Now you're on the incentive program, eh?
According to SiteMeter's crack staff of statistical analysis boffins, this blog is due to blow through the 100 thousand hits mark in about five to seven days.
Let's look at that number: 100,000.00
Okay, so the insignificant last two digits are actually completely gratuitous.
And when I think of how certain other rockstar bloggers got to 100k so much faster than this little scribblings did, I feel kind of silly even marking the event.
But mark it I will. The visitor who achieves my 100 thousandth hit will get to choose the topic of my very next blog entry.
Labels: Blogger, future attractions, things you find on Site Meter, timewaster, vanity, writing, yay us
posted by Matt G @ 12:54 PM
7 Comments:
I've been at it 2-1/2 years and still have yet to see 100,000.
Way to go!
Yeah, Babs, but as we talked about, you're the antithesis of the hit-pandering SiteMeter-watching writer. You're stuff is much, MUCH more heartfelt. Seriously. You're a hell of a writer, and that's a fact. Add in the fact that you've got heart like I've never known, and your few hits impacted a lot more people than my century k did. Remember-- I was your partner on that collaboration. You managed to wring tears out of hundreds if not thousands, in half the words, written over a period of about 1/30th the time, of my post.
A lot more people bought Motley Crue albums than Mozart during the 1990s, but whose stuff you do you think will have staying power? :)
"A lot more people bought Motley Crue albums than Mozart during the 1990s, but whose stuff you do you think will have staying power? :)"
Then by that standard, you'd be Bach, and I'd be...Right Said Fred.;)
Congrats on the upcoming milestone, though. It's well deserved, my friend.
I tried that on 10,000 but whoever it was didn't get back to me about it.
Aww Matt, I think AD just basically came right out and said:
I'm too sexy for my shirt..
;)
Right Said Fred might have been a one-hit wonder but that one hit had some staying power. And you, AD, are no one-hit wonder.
I'll reserve comment on the rest of that.
And frankly, Bach is better in my mind than Mozart anyhow. Mozart might have been a prodigy, but Bach had the sheer volume that was never lacking in the wonderful texture and tapestry to his art. (but then I'm a big Baroque fan anyhow)
Both of y'all are solid.
It's 2:30 almost and I've worked all day and half the night so I'm probably making NO sense so I'll shut up now. I know what I'm trying to say. Hopefully y'all can figure it out.
I never felt that I had to give up one classic composer at expense of the other. Vivaldi, Mozart, Bach, Zepplin, Johhny Cash... the classics needn't be meted out of single-barrel casks. They are fine when blended. They share the quality that in 100 years and 1000 years, people will still know them.
It's just that, 200 years ago, the quality control was a little tighter, because it was harder to get music out to the people.
In this, the age of the Common Man, ANYONE can get their music out.
*snip of really bad YouTube video*
Dude, the fact that you even have that song on your hard drive somewhere is just too disturbing to contemplate.
Post a Comment
<< Home