinfo.org is, I just thought the site would be known around here.

  30. 30
    polistra says:

    The absolute top ten, and most of the top 100, aren’t really websites; they’re the carriers that distribute websites. Calling Google or Yahoo a website is like calling the Post Office a newspaper, or calling the VHF band a television network.

    I’d guess the real number of daily-active sources, after sorting out mechanical bots and clickgrabbers, is in the range of ten million, not hundreds of millions.

  31. 31
    toz says:

    DiEb,

    Maybe Dionisio doesn’t have much time left to look at other sites after writing his boring monologues? he-he!
    Does anybody besides you look at that monotonous stuff he posts?
    Is Dionisio one person or is a name used by a group of people sharing the same account login information?
    If you look at the time stamps of his posts, they are all over the map. Does that make any sense? I mean, they guy must sleep at some point, right?
    Could it be a robot? Was it made in China?
    Alright… enough guessing for now.
    I let you DiEb figure it out. he-he!
    After all you seem to have been tracking the poor guy down.
    Every step it makes you’ve been watching it. he-he!

  32. 32
    toz says:

    polistra,

    Maybe you are right on that.

    Then,

    Uncommondescent.com 80,763 / 10000000 * 100 = 0.8%?
    Pandasthumb.org 106,377 / 10000000 * 100 = 1.0%?

    Apparently still KF was correct.

  33. 33
    DiEb says:

    “ranking.com” seems to be a very fishy organization: if you look at their “data explained” section, you find out that they use 215,000 net surfer who have installed their “marketing tool”. Their claim that “hundreds of participants are added daily” is obviously false, as the name of their “marketing tool” is

    BrowserAccelerator

    and its website informs you that “BrowserAccelerator.com is no longer in service”….

    In their section “How accurate are the Ranking.com results?” they describe that their results are not accurate at all, but

    Ranking.com does not publish the actual traffic metrics to a website but rather the relative popularity ranking of domains in relation to all the websites visited by the sample group.

    This “sample group” consists of people who were willing to install something called “BrowserAccelerator” and to hand over their whole internet history. One can only hope that this group is not representative for internet users at all!

  34. 34
    DiEb says:

    It is even worse: According to the wayback machine, “BrowserAccelerator” is defunct since the end of 2015. So, either “ranking.com” presents data which is at least two years old, or the “monthly updated” information is taken from legacy users of the “browser accelerator toolbar”.

    This group is hopefully shrinking quickly, as in 2015, we are informed

    BrowserAccelerator is currently compatible with Internet Explorer 5.0+. It is not compatible with: Netscape, AOL, Mozilla Firefox, Opera, SmartFox, Enigma or any other browser . If you are using an ISP such as EarthLink, AOL, Juno/NetZero, etc, you may use any browser you choose once you are connected to the internet. BrowserAccelerator is also not compatible with Mac computers.

    @kairosfocus, Dionisio: Someone seems to be asleep in your due diligence department…

  35. 35
    kairosfocus says:

    Polistra, they meet the URL definition and tell us what takes a site to the very top. Of course, it means that a lot of sites have no hope of getting close. BTW, Microsoft is no 11. But also, note that the 250 mn is after writing off 750 million more as in effect the detritus of the net. What I found truly revealing is the contrast between BBC and Daily Mail. BTW The Sun, another notorious UK Tabloid is thesun.co.uk at 7198. US National Enquirer is nationalenquirer.com at 11037, NY Times is 107 and Reuters 118. I think the rankings mostly make sense. KF

    PS: DiEb, we do not need any very precise number to get the 1% ballpark, as I see Toz just showed. Remember, I have only sought to be roughly right. The same BTW holds on the 800+ mn aborted since the 70’s.

  36. 36
    Eugen says:

    As expected DiEb turned into ZajEb

    You are getting boring, I’ll invite you third time to try a good argument DiEb

  37. 37
    rvb8 says:

    So for ‘evolutionnews.org’ there are 58,754 other sites more frequently visited?

    And for, ‘Uncommondescent’ there are 80,762 sites more frequently visited?

    However, this places these two sites in the, ‘top 1%’?

    Hmmm, brings to mind the comment by the great English Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli;

    “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics!”

    I see UD has sided with the statistics.

  38. 38
    JSmith says:

    Although, it must be comforting to know that the hate filled Westboro Babtist Church web site ranks higher than both EvolutionNews and Uncommon Descent. Does that mean that they are more successful at influencing public opinion?

    That is why I said that web ranking is not necessarily something to be proud of. A site can be popular for any number of reasons. Not always in the way the site owners would like.

  39. 39
    Dionisio says:

    Perhaps the information posted @23 is more revealing and trustworthy than any web ranking:

    A distinguished biology professor from a respected American university tried to punch a hole in GP’s solid presentation of an undisputable ID case, bit couldn’t make even a shallow dent on it.

    Basically, y’all can chat all you want, but when the discussion is on serious biology science, things get really tough.

    However, GP’s OPs or comments haven’t been mentioned by the folks wearing “stats expert” hats in this thread.

    What other website has attracted a distinguished science professor to start a discussion with the apparent intention of weakening a scientific proposition related to his own area of expertise, but apparently has instead been forced to hold off and think again?

    Please, note I said ‘apparently’ because we really don’t know how their discussion will continue, if it will at all.

    Is there another example where that has happened recently?

    Now, IMO, that’s more revealing than any dry web ranking stats.

  40. 40
    Dionisio says:

    toz @31,

    That’s a sharp observation.

    It seems like you’ve figured it out right.

    It took four years to get noticed!

    🙂

  41. 41
    DiEb says:

    @kf

    DiEb, we do not need any very precise number to get the 1% ballpark, as I see Toz just showed. Remember, I have only sought to be roughly right. The same BTW holds on the 800+ mn aborted since the 70’s.

    This translate to It doesn’t matter that the data is bogus, because the claim was meaningless.

    You are still guilty of using bogus data just because you like it (“I think the rankings mostly make sense”).

  42. 42
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, Why do you come here as a frequent objector if UD were a voice shouting in the Internet wilderness, with hardly anyone listening? Or is it that there are those who are making a way to the wilderness to hear a voice you despise and wish to counter by any rhetorical means you deem necessary? KF

  43. 43
    DiEb says:

    @Eugen:

    Well, this thread shows that the two most prolific editors of Uncommon Descent are willing to make arguments based on absolute bogus data – data which could have been easily vetted. And at least KF seems to be willing to carry on to do so even after be shown how bogus his data is.

    That’s not an argument against the theory of ID itself, but it exemplifies that you have to scrutinize every single “fact” stated by an ID proponent.

  44. 44
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb @43,

    Would you please answer the question at the end of the comment @39?

    Thanks.

  45. 45
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb @43,

    Do you post comments -relatively frequently or at least sometimes- on other websites besides this one?

  46. 46
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb @43,

    Do I remember your pseudonym from another occasion?

    Hmm…

  47. 47
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb @43,

    Did you chew and swallow the message posted @26?

    How did it taste?

    Did you digest it well? No signs of indigestion?

    🙂

  48. 48
    DiEb says:

    Dionisio #39

    Perhaps the information posted @23 is more revealing and trustworthy than any web ranking:

    That may be or may not be the case. But this thread is about a specific web ranking – and an utterly unreliable one. As you have brought up this web ranking in the first place, I can understand your interest to switch to another topic. But I’ll stick with this one – at least until I get an explanation why neither you nor kf have spotted how unsuitable this data is.

    Or did you know that the ranking was bogus and decided to use it nontheless?

  49. 49
    DiEb says:

    @Dionisio:

    Do you post comments -relatively frequently or at least sometimes- on other websites besides this one?

    Yes – at least sometimes or relatively frequently.

    BTW: whether you are a single person, a collective, or an experimental AI is of no interest to me – it should only be of interest to the site owner.

  50. 50
    kairosfocus says:

    DiEb,

    REALLY!

    Pardon, but your underlying intent to discredit at any price is showing. What part of, it is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong is hard to understand?

    FYI, I took some data that carries obviously uncertain information (not “bogus” information) and applied a threshold filter that renders that information robust. Which, I noted. (Perhaps, order of magnitude is not a familiar concept.)

    Let me add, notice, that I also looked at patterns that suggest that something valid is being captured, sufficient to use the information to make a general point.

    If you glance at the other thread, you will see that Dionisio has added some further statistics from another source:

    https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/evolutionnews.org
    Global Rank 169,652 ?up by 12,028
    Rank in United States 51,389

    https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/uncommondescent.com
    Global rank 648,783 ?down by 92,426
    Rank in United States 227,899

    All of this is still uncertain due to any number of factors.

    Apply much the same 2.5 million out of 250 million more or less active sites threshold.

    “Uncommon Descent ranked well within the top 1% of web sites . . . . The take-away lesson is, we have some sober responsibilities precisely because of this, whether we are pro or con on any given issue” remains a reasonable and responsible conclusion, not just something that turns crucially on the particular ranking applied by a source that you pounced on as the best means to paint UD, Dionisio and the undersigned in the worst light your patent animus could create.

    I suggest, perhaps you need to focus somewhat more on decision-making under uncertainty and with noisy perhaps partly contradictory and slight information. A common real-world decision-making challenge and headache.

    KF

    PS: This issue also reminds me of how another threshold metric has been treated by too many objectors, 500 – 1,000 bits of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information. Perhaps, we here see a side-light on how different strategies of decision-making work.

  51. 51
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb @49:

    Yes – at least sometimes or relatively frequently.

    Please, would you mind telling us the name(s) of some of the other websites where you post comments at least sometimes or relatively frequently?

    Do they have better position than this site in Alexa ranking or other web ranking services out there?

    Thanks.

  52. 52
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb @48,

    FYI – You still haven’t responded the question posted @44.

  53. 53
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb @48,

    FYI – You still haven’t responded the question posted @46.

  54. 54
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb @48,

    FYI – You still haven’t responded the 4 questions posted @47.

  55. 55

    Dionisio @ 54: Answering DiEb is probably a waste of time. You made excellent points and the truth is clearly on your side. You can explain things to him/her/it, but you can’t comprehend things for him/her/it.

  56. 56
    Dionisio says:

    Truth Will Set You Free @55,

    That’s a valid point. Thank you.

    According to a previous comment posted by someone else in this thread, s/he seems associated with a website which is poorly ranked according to any service one may use.

  57. 57
    DiEb says:

    @Dionisio, for your convenience here are your questions (re)answered:

    52
    Dionisio
    January 11, 2018 at 5:32 am
    DiEb @48,
    FYI – You still haven’t responded the question posted @44.

    This sends me to

    44
    Dionisio
    January 11, 2018 at 2:40 am
    DiEb @43,

    Would you please answer the question at the end of the comment @39?

    Thanks.

    This sends me to

    39
    Dionisio
    January 11, 2018 at 1:40 am
    […]
    Is there another example where that has happened recently?

    Now, IMO, that’s more revealing than any dry web ranking stats.

    For the concrete question my answer is “I don’t know”. For your attempt to derail the thread, my answer was given in

    48
    DiEb
    January 11, 2018 at 3:29 am
    Dionisio #39
    [..] this thread is about a specific web ranking – and an utterly unreliable one. As you have brought up this web ranking in the first place, I can understand your interest to switch to another topic. But I’ll stick with this one – at least until I get an explanation why neither you nor kf have spotted how unsuitable this data is.

    Or did you know that the ranking was bogus and decided to use it nontheless?

    I fail to spot your answer to my question.

  58. 58
    DiEb says:

    53
    Dionisio
    January 11, 2018 at 5:33 am
    DiEb @48,

    FYI – You still haven’t responded the question posted @46.

    Which leads to

    46
    Dionisio
    January 11, 2018 at 2:50 am
    DiEb @43,

    Do I remember your pseudonym from another occasion?

    Hmm…

    My answer: I don’t know, do you remember? I cannot answer this question for you!

  59. 59
    DiEb says:

    54
    Dionisio
    January 11, 2018 at 5:38 am
    DiEb @48,

    FYI – You still haven’t responded the 4 questions posted @47.

    Four questions! What were they:

    47
    Dionisio
    January 11, 2018 at 2:54 am
    DiEb @43,

    Did you chew and swallow the message posted @26?

    How did it taste?

    Did you digest it well? No signs of indigestion?

    What message could be that hard to swallow? That gpuccio has “found many reasons of inspiration and of personal research in the links kindly provided by Dionisio.” No problem with this, chacun à son goût.

  60. 60
    DiEb says:

    @Truth will set you free:

    My only question for Dionisio in this thread is: How did you come up with “rankings.com”

    If Dionisio answers this question in simple terms, I may lay your fear at rest:

    You [i.e. Dionisio] can explain things to him/her/it [i.e. DiEb], but you can’t comprehend things for him/her/it.

  61. 61
    DiEb says:

    51
    DionisioJanuary 11, 2018 at 5:16 am
    DiEb @49:

    Please, would you mind telling us the name(s) of some of the other websites where you post comments at least sometimes or relatively frequently?

    Do they have better position than this site in Alexa ranking or other web ranking services out there?

    Thanks.

    I use the same pseudonym “DiEb” on all the sites on which I discuss things concerning ID. I haven’t checked their Alexa rankings.

    The site mentioned before – evoinfo.org – shows that such a ranking does say nothing about quality.

  62. 62
    DiEb says:

    KF @50:

    You took Dionisio’s information at face-value, and used it not only for your – quite plausible claim – that UD belongs to the TOP 1% of web-sites, but also to state things like:

    What I found truly revealing is the contrast between BBC and Daily Mail. BTW The Sun, another notorious UK Tabloid is thesun.co.uk at 7198. US National Enquirer is nationalenquirer.com at 11037, NY Times is 107 and Reuters 118. I think the rankings mostly make sense. KF

    Your “revelation” was grounded in unsound data – btw, Alexa ranks bbc.co.uk at 101 worldwide at the moment and 7 in the UK…

    In fact, the “revelation” should have made you look into the source, and you could have found easily that it was out-of-date (and even at its heydays very unreliable…)

  63. 63
    Dionisio says:

    Truth Will Set You Free,

    @26 gpuccio stated something very important: “discussion about biology should be prevailing” in this site.

    Why?

    UD is publicly presented as an ID website, hence ID topics should be discussed. And these days I think the main ID topic is biology research, where real complex functionally specified informational complexity is increasingly being revealed by dedicated scientists using more sophisticated technologies that allow the wet lab researchers to peek deeper within the biological systems “in vivo”, dumping an avalanche of data on the cloud servers for many dry lab researchers to process it using better computer systems and algorithms.

    Multilayered controls within marvelously designed biological systems are leaving researchers speechless. Multidisciplinary research teams are working hard in many scientific institutions trying to understand all that functional complexity. As outstanding questions get answered, new ones are raised. It’s beyond fantastic.

    But we ain’t seen nothing yet. The most fascinating discoveries are still ahead.

    The noise we’re hearing is just the cacophony produced by the orchestra musicians tuning their individual instruments separately. That’s why we read so many times expressions like “surprisingly” and “unexpectedly” in the research papers. That’s the result of their narrow-minded reductionist bottom-up research approach. But that’s most of the information available to us today, so we have to use it in our studies.

    We haven’t heard the orchestra playing the most wonderful symphony yet. The curtains are not quite open. The beautiful biological ballet choreography hasn’t been displayed with all its splendor. All that is still ahead.

    We should encourage more young students who like science to consider pursuing biology-related research careers. Then they’ll enjoy seeing true wonders beyond anything they ever imagined.

  64. 64
    kairosfocus says:

    DiEb, the game continues. Notice, you scarcely acknowledged what I did when I pointed it out to you, then proceeded to effectively dismiss it? As for the general pattern, I summarise on the premise that there is some warrant to take the numbers as a reasonably responsive sample, where I doubt that any sampling scheme is going to either be a census or a first class random sample of the population as a whole or a stratified sample that mimics such, etc etc etc. Maybe it has not registered with you that for cause I do not take ANY web ranking statistics at face value, starting with the issue of framing how big is the web and how do you identify a ranking. That said, I used gross patterns I could more or less see as having some validity though I cited numbers without in every case going on to say that I am not taking precise values as any grand exact index of reality. That is the fallacy of pseudo-precision. I add: maybe it will help to see that I take a somewhat similar view of say GDP, and particularly real GDP and other attempted refinements, and the like. In short, an info theory view, in which the RW sends out signals that we try to read, with a significant degree of noise, bias, distortion etc that leads to okay there is something there that is useful but don’t take it as gospel truth. I would reserve bogus for something like Wiki’s hatchet job on ID. Within the 1% main judgement — a point that it seems you now implicitly concede — there were several contrasts that struck me as notably significant and that is why I picked up on them. Remember, for cause I fundamentally disagree with your use of dismissive language like “bogus.” I think we have a crude sampling that is capturing some valid information, maybe not as sophisticated as say Amazon’s Alexa, but I am not taking that as gospel truth either. There is just too much about the Internet that defies measurement. I will suggest that BBC’s rankings reflect a difference between a tabloid with a heavy US presence (that is promoted strongly by the likes of Drudge . . . a known effective promoter) and a site that would be somewhat stodgy as a news source and would be more confined to a UK + Commonwealth + market. BBC long since has lost its gold standard source of information status, as I confirmed when I had to appeal against it some years ago. Utter unresponsiveness beyond the pro forma to a serious matter told me all I needed to know. KF

  65. 65
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb @59,

    You’ve got it wrong again, buddy.

    What gpuccio did in his clear message @26 was correcting your gross misunderstanding of a very basic term.

    gpuccio clearly wrote to you that what you incorrectly called ‘monologue’ is not a “monologue”, but rather a resource.

    Do you accept that you got it wrong?
    Can you get it right now?

    Do you have reading comprehension problems?

    You better watch out how to use words correctly in your comments. Ok?

    Have a good day.

  66. 66
    DiEb says:

    @Dionisio, I jumped through all of your hoops, answered your questions, and now you are like “nevermind, we should better discuss biology”?

    I’ a little bit disappointed. Could you please at least answer my one question:

    How did you come up with “rankings.com”?

  67. 67
    Dionisio says:

    KF @64:

    Well stated. Thanks.

    I would not trust Alexa either. These days the internet is not exactly WYSIWYG. Not even close.

    But this thread has definitely attracted a few trolls.

    I personally prefer the serious visiting contenders, like the distinguished biology professor who apparently tried to punch a hole in a very revealing ID case presented by gpuccio. The fact that their serious discussion hasn’t finished yet, but so far the distinguished visitor hasn’t ben able to make even a shallow dent on the presented ID case seems very indicative of the situation in biology today.

    That’s why former neo-Darwinian very respected scientists are jumping out of that anachronistic train and starting their own ‘third way’ attempt to keep their ball rolling.

    But as gpuccio has stated before, there’s only one game in town in the biology science arena: ID facts vs. the modern synthesis / neo-Darwinian pseudoscientific ‘just-so’ fairytales.

    The trolls avoid getting there as much as they can.

  68. 68
    DiEb says:

    @Dionisio: Before you flee the scene: How did you come up with “rankings.com”?

  69. 69
    Dionisio says:

    KF,

    Just simply straightforward searching shows the difference in internet presence between UD and a couple of blogs that seem to watch carefully what everybody writes here:

    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/this-parody-of-evo-devo-makes-it-sound-a-lot-like-id/#comment-648306

    BTW, I wonder why they are so obsessed with what is posted in this site? Any clues?

    🙂

    PS. the OP headline definitely attracted a few commenters that apparently like to take advantage of any opportunity to bother and make noise.

  70. 70
    kairosfocus says:

    Dionisio,

    Yes, there is some signal amidst the Google search and outright bias noise.

    Crude, but makes a point.

    KF

    PS: The promptness of the pouncing and piling on is also sending a signal.

  71. 71
    kairosfocus says:

    Dionisio, one thing that gives me pause is seeing how fat a seemingly ordinary page is and how fat browsers now are. I get the feeling a lot is going on behind scenes and likely not in our interests. I don’t remember who said if something is free to the consumer and doesn’t have visible means of charitable support, YOU are the product being sold. My guess is, it’s ALL spyware, the only question is to draw the line of legitimate market research. And keep away from Facebook. Tape over your cam and disconnect the mike if you can. As for those smart phones, don’t carry one to an underground church meeting. KF

  72. 72
    DiEb says:

    Dionisio @69,

    FYI – You still haven’t responded the question posted @60.

  73. 73
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb @66,

    Take a look at how early in this thread you wrote the mistaken statement that gpuccio corrected @26, but you still have not accepted his correction of your error.

    This was long before you switched to other unrelated topics.

    7 DiEb January 10, 2018 at 8:22 am

    Some threads are virtually monologues of Dionisio

    Do you get it now?

    Let’s hope so.

  74. 74
    DiEb says:

    I think of these threads as virtually monologues – only one voice can be heard. I don’t think of them as soliloquies, as you have the public in mind. I don’t think that the term is offending, but if you feel otherwise, accept my apologies. What about:

    these threads are data repositories virtually exclusively maintained by Dionisio

    Still waiting for a response to the question posted @60.

  75. 75
    Dionisio says:

    KF,

    Yes, we know there’s nothing 100% reliable this side of heaven.

    Some visiting commenters seem disappointed with the fact that the websites they support still lag so far behind this one, which they seem to despise so passionately. Maybe that’s why they keep trying all kinds of tricks to switch the subject.

    To me it’s more interesting the fact that a distinguished biology profesor at the University of Kentucky found an OP gpuccio posted last December 21 here:

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-spliceosome-a-molecular-machine-that-defies-any-non-design-explanation/#comment-647600

    The visiting professor posted his first comment here:

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-spliceosome-a-molecular-machine-that-defies-any-non-design-explanation/#comment-646028

    I don’t know when exactly gpuccio posted his OP that day, but the first comment was posted by mike1962 that same day December 21, 2017 at 10:44 am.

    The visiting professor posted his first comment @25 that same day December 21, 2017 at 8:08 pm.

    Assuming that all the time stamps are related to the same server in Denver, CO. then the visiting professor knew about the posting of GP’s OP the same day, less than 10 hours after the first comment had been posted.

    Is it only me or also you see something interesting in this case?

    To me that was pretty fast, no matter how we look at it.

    Unless someone tell me that this professor has commented here before and had an account in this site, where perhaps he could have some ways of getting notified when a particular topic is being posted. Could that be the explanation?

    Otherwise, this is kind of interesting to me. Perhaps the best way is to ask him directly. He shouldn’t mind telling us how he heard about the OP, right? At least I wouldn’t if I were in that case.

    That tells more than many stats provided by some companies in some obscure ways.

    Maybe I’m making a big deal out of something that isn’t?

    Maybe…

    PS. Here’s a piece of information obtained from Google search, where someone in this site commented about a 2007 article the given professor posted in another website:

    On the non-evolution of Irreducible Complexity – How Arthur Hunt …
    https://uncommondescent.com/…/on-the-non-evolution-of-irreducible-complexity-ho…

    Feb 24, 2011 – Recently, someone referred me to two articles (one, two) on the Panda’s Thumb website (from back in 2007), by Arthur Hunt (professor in Department of Plant and Soil Sciences at the …… Regarding Tierra, I suggest you re-read PaV’s original comment at http://www.uncommondescent.com…..ent-366926

  76. 76
    tribune7 says:

    Dionisio

    PS. the OP headline definitely attracted a few commenters that apparently like to take advantage of any opportunity to bother and make noise.

    Which raises the question as to what would motivate someone to make noise on a site that they say nobody reads.

  77. 77
    Dionisio says:

    tribune7 @76,

    You’re right on that. That’s an interesting question.

  78. 78
    Dionisio says:

    @75 follow up

    Never mind. It’s much simpler than I thought.

    The U-KY biology professor posted comments in this site long before I came here:

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/another-day-another-bad-day-for-darwinism/#comment-357595

  79. 79
  80. 80
    JSmith says:

    T7

    Which raises the question as to what would motivate someone to make noise on a site that they say nobody reads.

    Some of us are just more fun-loving than others.

  81. 81
    asauber says:

    Some of us are just more fun-loving than others.

    In other words,

    Trolls Like Trolling.

    So tell us something we didn’t already know.

    Andrew

  82. 82
    JSmith says:

    A

    In other words,

    Trolls Like Trolling.

    So tell us something we didn’t already know.

    And others just take themselves too seriously and have no sense of humor. 🙂

    Does it help if I include a happy face?

  83. 83
    asauber says:

    And others just take themselves too seriously and have no sense of humor.:)

    Does it help if I include a happy face?

    Armand,

    Believe me, I read your comments (when I read them) with very little seriousness.

    Andrew

  84. 84
    JSmith says:

    But, to get serious for a moment, KF is absolutely right in his caution:

    The take-away lesson is, we have some sober responsibilities precisely because of this, whether we are pro or con on any given issue.

  85. 85
    tribune7 says:

    JS

    Some of us are just more fun-loving than others.

    Making noise on a site nobody reads sounds about as much fun as watching water boil or paint dry.

  86. 86
    JSmith says:

    T7

    Making noise on a site nobody reads sounds about as much fun as watching water boil or paint dry.

    Sorry, I must not have seen the comment where I said that nobody reads this site. Or are you simply pulling a KF and conveniently lumping all those who disagree with you into the “fellow travellers ilk” and assuming that their opinions never differ?

  87. 87
    kairosfocus says:

    JS, you really love to twist things into pretzel strawmen don’t you. I have spoken to evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers who seek to conform to that dominant and domineering school of thought. That is a very legitimate observation and issue, as a serious reading of say Lewontin will reveal. I don’t think you realise that you are showing exactly the pattern of soft nihilism and manipulativeness pivoting on disregard to duties of care that were warned of over and over again over the past weeks. KF

  88. 88
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Here’s Lewontin admitting some very serious things, things which take on added force i/l/o the patterns we have seen in recent weeks from too many objectors:

    ; . . . to put a correct view of the universe into people’s heads [==> as in, “we” have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making “our” “consensus” the yardstick of truth . . . ] we must first get an incorrect view out [–> as in, if you disagree with “us” of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

    [ –> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying “our” elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to “fix” the widespread mental disease]

    and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

    [–> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

    . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [–> “we” are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

    [–> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

    that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [–> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [–> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [–> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is “quote-mined” I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

  89. 89
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: I think it is well worth noting that objectors have been pouncing and pounding away at oh we don’t like some site statistics and analysis. Meanwhile, this week, another million of our unborn posterity in the womb are being slaughtered, on top of 800+ millions more since the early 1970’s. That some here tried to dismiss this by suggesting that it was just getting rid of an undesirable undifferentiated mass of cells, as though it were a tumour rather than a new human life in formation, speaks volumes, especially when we see the unresponsiveness when such was corrected. the difference in reactions on topics of utterly differing weight, speaks and it speaks in telling tones about our generation and how far gone we are. Just a thought on first things first. KF

  90. 90
    tribune7 says:

    JS

    Sorry, I must not have seen the comment where I said that nobody reads this site. Or are you simply pulling a KF and conveniently lumping all those who disagree with you into the “fellow travellers ilk” and assuming that their opinions never differ?

    Well JS, if you are in agreement that UD is a elite, trustworthy 1-percenter site, I offer my sincerest apologies.

  91. 91
    DiEb says:

    Dionisio @79,

    FYI – You still haven’t responded the question posted @60.

  92. 92
    JSmith says:

    T7

    Well JS, if you are in agreement that UD is a elite, trustworthy 1-percenter site, I offer my sincerest apologies.

    I would agree that UD perceives itself as a trustworthy site. But perceptions are often deceptive. And sometimes self-deceptive. The physiotherapists must be busy with all of the shoulder problems cause by your fellow travellers patting each other on the back.

    Elite? It is definitely more elite than the Intelligent Reasoning site, but to call it an elite 1-percenter site would require a huge stretch of the imagination. I am not aware of any elite sites whose owner would post an OP entitled “JSmith, Simpering Coward“, and then proceed to call him disgusting, evil, mocking, hypocritical, scoffing, Orwellian, and a Nazi. But maybe the standards for what constitutes an elite site around here are different than mine.

  93. 93
    tribune7 says:

    “JSmith, Simpering Coward“

    If it helps, my vote remains to change the name.

  94. 94
    JSmith says:

    T7

    If it helps, my vote remains to change the name.

    And I appreciate that. But whatever pathology makes people resort to insults rather than argument reflects more in them than the person they think they are insulting.

  95. 95
    ET says:

    I am not aware of any elite sites whose owner would post an OP entitled “JSmith, Simpering Coward“, and then proceed to call him disgusting, evil, mocking, hypocritical, scoffing, Orwellian, and a Nazi.

    So elite sites don’t need to state the obvious. Got it. 😛

    [THREAD OWNER’S REMARK: Kindly, moderate tone. I duly note the non-printing final statement, which is unacceptable. KF]

  96. 96
    JSmith says:

    ET

    So elite sites don’t need to state the obvious. Got it.

    Another sign of an elite site is that they are the ones that do not allow Joey Gallien to taint their site with his toaster repairman aura. My apologies to the good toaster repairmen everywhere.

    [THREAD OWNER’s REMARK: Kindly moderate tone, immediately. KF]

  97. 97
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks, while I have already noted my observations on tone elsewhere, I suggest that cross-threading is counter-productive. I must also note that the general tone of many major media houses and voices has been suffering an alarming deterioration. I have to further note that for years I have had cause for serious concern regarding media spin tactics and slanting of news and views coverage. Can we kindly return to a reasonable focus for this thread. Beyond a certain point, I will take action. KF

  98. 98
    kairosfocus says:

    JS, apart from the gap between comments and the actual focus of the OP, kindly take some time to review the track record of OP’s, discussion and balance on merits over the past several weeks; especially given your openly declared hermeneutic of suspicion towards the Christian faith. Pardon a blunt summary: FYI, the Christian faith and its historical contributions cannot be fairly summarised as in effect little more than the Nazi party at prayers, and so those who find themselves habitually giving such a slanderous impression will do little more than create needless and counter-productive polarisation. There have indeed been many sins and failings of Christendom over the centuries [as is true of any civilisation built by finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill-willed human beings], but it is only responsible to also realise the rest of the story and balance commentary in light of its many positive contributions to the rise of modern liberty and democracy, as well as to the ethical reformation and advance of the human race. And with that, I trust this thread can return from a needlessly polarised tangent. KF

    PS: As a start to re-balancing, I again draw attention to an apt remark by the distinguished Professor, Bernard Lewis (who, BTW happens to be Jewish) in his 1990 essay on The Roots of Muslim Rage:

    The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty — not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . .

    In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.

  99. 99
    DiEb says:

    Dionisio, you asked questions over questions, and you were quite persistent to get answers from me. In fact, I tried to answer each and every one of them. Your last question appeared in comment 73:

    Do you get it now?

    Here is what I get: By taking umbrage with my use of the term “monologues” to describe the threads which you use as data repositories you deem it not necessary to give an answer to my single question to you,

    How did you come up with “rankings.com”?

    That’s disappointing, I had expected some explanation how this piece of abysmal data could have been a one-time fluke, a single exception under the myriad of sources you gather and display here at Uncommon Descent. Instead your steadfast denying to give an answer cast a shadow of doubt on all the other sources you provide in your data repositories. If it wasn’t an accident to come up with an unvetted source, is it a habit? Are there other sources of similarly poor quality in those hundreds of comments? If so, how many?

  100. 100
    gpuccio says:

    DiEB:

    I have not followed the discussion here, so I will only comment on a specific point in your discussion with Dionisio.

    I see that you have changed your previous statement about “monologues” as follows:

    “these threads are data repositories virtually exclusively maintained by Dionisio”

    That’s fine with me, it was exactly my point: they are data resources, which point to specific papers from the literature which can be of interest to the ID discussion.

    I am therefore a little surprised of your statement at #99.

    “Instead your steadfast denying to give an answer cast a shadow of doubt on all the other sources you provide in your data repositories. If it wasn’t an accident to come up with an unvetted source, is it a habit? Are there other sources of similarly poor quality in those hundreds of comments? If so, how many?”

    I can easily answer that: as far as I can say, none. All the references that I have checked from those “data repositories virtually exclusively maintained by Dionisio” (and believe me, I have checked a lot of them) are peer reviewed papers from the scientific literature, regularly indexed in Pubmed. That can be easily verified by you, simply googling each title, or just looking for it on Pubmed.

    I usually check many of Dionisio’s links, because among them I find many which deserve a detailed consideration. I have read many of them in their complete form. I have drawn a lot of ideas for my discussions about ID in biology from them. By the way, you are obviously invited to take part in those discussions, the last of which is quite recent:

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-spliceosome-a-molecular-machine-that-defies-any-non-design-explanation/#comment-648426

    I am sure that your arguments, which are mathematical in nature, would be of great interest.

    Many of my biological arguments have a strong statistical basis. For example, in the following thread:

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-are-the-limits-of-random-variation-a-simple-evaluation-of-the-probabilistic-resources-of-our-biological-world/

    your mathematical competence would certainly be of great interest.

    In the meantime, I really don’t understand your suspicions about Dionisio’s citations, which remain one of the most interesting and pertinent parts of this blog.

  101. 101
    DiEb says:

    @gpucchio: Thank you for your information – I’m glad that I don’t have to check the repositories: You laid my suspicions about Dionisio’s citations at rest.

    maybe linking to “rankings.com” was a single lapse of judgement – though I’m still curious why Dinisio did so. Perhaps he’ll answer my question sometimes.

  102. 102
    kairosfocus says:

    DiEb, pardon a few points but it is looking uncommonly like you have approached the matters with the attitude of suspicion. Had you checked before commenting dismissively, you would have seen that Dionisio has amassed a wealth of useful resources on matters tied to biological ID. On the point you tried to latch on to to pound away at UD, I took the approach, let’s see if there is sufficient capture that a reasonable big picture is there — a manager’s perspective in a noisy information environment and further informed by a sense that stable processes tend to produce similar effects within a reasonable span of time, so even fairly questionable sampling may produce good enough results to be fairly robust. As in it is possible to be roughly right and that may be good enough; as for instance I am having to use in looking at local GDP growth trends and economic dynamics. There is enough signal there to work with, notwithstanding my provisos on any web ranking scheme, up to and including Alexa. I am also fairly certain that framing metrics such as web size are crude at best so I used a reasonably conservative number out there. I then used a threshold filter to draw a fairly robust conclusion about UD, which seems to have been so unwelcome that animus fairly reeks out of various interventions above. Yours, though intended at a more analytical level provided talking points not only to try to dismiss the global observation and some remarks on relative rankings, but to seek to discredit and denigrate people. And that, across a day in which I was dealing with others who have been going a lot further. Whether or not you intended this, you were part of a piling on effort. Had you instead simply asked why would you use such findings and why do you think they have sufficient signal in them to be noteworthy, there would have been a very different tone. Indeed, the approach was so striking in aggregate that I have to ask you whether you have allowed yourself to become caught up at a subconscious level in the mentality exemplified by Dawkins’ infamous characterisation: ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. As it is, Dionisio may well be resorting to the advice that one keeps away from trying to argue with those whose behaviour has been waspish. And, I would not blame him. I suggest reconsideration not only of substance but approach. KF

  103. 103
    gpuccio says:

    DiEb:

    Thank you for your comment.

    Indeed, the linking to “ratings.com” was in the course of a discussion, and not in one of the “repository” threads, as far as I can see. Of course Dionisio makes many comments of various kind in the many discussions here, including many in my threads (absolutely welcome!), but usually that activity is distinct from his citations in the repository threads, which are from scientific literature, and not from ID friendly sites.

    Of course, you would always be welcome at my threads! 🙂

  104. 104
    Dionisio says:

    KF,

    It seems like your OP headline is correct, at least according to the information referenced @35-37 in the below linked thread, even considering the highest bulky numbers (several 100K) produced by Alexa in some cases (also posted in the below linked thread). Actually, you could have said “1% active websites”.

    Check this out:

    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/this-parody-of-evo-devo-makes-it-sound-a-lot-like-id/#comment-648490

    This case is closed.

  105. 105
    kairosfocus says:

    Dionisio, appreciated. Also, as web sites will likely be a multiple of active sites, the 1% conclusion will hold all the more on that wider basis. In short the main result is robust. As for debates on finer details, it seems that apart from the very top of the web, we should look at ranking results as more or less order of magnitude, within a FACTOR of 10 of the given value. But even within that there may be enough signal to see trends. KF

  106. 106
    DiEb says:

    Dionisio @104

    The case is closed.

    The case will be closed when you answer the question:

    How did you come up with “rankings.com”?

  107. 107
    Dionisio says:

    DiEB,

    Do you like mathematics?

  108. 108
    DiEb says:

    Dionisio @107:

    DiEB,

    Do you like mathematics?

    You expect me to answer question after question after question, but you still haven’t answered the one question I asked of you:

    How did you come up with “rankings.com”?

  109. 109
    Jammer says:

    You can find all sorts of interesting stats about a website using Similar Web.

    For example, people think of I.D. as primarily a U.S. thing, yet Similar Web shows less than half of Uncommon Descent’s traffic (45.7%) comes from the U.S. Canada, Spain, and The Netherlands all bring more traffic, per capita

    About 80% of U.D.’s traffic comes either direct (type-in or bookmarks) or from search engines, split almost exactly even.

    I’m looking at the past six months traffic from Similar Web, and I see this:

    Jul: 39,378
    Aug: 34,516
    Sep: 36,003
    Oct: 369,595
    Nov: 252,578
    Dec: 274,422

    Any idea why the wide discrepancy between July-September, and October-December?

  110. 110
    kairosfocus says:

    DiEb, Pardon a further comment, but waspishness has consequences, as I noted earlier. KF

  111. 111
    kairosfocus says:

    Jammer, on assumption that site-specific statistics is fairly accurate, moreso than grand rankings, my thought is that the school year (esp. College year) begins about that time, and Summer is vacation time. But that is a guess. KF

  112. 112
    DiEb says:

    @KF

    DiEb, Pardon a further comment, but waspishness has consequences, as I noted earlier. KF

    So, Dionisio may still pepper me with questions expecting answers, but at the same time is allowed to ignore the only question I have asked him because of my “waspishness”: That seems to be quite convenient for him.

  113. 113
    kairosfocus says:

    DiEb, kindly look at your comments above and the wider context of these comments, which set a toxic environment for discussion which still taints the thread. KF

  114. 114
    Dionisio says:

    Jammed @109:

    Thanks for that interesting information. BTW, you may see the comment posted yesterday @32 in this thread:

    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/this-parody-of-evo-devo-makes-it-sound-a-lot-like-id/#comment-648470

    Compare those numbers with the ones posted a day before yesterday @25 & @26 in that same thread.

    What do we see?

    Basically the numbers seem to be all over the map.

    However, as KF stated, even the largest value @25 (in that thread) still remains well within the 1% of the active websites. The title of KF’s OP is even more careful, referring to 1% of all the websites.

    KF’s brief comment @105 further clarifies the case.

  115. 115
    ET says:

    William Spearshake, aka acartia bogart, is JSmith.

    Just so you know who you have been dealing with…

  116. 116
    JSmith says:

    Jammer

    Any idea why the wide discrepancy between July-September, and October-December?

    July to September is vacation season and people have better things to do. After that, people are back at work and inappropriately using company time and resources to play on the internet. Just a caution to those who are doing this, it is grounds for dismissal, as some here may have experienced.

  117. 117
    DiEb says:

    @KF: the apparently toxic atmosphere hasn’t prevented Dionisio from asking questions of me all over the thread. When these questions weren’t answered promptly, he reminded me again and again of my failure to do so.

    At the same time he is ignoring the only question I have asked of him, i.e, How did you come up with “rankings.com”?

    Even in a “toxic” exchange, I expect some reciprocity – some do ut des – otherwise it is an interrogation.

    Kindly revisit Dionisio’s questions to me in this thread- he always asks for information (even personal), but he isn’t willing to provide it himself.

  118. 118
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb @177,

    KF is treating both of us -i.e. you and me- equally well. No difference whatsoever.

    Please, help me to refresh my memory.

    Please, point to the exact comment within this thread where I mentioned the website name that you wrote in your question. Then I’ll try and answer it.

    Thanks.

  119. 119
    DiEb says:

    Dionisio, take a look at the very beginning of the thread, where KF writes:

    A few days ago, frequent commenter Dionisio noted:

    >>http://www.ranking.com/ Web Rank

    Biblegateway.com 168
    MIT.edu 7,280
    HARVARD.edu 7,246
    Nature.com 7,449
    Desiringgod.org 10,105
    Answersingenesis.org 11,865
    […]

    PS: “KF is treating both of us -i.e. you and me- equally well.” *LOL* I must have missed the comment in which KF asked you whether you have allowed yourself to become caught up at a subconscious level in the mentality exemplified by Dawkins’ infamous characterisation: ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.

  120. 120
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb @119:

    PS: “KF is treating both of us -i.e. you and me- equally well.” *LOL* I must have missed the comment in which KF asked you whether you have allowed yourself to become caught up at a subconscious level in the mentality exemplified by Dawkins’ infamous characterisation: ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.“

    Please, tell me where -in the above text literally copied from your comment @119- is the opening/starting character ‘”‘ that corresponds to the last character ‘”‘ that appears in your comment @119.
    Thanks.

  121. 121
    DiEb says:

    @Dionisio,

    sorry, I missed a quotation mark. While you copied the comment literally, you omit the formatting. It should be clear (with or without the quotation mark), that the text in italics is the quote – in this case from a comment of KF addressed to me.

    But this was only a post scriptum, I answered #118 in the lines before it. For your convenience, here my question again (which you still haven’t answered, btw…)

    How did you come up with “rankings.com”?

  122. 122
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb @119:

    Dionisio, take a look at the very beginning of the thread, where KF writes:

    @118 I asked this:

    Please, point to the exact comment within this thread where I mentioned the website name that you wrote in your question.

    Please, tell me if you see any apparent accuracy problem associated with any part of text that is highlighted within the above quoted text.

    Thanks.

    [emphasis added]

  123. 123
    DiEb says:

    Dioniso,

    you came up with “ranking.com” – in this comment.

    KF then created this very thread quoting your comment. Haven’t you read the post of KF, but just jumped in the discussion?

    So, again:

    How did you come up with “rankings.com”?

  124. 124
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb @121:

    sorry, I missed a quotation mark.

    Oh, you missed a quotation mark!
    That seems to show lack of accuracy in the given text.

    While you copied the comment literally, you omit the formatting. It should be clear (with or without the quotation mark), that the text in italics is the quote – in this case from a comment of KF addressed to me.

    Yes, you’re correct on that the original italics formatting of the text @119 was not included in the quoted text @120.

    I confess that I did not even notice the italics format of the text until you mentioned it @121. My mistake. Usually I make mistakes while writing my comments. Also, as I have explicitly indicated more than once in this website, my reading comprehension is rather poor. It’s an intrinsic part of the imperfection associated with my human condition.

    I appreciate you pointed at this particular mistake, where I missed to carry over the original formatting, which in this case I also missed noticing it when I read your comment @119. Perhaps the confusing presence of the last character ‘”‘ (double quotation mark) contributed to the involuntary omission, but that fact does not constitute a valid justification for the error.

  125. 125
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb @123,

    My comment @122 -which relates my comment @118 with your comment @119- seems to show what looks like lack of accuracy or poor reading comprehension (or both).

    Now, on top of that, your comment @123 in response to mine @122 seems to show lack of attention to details.

    However, this could be just a misperception issue.
    Please, clarify this.
    Thanks.

  126. 126
    DiEb says:

    1.You were the first to mention the web-site “ranking.com” in this comment.

    2. KF quoted you verbatim at the beginning of this thread.

    Therefore my question, still unanswered:

    How did you come up with “rankings.com”?

  127. 127
    kairosfocus says:

    And the games continue.

    Perhaps, it has not registered that there is a very large problem of a subtext of contempt on the part of objectors to design thought, as can be seen readily all over the Internet.

    When we see a piling on game and associated insinuations, often invidious associations and hasty uses of terms like “bogus” we, however are supposed to play the role of naive, passive targets.

    I have long since pointed out why I have found that the rankings used in the OP were able to be used to give some indications of what is going on with UD as a web site.

    That SHOULD have been enough to resolve matters for the reasonable interlocutor. Especially when we see that other attempted rankings are within the same ambit of signal is there but much noise too. And, a reasonable party would realise that terms like “bogus” are loaded, especially when they become part of a piling on rhetorical game.

    So, when what should be enough to satisfy a reasonable person is never enough, that has significance in a known polarised and too often toxic context.

    I will act going forward on that basis.

    KF

    PS: I took time to look for ranking.com bogus and fraud. There seems to be little energy in that band. I then went to look at the site and note that:

    Ranking.com is part of a family of over 1,300 Internet domains designed with the web community in mind. As a leader in making the Internet all that it can be, our array of affiliations make us the premier online resource for free comparative statistical data.

    Since 1998 Ranking.com has performed market research upon a statistically, geographically and demographically significant number of surfers. By recording these surfers’ website visits, Ranking.com calculates the ranking of the top 900,000 (growing every month) most visited websites and provides the results to surfers absolutely free!

    Using its sister service BrowserAccelerator (a BestSearch.com and 7MetaSearch.com search solution) and sister company LinksToYou.com to determine website ratings by measuring the unique visitors, page views and link popularity of a website.

    Ranking.com is dedicated to providing the Internet community with the best resource available today for comparative statistics about websites for free.

    Learn more about the Ranking.com data.

    Located At:
    999 East Touhy Ave.
    Des Plaines, IL 60018
    [phone left off]

    Similarly,

    # 81 Is Ranking.com spyware?

    Ranking.com in no way utilizes spyware for any of its services. The methodology we employ is a statistical sampling based on the user behavior of over 200,000 Internet users. These users carry a freeware toolbar that they utilize through a rigorous opt-in process, which means that they choose to help us gather information and have the ability to opt-out and disable the tool at any time. Furthermore, Ranking.com does not collect any personally identifiable information, which is what spyware intends to do. Ranking.com is a free service that measures only the overall popularity and essential metrics related to the most trafficked sites on the Web . . . .

    # 52 How accurate is the data?

    Ranking.com provides the relative popularity ranking of the top 900,000 websites on the Internet according to traffic metrics such as the number of links pointing to the site and the websites category rank. This relative popularity ranking is calculated by measuring the online behavior of over 200,000 web users who use our browser toolbar BrowserAccelerator.com. Ranking.com does not intend to provide the actual statistics for each site. Instead, it provides insight into how websites compare with each other according to these popular metrics.

    Our methodology is very similar to the AC Nielsen statistics. AC Nielsen tracks a group of viewers to rate each program. The difference is that while AC Nielsen only rates a few hundred choices, BrowserAccelerator is tracking over 200,000 web users who have millions of web pages to choose from to visit. Our rankings are accurate in the higher positions but generally less accurate as you near the 900,000 site mark. We continue to increase the number of BrowserAccelerator users by an average of 3,000 per month making our statistics more accurate each day . . . .

    # 11 Can I reproduce your rankings on my website for free?

    Webmasters, website owners, marketers, publishers and online promoters are allowed to republish Ranking.com data on their website pages, online or offline publications with the proper acknowledgement as stipulated on our home page. For more information on reproducing the data, visit Ranking.com:

    You may also display your traffic ranking to your website visitors using our free Ranking.com seal. The Ranking seal dynamically displays your ranking among all websites and your site’s ranking against other sites in your business category. Installation of the seal only takes a couple of minutes, and the rewards are numerous.

    For information about displaying your site rank, visit the “Free Seal For Your Website” section at Ranking.com.

    In short, the evidence in hand suggests a legitimate and longstanding corporation, whose service will likely be US and Anglosphere-biased. Certainly, a user cross section sample basis is a reasonable though likely not ideal one. There may be a full disclosure issue but that would not detract from the ability of the scheme to extract significant signal for managerial purposes in a noisy environment.

    Those who hastily pronounced “bogus” and then painted information in lurid colours then implied incompetence or worse have some questions to answer.

  128. 128
    DiEb says:

    @KF “And the games continue”

    Indeed, I’m impressed by Dionisio’s excellent sophistry: he did not mention “rankings.com” in any comment of this thread, it was just you quoting him verbatim – and not in a comment, but in the original post. Nothing to do with him, I suppose…

  129. 129
    kairosfocus says:

    DiEb, kindly see the PS I just decided to add to my last comment rather than prolong a back-forth spiral. On fair comment you have some issues to answer to. KF

  130. 130
    DiEb says:

    KF:

    Those who hastily pronounced “bogus” and then painted information in lurid colours then implied incompetence or worse have some questions to answer.

    It didn’t hastily pronounced them “bogus”: take a look at my comments #33 and #34.

    I’m surprised that you fell for marketing drivel

    The difference is that while AC Nielsen only rates a few hundred choices, BrowserAccelerator is tracking over 200,000 web users who have millions of web pages to choose from to visit. Our rankings are accurate in the higher positions but generally less accurate as you near the 900,000 site mark. We continue to increase the number of BrowserAccelerator users by an average of 3,000 per month making our statistics more accurate each day

    At this moment, rating.com should be tracking over 560,000 web users as this claim is ten years old. Furthermore, the BrowserAccelerator software is defunct (“BrowserAccelerator.com is no longer in service.”)

    Yes, you could have found this information easily for yourself, you should not just believe anything a website writes about itself!

  131. 131
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb @126,

    Your comment @126 adds to the apparent issues indicated @118, @120, @122, @124, @125:

    Serious disregard for accuracy, lack of attention to details, poor reading comprehension, or perhaps a combination of them.

    Please, take time to read carefully the comments instead of rushing to respond. Haste doesn’t seem to help in this case.

    Thanks.

  132. 132
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb @128:

    Your comment @128 adds to the apparent problems indicated @131.

    You may want to consult with a close relative, friend or colleague to get some help with this.

    You may want to go back to reading the comment @118 very carefully, paying attention to the contextual meaning of every word, then try your best to write a comment that accurately corresponds to what the comment you have read say. Then also review the comments @120, @122, @124, @125, @131, @132.

    It’s turning a little concerning.

  133. 133
    DiEb says:

    @Dionisio:

    Please, point to the exact comment within this thread where I mentioned the website name that you wrote in your question. Then I’ll try and answer it.

    This is a childish game:
    I never claimed that you brought up “ranking.com” in this very thread in a comment.

    However, you brought up “ranking.com” in this comment in the thread This parody of evo devo makes it sound a lot like ID. KF then took your comment verbatim to create this post.

    So, you were the first one coming up with “ranking.com”. Therefore the question:

    How did you come up with “ranking.com”?

  134. 134
    DiEb says:

    Dionisio, I hope you will not use the ridiculous excuse that you did not recognize the web site I was talking about as I typed sometimes erroneously “rankings.com” instead of “ranking.com”. Your reading comprehension cannot be that bad!

  135. 135
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb,

    The first time I read your comment @48, I detected and started to suspect some of the issues mentioned later at the comments listed @132. But back then I decided to keep quiet to avoid unnecessary off topic discussions.

    Your comment @48 also points to at least some of the issues indicated at the comments listed @132.

    @48 you seem to miss the important fact that as early as @23, before you brought up any accuracy issues associated with the ranking numbers that had been referred to, I had explicitly pointed to more important issues that deserved more attention than dry ranking numbers.

    At this point I’m starting to doubt you understand what this all means.

    Hopefully my doubts are unfounded. Let’s hope so.

  136. 136
    DiEb says:

    And still no answer to the simple question:

    How did you come up with “ranking.com”?

  137. 137
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb @133:

    I never claimed that you brought up “ranking.com” in this very thread in a comment.

    Had you made such a claim, it would have been perfectly correct. Read the comment @23.

    You keep making your situation much worse regarding the issues indicated @132 and before.

    At this point I’m starting to doubt you understand what this all means.

    Hopefully my doubts are unfounded. Let’s hope so.

  138. 138
    DiEb says:

    Dionisio, @133 (see, how easy it is to find a comment if you give a link!) I answered your question from @118

    Please, point to the exact comment within this thread where I mentioned the website name that you wrote in your question.

    The answer is:

    1. You did not use the phrase “ranking.com” in any of the comments on this page but

    2. You were the first to use the web site “ranking.com” and

    3. This very thread is about the comment in which you used “ranking.com” in the first place.

    I hope that this is easy enough to understand. Now I’m waiting for you to fulfil your announcement (“Then I’ll try and answer it.”) and answer the question:

    How did you come up with “ranking.com”?

  139. 139
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb @134:

    Buddy, from the very first time you wrote the wrong website name I noticed it, but I know we all make typo mistakes like that, hence I didn’t make a big deal of it.

    You copied that mistake several times, never realizing it was incorrect.

    That’s fine. It happens too.

    The problem really surfaced when you reacted to the comment @118.

    The issues became more visible as you responded to the follow up comments I posted later.

    This is really concerning.

    Because you are trying to lecture us on attention to details, on reading comprehension, on the importance of accuracy.

    If someone tries to lecture on a given topic, that person is checked according to more strict standards than others on such a topic.

  140. 140
    DiEb says:

    And now, after wasting enough time, you certainly will answer the question:

    How did you come up with “ranking.com”?

    PS: Indeed, I copied and pasted the question numerous times – perpetuating a typo. That this was just a typo is obvious from my posts #33 and #34.

  141. 141
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb @138:

    The answer is:
    1. You did not use the phrase “ranking.com” in any of the comments on this page […]

    That’s WRONG!!!

    Read my comments carefully!

    Please!

  142. 142
    DiEb says:

    Are you kidding me? “Perhaps this information is more interesting, though not reflected in the dry stats compiled by ranking.com?”

    Once again, for lawyers:

    1. You did not use the rankings of “ranking.com” in any comment you made in this thread.

    2. However, you were the first one to use rankings of “ranking.com”

    3. KF’s post start with a quote of you in which you use a ranking from “ranking.com”

    The question remains:

    How did you come up with “ranking.com”?

  143. 143
    Dionisio says:

    DiEb,

    You has shown poor reading comprehension, having serious issues with paying careful attention to details when reading text. You seem to disregard the contextual meaning of words or statements. You seem to overlook accuracy issues very easily. You seem to disregard chronologies of events as important factors.

    All that could probably identify most people, including specially myself.

    However, on top of it all, what makes things really ugly is that you try to lecture others on information accuracy, attention to details, chronologies of events, etc.

    Those who lecture are measured according to higher and more strict standards on the issues they try to lecture.

    You have demonstrated beyond any doubt that it is not possible -at least at this point- to have a serious discussion with you.

    That suspicion was keeping me from answering your question. I wasn’t sure if it was worth the effort or time.

    Now you have confirmed that it is not worth indeed.

    As far as I’m concerned, our discussion is over.

    PS. BTW, your persistent question has been implicitly answered within this thread multiple times.

  144. 144
    DiEb says:

    BTW, your persistent question has been implicitly answered within this thread multiple times.

    As I have such a poor reading comprehension, an implicit answer is not good enough. Could you please answer explicitly my one question:

    How did you come up with “ranking.com”?

    PS: I suppose both gpuccio and Arthur Hunt will be impressed by the way you are using the perpetuation of a typo as an excuse to evade answering a single question!

  145. 145
    kairosfocus says:

    DiEb, it is now clear that you are not being reasonable. Did it register with you that I took time to search to see if the site was in fact widely seen as illegitimate? There is little evidence to back the sort of sharp dismissiveness you have posited. There is evidence that the business has been there on order of twenty years, and has put up a reasonable ratings process, though in the nature of the case no methodology is likely to be wholly satisfactory. As you know, I took some effort to see that the results seem reasonable as able to have significant signal not just empty noise. Your onward reaction speaks, and not in your favour. Sorry, it seems the real problem is that the messengers are giving a robust message you do not want, that UD is credibly within the top 1% of web sites globally. KF

  146. 146
    Dionisio says:

    KF,

    I apologize for having posted so many “off topic” comments within your discussion thread,

    I tried to avoid it, but eventually felt the urge to clarify a few things, after seeing that distracting comments addressed to me were being posted multiple times.

    As you know, I ask simple questions to let the interlocutors reveal their own motivations for their commenting and allow them to show how serious they are about having a discussion.

    The way we react to simple questions is very revealing in most cases.

    This was one of those cases.

    There was a relatively simple question addressed to me.

    However, I did not know the exact motivation behind such a simple question, but suspected that it was not a serious one.

    Hence I replied with various simpler questions, followed by simple comments with simple suggestions.

    The reaction to all that has been publicly seen by all here.

    No additional comments are needed.

    Thank you for allowing me to comment here.

    Have a good weekend.

    Ap.22.21

  147. 147
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: It is quite clear that the rating site is accessible, uses a methodology that is reasonable though inevitably flawed (as are all approaches given the circumstances) and has put up results that are credibly capturing signal not just empty noise. That is enough for a reasonable person.

  148. 148
    DiEb says:

    KF: I have already stated that I have no doubt that UD belongs to the TOP 1% sites of the internet. I’m sure it is even under the TOP 0.1%

    You can find reputable sources to verify this fact. However, rating.com is not such a reputable source.

    The first evidence to back my sharp dismissiveness came when I looked at:

    http://www.ranking.com/data.htm

    Ranking.com tracks over 215,000 ‘Net surfers with our market research software (hundreds of participants are added daily) as they visit various websites during the previous month. Personally identifiable information is not collected, only generic information on the sites they are visiting is gathered with the exception of secure sites such as online banking or financial institutions.

    The link at “market research software” let to the site

    http://www.browseraccelerator.com/

    The name itself should set off some alarms. More amusing, the web site is defunct.

    To find the last working version, I used the wayback machine.

    At a first glimpse, you see that the site was most visible in the net during the time 2005-2007.

    One of the last available snaps is from 2015. It informs us

    BrowserAccelerator is currently compatible with Internet Explorer 5.0+. It is not compatible with: Netscape, AOL, Mozilla Firefox, Opera, SmartFox, Enigma or any other browser .

    It is safe to assume that it is not longer compatible with any modern browser – so it won’t be used much.

    Furthermore, we find the boast

    Join 200,000 others and download BrowserAccelerator; one of the most popular freeware toolbars available – and for good reason!

    This free toolbar promised to deliver one joke per day, btw.

    You will find that the number of 200,000 users hasn’t changed over a decade, even though 100s of new users were added per day, 3000 a month.

    So, why can’t you find much information about ranking.com? If it was a valid tool, you should find it in use, if it was a fake, you should find complains.

    The reason is that the tool is much to old: discussions whether it was malware/spyware are found on message boards from 2005/2006! It became indeed forgotten by the internet, as it is defunct for years and exists only as a static site.

  149. 149
    kairosfocus says:

    DiEb, I have already given my views and reasons, with my caveats and concerns. KF

  150. 150
    JSmith says:

    D at 148, what caught my eye on the main page was this.

    Instantly view and modify your website ranking for free.

    I couldn’t find out what they meant by and modify. But it does raise a flag.

    As well, the popularity of a web site may not be for the reason that the site owners think, or even want. The Westboro Baptist Church homosexual hate site is twice as popular as UD. I suspect that the popularity has more to do with people wanting to see what those nut-jobs are up to than with a pervasive hatred of homosexuals.

  151. 151
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: I give further notes. First, c 2005 – 2007, UD could not credibly be in any high ranking on the web. Second, a Neilsen-like rating is not inherently “bogus.” Third, “modify” a ranking could be little more than a means of correction. Fourth, I noticed that early on BBC had a far higher rating (it was # 25 at a sample-point in 2007 . . . a time when the web was much smaller). Fifth, it does look like c 2012 on the top ranks are frozen, per Web Archive samples up to 2017. It is rather odd that such remains up. However, that said, the basic inference on the signal is robust. UD is, per multiple sources, credibly well within the top 1% of web sites. Attempted invidious comparisons speak for themselves. KF

    PS: I note that objection to homosexual behaviour is not automatically hate, despite the invidious comparison that was just drawn. Such is intrinsically disordered and evidence points to taking off up to two decades of life expectancy, leading to grounds for principled objection. Further evidence of multiple and variable patterns [with some major shifts on order of decades] — e.g. Melanesian (ritualised), Greek pederasty (what, originally, was a symposium), Institutional (e.g. prisons), modern Western, rural/urban variation in incidence etc — suggests a cultural root for much of what we see.

  152. 152
    JSmith says:

    KF

    PS: I note that objection to homosexual behaviour is not automatically hate, despite the invidious comparison that was just drawn.

    Sorry, but I think that it is safe to say that a website with a URL of godhatesfags.com is a hate site.

  153. 153
    kairosfocus says:

    JS, it is safe to say i/l/o your prior declarations that consistent invidious comparisons joined to the Christian Faith and a consistent emphasis on the real or imagined sins of Christendom point to a significant underlying factor of a hostility-driven hermeneutic of suspicion. KF

  154. 154
    JSmith says:

    KF

    JS, it is safe to say i/l/o your prior declarations that consistent invidious comparisons joined to the Christian Faith and a consistent emphasis on the real or imagined sins of Christendom point to a significant underlying factor of a hostility-driven hermeneutic of suspicion. KF

    KF, nice diversion. All I did was use the Westboro Baptist Church, a well known hate group, to demonstrate that web ranking may not always be for the reasons that the web site owners would expect. Or do you honestly believe that the majority of people who visit their site have a vile hatred of homosexuals? Isn’t it more likely that people are just curious to see what obvious nut-jobs are writing about? Similarly, it may be possible that the high ranking of UD is not because of people who seriously think that ID is a viable theory.

  155. 155
    kairosfocus says:

    Re JS: his patterns of rhetoric having long since been established, I simply point here for further reading on his latest distractor. KF

    PS: The warrant for the design inference is patently independent of how many agree or disagree or UD’s site statistics. That core warrant pivots on known, highly reliable signs of intelligence on a base of trillions of observations. Further to this, analysis of search challenge in beyond astronomically large configuration spaces rapidly reveals that production of say functionally specific complex coherent organisation and associated information beyond 500 – 1000 bits is utterly implausible on blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. Where, further, search for a golden search will come from a higher order space comparable to the power set of the first order space as a search takes a subset of a set. Such has been cogently argued for many years. However, when the problem is that first principles of reasoning are being widely rejected, including later principles of inductive reasoning, the root problem is not want of warrant. It is want of rationality and responsibility in a dying civilisation.

  156. 156
    ET says:

    JSmith:

    Similarly, it may be possible that the high ranking of UD is not because of people who seriously think that ID is a viable theory.

    And yet compared to any alternatives ID stands as the only viable solution.

  157. 157
    DiEb says:

    KF @151

    F/N: I give further notes. First, c 2005 – 2007, UD could not credibly be in any high ranking on the web.

    I did not say that the ranking is from 2007, I just said that this period seemed to be the heydays of the site

    Second, a Neilsen-like rating is not inherently “bogus.”

    Nielsen-ratings are not bogus, but a well-known way of measuring the size of audiences. That’s why ranking.com compared itself with Nielson and even claimed to be better. That’s their sales pitch.

    Third, “modify” a ranking could be little more than a means of correction.

    Alas, it’s a red flag.

    Fourth, I noticed that early on BBC had a far higher rating (it was # 25 at a sample-point in 2007 . . . a time when the web was much smaller).

    rating.com claimed from 2007 onwards to have 215,000 user of their tool-bar. That seemed to be the maximum number, and I assume that the usage declined over time, probably to become even more US-centric…

    Fifth, it does look like c 2012 on the top ranks are frozen, per Web Archive samples up to 2017.

    … which would explain why they stopped to update their data-base: the smaller the sample, the more erratic the ranking.

    It is rather odd that such remains up.

    Is it? The whole enterprise seems to be a little bit fishy: promising you a “browser accelerator“, which does not accelerate anything but collects your browsing history? They website presents itself as being up-to-date and still encourages you to sign up for their service – so they are at least still gathering email-addresses and names

    However, that said, the basic inference on the signal is robust.

    That’s quite a big “however”: what would you say if someone made a valid point about the development of embryos, but used Haeckel’s drawings as an illustration? At best you would advice him to chose other pictures…

    UD is, per multiple sources, credibly well within the top 1% of web sites.

    Yes, UD belongs to the top 1%. But: the data you are using is at best five years out of date, though it is presented as actual and factual.

    You wrote about your misgivings for rankings in general, but there is no mentioning of your scepticism in the initial post.

    You wrote “Obviously, the top ten sites or the top thousand probably have much bigger reach than something in the 80,000’s, but being in the top 1% is not to be sneezed at.”, implying that UD’s ranking is indeed in the 80,000s today which is off by a factor of 5-10.

    When user “the truth will set you free” wrote: “Also, the website ranking is really good news (no matter what the a/mats say). Well done, UD.”, taking “rating.com”‘s ranking for news, and not for outdated information, you did not tell him about the problematic of rankings in general – and of this one in specific.

    And still, the post is linking to rating.com: Do you really still think it is a good idea to divert traffic to them? That’s why Dionisio still should try to answer the question

    How did you come up with “ranking.com”?

    Attempted invidious comparisons speak for themselves.

    I agree wholeheartedly.

  158. 158
    DiEb says:

    @Dioniso:

    Some digging: the “browser accelerator” which was developed by 7MetaSearch.com and used by ranking.com was known as 7FaSSt – the opinion differ whether it was spyware or just “nuisance ware”. Google trends shows that it was a used more widely and perhaps seen as a problem until 2009 – and only in the US. This explains how the data is so US-centric and so out of date.

    As ranking.com appears to be up-to-date at the first view, today it seems to function as a honeypot, collecting emails of visitors willing to sign-up.

    So, again the question:

    How did you come up with “ranking.com”?

    Some possibilities: Your were you mislead, or you did you stumble over it innocently – then you should spare others this experience. Or perhaps you are linked to 7MetaSearch.com in some capacity – then you could explain to us why this out-of-date site should still be visited.

    If any typo prevents you from answering my question, please, just say so.

  159. 159
    kairosfocus says:

    DiEb, with all due respect, you are still inadvertently underscoring the points of concern already raised. The data sourced and used in the OP was processed to make a robust conclusion, which has since been confirmed through multiple diverse sources. That processing was done in a context where basic checks indicated signal amidst the sort of noise that is inevitably there on such a hard to measure matter. Yes, I did not see that the site was in a frozen state [something I confirmed through a Web Archive search yesterday], but what that shows is that for what maybe five years the basic conclusion has been so and has remained so as the web has grown significantly, to what, 1.3x to 1.8x as a first guess based on a tracker on a baseline of about 700+ mn? [Notice how I am rounding as the data is likely to be noisy.] Likewise, at the very top, there is heavy concentration. That is, there is a dominant generation effect with oligopoly at the very top, with probably a similar effect in various segments. That is, once a new segment of the infosphere emerges, there is likely a rush to dominate, which can then be sustained for that segment. That looks like brand dominance, familiar from many spheres and at all sorts of scales; historically such can only be broken through existential crisis, something like going off a cliff — but cliffs exist. I am pointing out things like this to highlight issues with the way you have chosen to focus as opposed to far more constructive and insightful ways that could have been chosen. That point is further brought out by the early use of loaded terms like “bogus” which tainted discussion unduly. I would suggest that there is a much broader, differently balanced and in the end more fruitful picture that could be drawn on what we see. And, the primary result stands clearly substantiated: UD has a significant overall position on the Web, surprisingly to us, in the top 1%. That probably comes from significance in a specialist segment, and in turn that speaks to responsibility of those who are involved here. That’s where I am going. KF

  160. 160
  161. 161
    Dionisio says:

    https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/uncommondescent.com

    MIT.edu……………………481
    Nature.com…………………860
    Harvard.edu………………..873
    Biblegateway.com………….1,001
    Desiringgod.org………….10,908
    Answersingenesis.org……..28,882
    Truthforlife.org…………42,349
    Gty.org…………………45,516
    Samaritanspurse.org………51,200
    Icr.org…………………77,874
    Religionnews.com…………96,212
    Royalsociety.org………..102,052
    Rzim.org……………….148,154
    Evolutionnews.org……….168,380
    Kodugamelab.com…………311,217
    Jamesmacdonald.com………460,457

    Uncommondescent.com……….644,999
    Pandasthumb.org………………….906,313
    theskepticalzone.com………..5,147,609

    Active websites (10%): 132M to 173M

    UD 0.4% – 0.5%
    PT. 0.5% – 0.7%
    TSZ 3% – 4%

    All websites

    UD 0.04% – 0.05%

    Total number of Websites
    1,318,086,225
    10% = 131,808,622
    Websites online right now
    http://www.internetlivestats.c.....-websites/

    January 2017 Web Server Survey
    In the January 2017 survey we received responses from 1,800,047,111 sites and 6,328,006 computers, reflecting a gain of 61 million sites and 159,000 computers.
    https://news.netcraft.com/archives/2017/01/12/january-2017-web-server-survey.html

    December 2017 Web Server Survey
    In the December 2017 survey we received responses from 1,734,290,608 sites across 212,870,632 unique domain names and 7,014,428 web-facing computers. This reflects a gain of 5.34 million domains and 121,000 computers.
    https://news.netcraft.com/archives/2017/12/26/december-2017-web-server-survey.html

    Search Web by Domain
    Explore 1,094,729 web sites visited by users of the Netcraft Toolbar
    https://searchdns.netcraft.com

  162. 162
    DiEb says:

    KF @159 – here is the view of an ID opponent: by insisting that the original ranking is a very noisy but still valid source, you created your own version of fake, but accurate: out of date, but actual. You cannot see that it would strengthen your position if you put an addendum at your original post, explaining the problems with rating.com and how it was used non the less, but then replicating the results using more trustworthy sources.

    UD often shows a great degree of scrutiny when it discusses traditional media. I will have no qualms to link to your post as an example how lax this policy can become if the data just fits the expectation.

    Heck, I will gladly link to your comment #127 to show your willingness to accept something because it was written on a website somewhere on the internet – as long as it makes your point.

  163. 163
    Dionisio says:

    Please, review and correct any error @161.
    Thanks.

    The OP title seems cautiously conservative according to the information @161.

    Actually, you could either change 1% to 0.1% or insert the word ‘active’ before ‘websites’.

    However, the information @161 should be double-checked.

    BTW, note that EN is at 0.13% of active websites.

  164. 164
    DiEb says:

    @Dionisio:

    One topic I bring up to discussion with them sometimes is the worldwide ranking of universities. Sometimes I search for that information online.

    Usually the search tool I use most is Bing. But I use Google tools sometimes too.

    The website ranking.com just popped up in one of those searches. I played with it for a moment, then thought to post that comparative list just for fun, continuing the tone set by the funny musical video in the OP of this thread.

    As you can see, there’s no conspiracy theory whatsoever.

    At last, an answer to my question:

    How did you come up with “ranking.com”?

    In short, you stumbled upon it, were duped into thinking that it presented actual data, and did not look into it more carefully as you were presenting the data only in an amusing context: it was not intended to be used in a more serious environment.

    Then KF used it in a new, more genuine post and you did nothing about it other than evading my question above.

    Makes all totally sense now.

  165. 165
    ET says:

    ID ranks ahead of all alternatives on the science scale.

  166. 166
    Dionisio says:

    KF,

    Sometimes we have found very good restaurants just from spotting nonsense written online by whiners*:

    “they are rude, the waiter said ‘hi’ instead of ‘hello'”

    🙂

    (*) a.k.a. “tontos útiles” in Spanish.

  167. 167
    Dionisio says:

    ET @165,

    Yes, that’s the case.

    Theirs is the usual behavior of losers.

    Since they lack valid arguments to present in the science arena (especially biology), where the real discussion takes place, they talk about whatever else that comes to their minds, even if it shows their immature whining side. Poor things.

    In the meantime their archaic pseudoscientific nonsense keeps sinking deeper with every new discovery in molecular and cellular biology research.

    Look at the situation in gpuccio’s technical thread on spliceosome. The same with the previous OPs he posted in 2017. The distinguished biology and biochemistry professors AH and LM who have commenting accounts here prefer to keep off the heat. That alone speaks volumes.

    So let their clowns play their circus roles. That’s all they can do. It’s entertaining after all.

    🙂

  168. 168

    Dionisio @ 67: “In the meantime, their archaic pseudoscientific nonsense keeps sinking deeper with every new discovery in molecular and cellular biology research.”

    True indeed.

    I was recently reading the 4th edition of The World of the Cell (copyright 2000) and was amazed by the scope of sophistication and complexity known to exist within the cell at that time. I kept thinking about how unlikely it was that unguided natural processes could create such an elegant system of systems of systems.

    And that was 18-years ago! Modern empirical science is making Darwinian theory LESS likely by the day.

  169. 169
    Dionisio says:

    TWSYF,

    Yes, that’s exactly the case. As it was said @23 in this thread, just look at what happened the last few weeks in gpuccio’s discussion thread on spliceosome, where a distinguished biology professor at an American university tried from the very first day to punch a hole in gpuccio’s solid arguments, but instead has disappeared from the scene, though some of us still think he may come back soon and present his own strong counterargument, which might change the situation. Let’s wait and see…

  170. 170
    Dionisio says:

    Chronology questions:

    Did PT start online March 23, 2004?

    Did UD start online April 19, 2005?
    Over a year later?

  171. 171
    kairosfocus says:

    DiEb, you continue, sadly. I note for record, that it is fairly clear that Internet statistics are a high noise environment. By 2012, relevant dominance of segments had happened, and as a result UD was in the top 1% of sites. Nothing existential or changing the rules has happened since then and the basic pattern is robust. This is nothing to do with “fake but accurate” biased news talking points. The relevant TANG case there was a demonstrable fraud — superposing the alleged letter with a doc prepared using Word on a Mac gives a match where relevant typography did not exist in the early-mid ’70’s — in the context of a wider slander: fighter jets of the Century series in the relevant era [F102] had quite high crash and fatality rates and routinely flew in effect nuke war CAP, Texas etc being near to Cuba. Likewise, the mere fact of passing tests to be trained as a fighter pilot has several implications including IQ 120+. By speaking to this you are apparently still pushing the idea of a bogus — fraudulent — rating scheme. I do not see good reason to concur with that, as I already pointed out. KF

  172. 172
    Dionisio says:

    Added a website to the Alexa-based list just to have an idea of the situation.
    Please, note that no web info service is 100% reliable.
    However, as KF stated, the different reports confirm that ID is within 1% of the currently active websites.

    https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/uncommondescent.com

    MIT.edu……………………481
    Nature.com…………………860
    Harvard.edu………………..873
    Biblegateway.com………….1,001
    Desiringgod.org………….10,908
    Answersingenesis.org……..28,882
    Truthforlife.org…………42,349
    Gty.org…………………45,516
    Samaritanspurse.org………51,200
    Icr.org…………………77,874
    Religionnews.com…………96,212
    Royalsociety.org………..102,052
    Rzim.org……………….148,154
    Evolutionnews.org……….168,380
    Kodugamelab.com…………311,217
    Reasons.org___________346,070
    Jamesmacdonald.com………460,457
    Uncommondescent.com……….644,999
    Pandasthumb.org………………….906,313
    theskepticalzone.com………..5,147,609
    Evoinfo.org_______________10,309,075 *

    Active websites (10%): 132M to 173M

    UD 0.4% – 0.5%
    PT. 0.5% – 0.7%
    TSZ 3% – 4%

    All websites

    UD 0.04% – 0.05%

    (*) mentioned @25

  173. 173
    JSmith says:

    KF at 171, forgive the question but [SNIP-reference to vulgarities — KF]? What is the relevance of this comment? I hope that this is an accidental cross-thread comment. The alternative explanations are worrisome.

  174. 174
  175. 175
  176. 176
    Dionisio says:

    Added a website to the Alexa-based list just to have an idea of the situation.
    Please, note that no web info service is 100% reliable. Also note that the numbers keep fluctuating.
    However, the different reports confirm that ID is within 1% of the currently active websites.

    https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/uncommondescent.com

    MIT.edu___________481
    Nature.com________860
    Harvard.edu_________873
    Biblegateway.com_______1,001
    Desiringgod.org_______10,908
    Answersingenesis.org_____28,882
    Truthforlife.org______42,349
    Gty.org_______45,516
    Samaritanspurse.org_____51,200
    Icr.org_______77,874
    Religionnews.com_____96,212
    Royalsociety.org_____102,052
    Rzim.org_______148,154
    Evolutionnews.org_____168,380
    Kodugamelab.com______311,217
    Reasons.org___________346,070
    asa3.org_____________428,374
    Jamesmacdonald.com_____460,457
    discovery.org__________542,905
    Uncommondescent.com_____644,999
    Pandasthumb.org__________906,313
    intelligentdesign.org_____932,239
    ideacenter.org___________1,655,821
    arn.org__________________1,956,610
    theskepticalzone.com______5,147,609
    biologicinstitute.org_____6,450,899
    Evoinfo.org_______________10,309,075 *

    Active websites (10%): 132M to 173M

    UD 0.4% – 0.5%
    PT. 0.5% – 0.7%
    TSZ 3% – 4%

    All websites

    UD 0.04% – 0.05%

    (*) mentioned @25

  177. 177
    DiEb says:

    @KF: There are two narratives:

    1. In a post in January 2017, KF showed that the website UncommonDescent.com belonged to the top 1% of the most popular sites of the web. This was proved by using data from rating.com, and in subsequent comments by data from alexa.

    2. In January 2017, KF claimed that UncommonDescent.com belonged to the 100,000 most popular sites on the web (“something in the 80,000’s”). Later data from alexa showed that UD’s ranking is much lower – in the 600,000’s! He came up with the flattering ranking by using outdated material from a website called ranking.com, an organization which promulgated malware according to McAffee and other virus scanners, but which was classified by KF as “a legitimate and longstanding corporation”. Though KF later found out that his data was years out of date, he never corrected his original post.

    Both narratives are literally true…

  178. 178
    DiEb says:

    @JSmith: I’m afraid, this tangent was my fault when I made the statement

    you created your own version of fake, but accurate: out of date, but actual.

  179. 179
    JSmith says:

    D, fair enough. But where did he get all of that other {SNIP- reference to vulgarities — KF]? I presume that it wasn’t from anything you said. If I am wrong, I will apologize.

  180. 180
    kairosfocus says:

    DiEb, it is clear that there has been a discussion, there have been points of give and take, and that there is a robust main point. When I get up and have time, I will make some U/D’s at OP. At the same time, you will understand that I have reason to conclude that there is no good reason to conclude that the ratings given were fraudulent, just that I did not initially see that there was a frozen site. Once I saw this, I acknowledged it. There is also reason as to why high ranks as a proportion as at say 2012 remain high, as was given above. Your onward attempt to try to drag in the comparison of a proved fraud fails. As fair comment, your further response to my correction of that false comparative shows want of good faith on your part. Noted, for further reference. KF

    PS: The descent above into obscenities leads me to act on this thread now, noting to JS, that is enough — I have neither time nor energy to be watching a thread and editing for indecent language; JS has crossed a line. Had he simply looked, he would have realised why I pointed out that the media talking point from 2004 was in fact based on fraud that was exposed on facts much as I outlined. There was a reason a major news announcer and a producer lost their jobs.

Comments are closed.