Ok - Traffic is upsetting.

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by Keith

I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that's backwards; rather than looking outwards for a niche, you should be looking inwards to find what is it about you that is unique and valuable. That's what will interest people - not that you were the first to write about a particular niche topic.


A lot of Europeans (and for that matter Australians) disagree with the US on certain issues of philosophy. (eg. Calling welfare "fundamentally unAmerican" does not endear America to people who think that welfare is a good thing). That does not mean that a reasoned discourse can't be held or that Europeans wish the US ill.


If you genuinely want feedback on your blog, I have some observations on the pit bull terrier article:

It had an enticing hook (drawing an analogy to human racism) and it was well-written and structured. I found it well-worth reading overall.

A couple of recommendations:

The logic seems a bit unclear regarding one point. The article stated that 'No breed of dog is inherently “vicious, aggressive, mean,” etc.' but then went on to say that '[Pit Bull Terriers] score higher on the American Temperament Test than many dogs deemed to be “safe” or “family” dogs.'. If one breed can have a better temperament, by extension, another breed can have a bad temperament and have a worse temperament.

The tone went very harsh at the end ("This kind of ignorant filth has got to stop."). This is a shame because the content is strong and convincing, but the tone undermines its credibility.

Overall, the article was very informative and it cited sources (this in itself is a great selling point that many blogs lack!).

P.S. Your site has a typo in the spelling of "discrimination".

Great comments on my site. Thank you.

In regards to the American Temperament Test - in order to make it more clear I should tell you what the test is. It isn't a temperament test in the form of "we'll just walk this dog and see how it responds to people and things." It is a test where they take a dog and they run a series of actions against it that generally aggravate dogs. They are basically trying to get the dog to become aggressive. Once a dog shows aggression, they fail at that point. So in terms of American Pit Bull Terriers, 84% of them make it through the entire test without showing aggression. Many other "family" dogs have a lower percentage.

As you see, it isn't a test of temperament from a normal situation standpoint, it is a test of temperament when the dog is being purposefully aggravated.

I'll get the misspell fixed also, thanks.

[KittyG]

Keith,

The temperament test Kevin is referring to:
The temperament test is a Veterinarian administered aggression test on pure bred dogs.
It is a series of confrontations; you've probably heard of some of the testing;
the (fake) hand being lowered into the dogs food while they are eating . .
the Vets have someone walk aggressively towards the dog while the dog is being walked, etc.
The FIRST sign of aggression or hesitation the dog shows the dog is given a FAIL.
Out of the breeds tested, the American Pit Bull Terrier "pit bull" breeds overall passing rate scores fourth from the top, above the beloved golden retriever! ATTS - American Temperament Test Society, Inc. - ATTS Breed Statistics - page 1
The two most misunderstood breeds of dogs are the "lab" and the "pit bull" because,
It is not typical of the "pit bull" to be human aggressive or child aggressive.
The lab is misunderstood as the ideal American family dog.
Statistically, more bites come from the lab breed than the "pit bull."
The reason you hear about pit bulls "attacking" all the time?
The pit bull is often misidentified, mutts are called "pits" when, in fact, they are nothing of that mix.
The news feeds off these stories and promotes the negative sterotype.
You're not going to see a "gangsta" (excuse my ebonics) walking down the street with a poodle;
Allowed in their hands, "Pits" are deprived and poorly bred for bigger heads, chests, jaws, etc and then left on a chain, deprived of nutrition and human interaction so, no, THAT dog's not going to be friendly when you go to "save" it.
The "gangstas" you see who train these dogs to attack, yes, I believe that dog and the owner should be put down.
To attempt to ban these dogs altogether (BSL) is ineffective and if you all agree, I highly recommend joining me in writing the legislators
BREED-SPECIFIC LEGISLATION

HERE is a well trained pit bull in it's natural, unabused state; loyal, obedient, loving, perfect therapy and family dog.
American Pit Bull Terrier Stitch feening for Timberwolf Organics - Google Video

Anyway, needless to say I have a deep seated passion for these dogs, I guess you could just say I'm an advocate for the underdog

If you read all this, thanks.
When it comes to my breed of choice, I tend to ramble.

Kat

[RedPanda]

Originally Posted by KevinG

I have one up right now - but it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.

As a parent, I read as far as these parts:

Most parents are not mentally or emotionally ready to raise a child. They don't have the skills to properly care for children because their parents didn't either. Most of them aren't even stable enough to fully care for themselves. Today's parents spend more time on cell phones than they do talking to their children, they're doped up on something, they're workaholics, they shame and abuse, they don't know how to cultivate, they don't promote proper nutrition in their children, they aren't aware, they can't properly interact with their spouse, and they're getting worse.

When a child wakes up in the morning he watches cartoons, on the way to school he watches more cartoons on the TV in the car, he is subject to mental and emotional abuse at school (assuming he goes to a public school), eats a non-nutritious lunch, and spends more time on his busy work than he does on his education. When the child gets home at night he does more busy work, plays video games, and watches TV. If he's from a middle class or wealthy family he probably plays sports and goes to practice, but bounces from sport to sport with no cultivation of perseverance or loyalty.

By this point you've described a stereotype of bad parenting and claimed it applies to 'most' parents. Nonsense. Apart from feeling vicariously insulted, I'm unlikely to want to read further when the first part of your post is so clearly exaggerated and obviously setting up a straw man for you to subsequently knock down. Nor am I likely to recommend it to anyone else (not in a good way, anyway).
You may have some good points to make, but if you hide them in a forest of exaggeration, hyperbole and spleen very few people will take the time to find them.

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by RedPanda

As a parent, I read as far as these parts:




By this point you've described a stereotype of bad parenting and claimed it applies to 'most' parents. Nonsense. Apart from feeling vicariously insulted, I'm unlikely to want to read further when the first part of your post is so clearly exaggerated and obviously setting up a straw man for you to subsequently knock down. Nor am I likely to recommend it to anyone else (not in a good way, anyway).
You may have some good points to make, but if you hide them in a forest of exaggeration, hyperbole and spleen very few people will take the time to find them.

Unfortunately, if you are feeling "vicariously insulted" part of this must ring true for you. If you knew it didn't describe you I would think that it wouldn't emotionally trigger you.

I got a lot of comments by email from teachers who run education blogs and every single one of them agreed with me on my article. I am a teacher as well. If you are a good parent then I congratulate you, but if your career doesn't involve teaching and working with large groups of children then I'm afraid you really aren't in a position to comment on the "general" population of children.

Nothing I said was exaggerated. If your particular life doesn't align with my article then I applaud you. Until you can prove that the general population of children in the United States isn't as I described then I would please ask you to refrain from attacking the article.

[investorblogger]

Originally Posted by KevinG

I got a lot of comments by email from teachers who run education blogs and every single one of them agreed with me on my article. I am a teacher as well. If you are a good parent then I congratulate you, but if your career doesn't involve teaching and working with large groups of children then I'm afraid you really aren't in a position to comment on the "general" population of children.

The problem with your blog is easy to see: your writing is highly emotional, your arguments are self proving, you never cite any statistics. You brush off other comments on your articles with assertions claiming others don't have a position to comment on your articles, yet you fail to provide adequate reason to believe your own point of view.

Another leading cause of the decline in child growth and development is technology. I feel it is a mental poison that is preventing kids from the type and level of growth they should be experiencing; growth they used to experience.

"I feel" is not a rational argument. Children used to experience this growth? Where? When? How much? What quality of growth did they have? You need to establish all of this before you go onto claim what you believe is true. Otherwise you lose your reader, except those who already agree with you totally. But even then, you owe that reader an explanation of sorts, too.

There are lots of examples of this throughout your blog and I think that this is a core reason people are not returning to your blog. You're not engaging them, you're ranting and raving about things that you care about (which is fine, it's part of a blog, but it doesn't entitle you to a readership).

You must respect your reader, you must engage your reader, you must inform your reader, you must enlighten your reader, ... Otherwise your reader, even those disposed to your political leanings, will simply wander away looking for content that challenges them either on an emotional or an intellectual level.

If you look at Steve's articles, you will see how different they are to yours. You will see how he attracts readers of many persuasions to his views, not because they believe him, but because he informs them. He respects his readers by engaging their intellects, he enlightens them, on occasion, too.

So, go study your blog heroes, emulate the things they do well, build your writing skills, then write and rewrite and rewrite until the text shines. At that point, your readership will arrive and respect what you have done.

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by investorblogger

The problem with your blog is easy to see: your writing is highly emotional, your arguments are self proving, you never cite any statistics. You brush off other comments on your articles with assertions claiming others don't have a position to comment on your articles, yet you fail to provide adequate reason to believe your own point of view.

I'm not required to cite statistics on my "opinion" blog. If you would like to disprove me, that's your job.

I provide plenty of reasons to believe my point of view. You must have only read one article and made an assumption about the entire blog. That's sad.

"I feel" is not a rational argument.

Precisely why that sentence wasn't the argument, it was the sentence before it. The statement "I feel" was only describing how I feel about the problem. Interesting how that works isn't it?

Children used to experience this growth? Where? When? How much? What quality of growth did they have? You need to establish all of this before you go onto claim what you believe is true.

No. That is where you are wrong. I don't have to do anything. If you would like to prove me wrong, then by all means please provide me some evidence of how I am wrong. It is not my job to educate everyone on every fact relating to my articles. I would not be able to provide the necessary content nor would I be able to keep the blog entertaining.

Otherwise you lose your reader, except those who already agree with you totally. But even then, you owe that reader an explanation of sorts, too.

I explain myself very well. If every blog article was 50% explanation and 50% statistics it wouldn't be entertaining. I say what I know to be true and if you have evidence against that it's your job to put up or shut up.

There are lots of examples of this throughout your blog and I think that this is a core reason people are not returning to your blog. You're not engaging them, you're ranting and raving about things that you care about (which is fine, it's part of a blog, but it doesn't entitle you to a readership).

You seem to be wrong as my return numbers are very high. It is new visitors that I'm having a hard time getting.

You must respect your reader, you must engage your reader, you must inform your reader, you must enlighten your reader, ... Otherwise your reader, even those disposed to your political leanings, will simply wander away looking for content that challenges them either on an emotional or an intellectual level.

I do all of those. I tend to believe that you disagree with what I say and that drives you to attack my writing and my blog. Which is fine, it just isn't logical. But that is normal from the type of people who wouldn't agree with what I'm writing. It goes with their territory.

If you look at Steve's articles, you will see how different they are to yours. You will see how he attracts readers of many persuasions to his views, not because they believe him, but because he informs them. He respects his readers by engaging their intellects, he enlightens them, on occasion, too.

His blog is not a political opinion blog, his blog is meant for information. Mine is not meant for information, it is meant for commentary. I educate my readers but the point of the blog isn't to educate, it's to entertain and comment. You are comparing apples to oranges.

So, go study your blog heroes, emulate the things they do well, build your writing skills, then write and rewrite and rewrite until the text shines. At that point, your readership will arrive and respect what you have done.

Or I could just write things you would agree with and you would in turn say, "great blog."

Lol. It isn't hard to see through your type. Trust me.

[investorblogger]

I'm ending my dealings with this topic, my comments still stand, I did post a detailed reply. But quite frankly, the wood and the trees are getting very blurry in this discussion. So... In the interests of getting back to the topic... this is a good link with some good ideas...

10 Effective Ways to Get More Blog Subscribers | Copyblogger

Advice is sensible.

[KevinG]

Congrats. You finally made it around to posting something regarding the topic at hand without using personal attacks. I was getting worried there for a little while.

[Mad101daN]

Well I visited your web site, read todays blog, and that was enough for me, never again. You seem to believe want your government tells you a little to easily. Try to remember that the US and UK invaded Iraq for oil, NO OTHER REASON.

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by Mad101daN

Well I visited your web site, read todays blog, and that was enough for me, never again. You seem to believe want your government tells you a little to easily. Try to remember that the US and UK invaded Iraq for oil, NO OTHER REASON.

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.

Please tell us you're joking.

[NoelKuhl]

Try posting the way you post here to other blogs and forums and promote your blog. You'll get a lot of comments. You have a mildly irritating personality and internet people are gonna love to flame you.

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by NoelKuhl

Try posting the way you post here to other blogs and forums and promote your blog. You'll get a lot of comments. You have a mildly irritating personality and internet people are gonna love to flame you.

Thank you.

You probably don't agree with me either?

[Mad101daN]

Well I dont know why, but cant help a little smile to see he's been banned.

[stephencp]

This thread has been very instructional....

If you want 'traffic"/people/customers then rule #1 is not to irritate them and scare them away. Yes, you need to point out the fire to sell the fire extinguisher but no one has a "right" to a customer. You must earn it, and then earn it again over and over again.

It doesn't matter if you're "right" if no one wants to listen.

If matters more what OTHER people really want than what YOU think they SHOULD want (or know or believe).

Stephen
Power-Book Library: Free personal development, success, inspiration and motivational classics
Personality and Growth Bookshelf

[Caveman Joe]

My goodness, you folks are really, really tolerant. If anyone was that annoying on one of my forums, I'd have banned them MUCH sooner than that.
Congratulations on all involved for the unusually mature and level-headed way we handled KevinG's flamebait.

[investorblogger]

Originally Posted by Caveman Joe

My goodness, you folks are really, really tolerant. If anyone was that annoying on one of my forums, I'd have banned them MUCH sooner than that.
Congratulations on all involved for the unusually mature and level-headed way we handled KevinG's flamebait.

Thank goodness! I actually ended up writing a long posting for him, but didn't post it. All I posted was a short link to something useful. I still got a mouthful from him. Yikes. I posted my own response on one of my blogs instead. I actually received one or two comments on it, as well. Favorable ones!

I'm glad that he was banned. I used to have a forum for ESL teachers in which one loudmouth came on right before a conference and blasted people. I had some people unsubscribe in the short term. In the long term, though, I think it killed people's interest in the forum: people were afraid to post. The forum still exists but languishes as a result. Up until that point, I'd had regular posters from different teachers and countries. Oh, well.

Kenneth

[sirkinm]

Yeah, I was following this thread, and man, that guy was annoying.