The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

16 February 2003

The quest for B.O.

Fametracker has a lovely feature called "The Fame Audit", in which a celebrity's perceived level of, well, celebrity is contrasted and compared to where, in the opinion of the auditor, it by rights ought to be. An example: the Audit of Leonardo DiCaprio, which, after fourteen paragraphs and a pair of boxes listing Assets and Liabilities, concludes that while Leo is Up There with Brad Pitt, he really belongs in Jude Law's neighborhood.

Inasmuch as the Blogosphere never metadata it didn't like, something of a Blog Fame Audit would seem inevitable. But where to do the math? While fumbling for the shampoo this morning, it hit me, and rather painfully so.

So say hello to the Blog Overachievement Factor — for various aesthetic reasons, we can call it the B.O. factor — which is defined in terms of BlogStreet data: the Blog Importance Quotient (BIQ) divided by the BlogStreet rank. The BIQ, says BlogStreet, is based upon how many high-ranking blogs link to your blog.

Auditing Glenn Reynolds for B.O., we find that he has a rank of 1 and a BIQ of 1, which puts him at a B.O. of, well, 1.00.

To pick a few not entirely at random out of BlogStreet's Top 100 or so:

USS Clueless
 rank 13; BIQ 5; B.O. 2.60

Lileks' The Bleat
 rank 14; BIQ 9; B.O. 1.56

The Volokh Conspiracy
 rank 20; BIQ 4; B.O. 5.00

Tim Blair
 rank 22; BIQ 8; B.O. 2.75

A Small Victory
 rank 49; BIQ 61; B.O. 0.80

 rank 52; BIQ 17; B.O. 3.06

Amish Tech Support
 rank 82; BIQ 75; B.O. 1.09

Cut on the Bias
 rank 102; BIQ 31; B.O. 3.29

In a check of the top BIQs, the B.O. leader was Aint No Bad Dude: rank 277, BIQ 29, B.O. 9.55.

My own B.O. computes as follows: rank 2282, BIQ 531, B.O. 4.30.

If all this means anything — and I'm almost certain it doesn't — I'm punching a class or two above my, um, weight.

(Update, 11:25 am: This data was originally in a table, which I scrapped after deciding its appearance was even more preposterous than the numbers I had plugged into it.)

Posted at 11:05 AM to Blogorrhea

TrackBack: 3:55 PM, 18 May 2003
» Quantifying the Blogosphere: The Value of a Link from Oscar Jr. Was Here
In an earlier post, I provided some evidence that the number of outgoing links on a site is correlated with the number of incoming links. What, then, is the value of an incoming link? To attempt to answer this question,......[read more]

Thanks for the compliment: my B.O. is 85/19 = 4.47.

Posted by: Dr. Weevil at 12:22 PM on 16 February 2003

Rank is a measure of your popularity = "How many" people blogroll you.
BIQ is a measure of your importance / influence = "Who" blogrolls you.

Meaning, your BIQ increases if high ranked people blogroll you. Both Rank and BIQ read together helps one understand the relative importance / influence of that blogger in the blogosphere.

Soon BlogStreet will have categories / subjects like politics, technology etc. which will provide spheres of importance and influence within a particular community of bloggers.

Posted by: VeerChand Bothra at 1:02 PM on 16 February 2003

One thing about these BlogStreet guys - they know when someone's playing with their data.

Of course, I have neither importance nor influence, so their upcoming expansion will probably affect me very little. :)

Posted by: CGHill at 1:12 PM on 16 February 2003

Relatively popular with the popular kids, are you?

It's an interesting metric, though I find it a little difficult to interpret. Anyone know how the BIQ is calculated? I couldn't find a precise definition on the Bl*gstreet page.

Posted by: Oscar Jr. at 3:29 PM on 16 February 2003

Umm, your definition is backwards from the examples. You are rating people as having B.O. = BR/BIQ, which seems right. Your B.O. is total popularity divided by "important" popularity and bigger is worse. Your defninition says BIQ/Rank. Just pointing it out...

Posted by: Chris C. at 12:47 PM on 18 February 2003

And immediately after putting up that comment, I re-thought things.

Having a high B.O. (from the example math, BR/BIQ) means your rank is numerically high and BIQ is numberically low. That means you don't have mass appeal (either you're esoteric or just too new), but you have caught the notice of the "main" sites. So the quality would apparently be there, but for some reason the readers aren't.

On the other side, a low B.O. means the rank is numebrically low and the BIQ numerically high. This would indicate mass appeal, but apparently not as much quality, as defined by links from "main" sites.

So as the B.O. approaches 1, your readership approaches "quality level." As it rises away from 1, your quality is better than readership would indicate. As it falls away from 1, people wonder why they're still reading this wackiness.

Or something like that. In any case, your defninition is still backwards.

Posted by: Chris C. at 1:04 PM on 18 February 2003

Actually, my whole concept is deeply flawed.

What motivated it in the first place was combing through my old Blue Wave tagline file and finding the following:

"I wrote my own benchmark. Now my XT runs at 500 MHz."

Since there is such incredible interest in the blogospheric pecking order, I figured the least I could do is come up with something ridiculous in which I get good numbers, and the hell with everything else. The good folks at BlogStreet deserve better than this, I suppose, but it was easier than writing my own robot.

Anyway, be assured that I don't take this fabrication the slightest bit seriously.

Posted by: CGHill at 2:25 PM on 18 February 2003

Thanks for this obfuscating enlightenment, Chaz. Really, I didn't have a clue what BIQ meant. Now, I don't.

Seriously, you'd think the BLogStreeters would give some indication of the 'how' of assigning BIQ. I think your quotient idea has merit, I just can't figure out what it means.

I'm just happy to have made the top 85,161 weblogs!

Posted by: fredf at 4:53 AM on 22 February 2003