In response to Om Malik’s post on the dark side of tagging, Shelley Powers writes a powerful piece on technology and human behavior arguing that no matter how our tools may change – its our practices that matter – take note of who is getting linked to over the BlogHer conference and why:

…If women are not as visible in weblogging (or technology or politics and so on) because of some
escoteric to do with technology, then our problems could be easily solved. I would personally devote my life to finding the Woman Algorithm — the algorithm to give equality to women. But, as we’ve seen with the recent linking to BlogHer reports, the issue isn’t that simple. Even considering the fact that BlogHer was about women in
weblogging, the single most linked individual post on the conference,was Jay Rosen’s–one of the few men to attend the conference.

Why was Jay’s the most linked? Well, some of it was because he provided a viewpoint that led to debate. He used a ‘confrontational’ term that was guaranteed to trigger furious discussion. I linked to him for that specific reason, as did other people. However, Halley Suitt also wrote a post that generated much debate, and though it was also well linked, not as much as Jay’s. Does this, then, mean that Jay’s was a better post? No,not necessarily.

If you look at those who linked to Jay, you’ll see two patterns: people who linked to Jay because of what he said, and others who linked to Jay because of who he is. What is the common characteristic of those who linked to Jay without specifically referencing the ongoing discussion? They were all men. Is this relevant? Well, considering the purpose behind Blogher, I would say the results aren’t irrelevant.

In a related post, Seth Finkelstein notes that that BlogHer “backlash” is self-proving A-list’ery:

…There were a few hundred people who attended the BlogHer conference. Which leads to a few hundred direct opinions from attendees about how it went. Add indirect opinions from interested readers too. Now, of this melange of viewpoints and conversations, which ones were amplified overall and then retailed to thousands of people not involved. Simple:

THE OPINIONS OF THE A-LISTERS!

So, if you believe all that matters is socializing, you can dismiss everything else, since it doesn’t affect whatever socializing happened. If you believe being heard and having an influence matters, well, that fact that a handful of rich/connected ranty A-listers (some who weren’t even there) are basically defining the issues to everyone else, should be a sterling disproof of meritocracy.

Of course, that also implies this post doesn’t matter, but it has an individual purpose in noting I’d been quoted :-).

In a related thought, it has finally occured to me why Dave Rogers and Shelley Powers have had issues with Technorati claming its lists measure the “authority” of certain blogs – because they can’t. It’s a misuse of the word. These lists measure influence. Attention-influence. An important distinction that gets lost in these discussions. In his latest post on all this Dave notes:

For my criticism to have some effect, I would have to be perceived as at least authoritative as Technorati. I would have to be near their rank in the hierarchy (not explicitly the Top 100). So the critical or negative nature of my attention-directing is largely discounted, and the effect is really just to call more attention to Technorati, which it desires and which I think is undesirable.

I would say he would need to as influential as Technorati. Lots of folks and institutions are influential who aren’t “authorities”. But the gist I agree with – those with high page ranks/quality inbound links have more influence over the direction conversations take then almost anyone wants to admit.

Yesterday Jeff wrote a piece claming that: There is no A list. There is only your list.”. It was a thought provoking piece that I had to respond to. You just can’t deny its existance really. It’s there. A group of blogs who have considerably more influence then the rest of us. Given that influence by inbound links. And using that influence to spread what it feels is attention worthy. In my response I made clear I don’t think of this as some kind of clique or club like other bloggers do – just an expression of human nature taking form. It’s a natural occurance. Not a problem that needs to be solved. But something to deal with – even route around – if you need attention for something – feel that it is worthy – and the current group of attention influencers doesn’t care for it or see it yet.

In responding to me saying that: “Some would argue that the A-list, even if it exists, doesn’t matter. That thousands of D-list links can exceed the value in attention-driving a single A-list link can deliver. Indeed, I think this is true. However, the time it takes to be heard among so many can take much, much longer then what one related A-list link can do in a few hours. The difference can be astronomical and can’t be underestimated.”

Jeff posted this reply:

…heard by whom, Karl? If you want to be heard by an audience the size of TV Guide, then we’re all Z list. But then, TV Guide isn’t A list itself anymore either, is it? That’s the way the world is going: The mass is dead! Long live the niches!

We need to stop thinking in the old terms of mass market, big circulation, big ratings, blockbusters. That world is dying. We need to stop thinking that when we are in a niche, we’re in something lesser. No, it means we’re in a community. We’re in a good conversation, not a loud crowd.

I used to write for an alleged audience of 25 million at TV Guide and People. Now I write for an audience of a few thousand. Call that whatever damned list you like. I like it much better.

In his comments I replied:

…I’d answer – to be heard by folks who don’t already hear you – who you want or need to hear you.

We are definitely Z-list (all of us) in comparison to the TV-Guide’s audience. Good point. We are definitely in a niche. In many niches actually. You can sub categorize me till the cows come home (whenever that is) – but it makes no difference – there is still – for folks seeking and needing attention to for what they are doing – a struggle. And there is a way to judge ‘attention influence’? – even in this small niche we all work within here on the web. The most influential have been tagged with the term ‘A-list’?. Maybe it’s a derogatory term. I have no idea. I think term sucks. Makes it sound like a clique when I think it really isn’t. Not actively at least. DailyKos and Powerline are NOT part of the same club. They don’t chat everyday. But the existence of their influence – or yours – can’t be doubted. It can be measured. Itts there. Denying it doesntt make it go away. I’m not saying this is a problem – but a reality to deal with.

And yeah no matter what list or category you wish to put me in – I’m happy to be here right along with ya. The web is participatory – the major differentiator from what’s come before. It’s read *and* write. It’s two way. That makes all the difference.

Speaking of his comments, we’re having a great discussion there I think.

In what seems to be a regular occurrence among A-listers now, Jeff Jarvis, A-list member, in response to a Blogebrity post that questions sucking up to it attempts to deny it exists. Ya know – trying and deny its existence is like trying to deny mathematical reality and human nature.

First, lets get clear on the definition of the blog “A-list” – it is merely a way to label the current batch of most linked bloggers and a way of recognizing their influence – that’s all.

Jeff was almost right when he said: “It’s not about lists. It’s about links.” – but the links are votes that can be culled into a list – or lists. Technorati maintains what is probably the most popular implementation of this list at their site. Another popular implementation of this list can be found at Blogebrity – which has gone so far to divide the list up into an A-list, B-list, and C-list. It may have been done in jest at Blogebrity – but it pretty much exposes bare among the millions of blogs out there who have the most influence – the most meme producing potential – out here.

These lists only matter to those attempting to draw attention (which equates to linkage) to their works/writing/projects. If you aren’t trying to draw attention to in one shape or form – you’re a personal blogger who writes about his or her family for example – or your an artist who could give a fuck what others think – then this list matters little to you and talk of it probably bugs you.

But if you *are* attempting to draw support and attention – this list becomes very important.

Shoot, I once asked for Jeff for a link, but quickly withdrew the request – because – well… I felt wrong asking for a link.

Silly me – I know. But that was a while ago. Recently I asked directly to be included in the Blogebrity list. Yep. I have lost shame. I recognize the value in it. Not to be famous – but to drive attention to work I consider important. Work that requires attention to get momentum.

A-listers typically consider it bad form to directly ask for a link, but Nick and I have had a few great conversations via IM, whether I get a link or not, I still appreciate the communication.

The A-list isn’t an organized group. It isn’t a cabal that conspires in the middle of the night to draw linkage. To think so is pretty ridiculous considering in many cases this list is composed of sites that represent opposite extremes.

It is just a natural occurrence. Human nature. In this case users vote with their links – links they may have (probably have) been found from an influential (heavily linked to blogger) in the first place.

The seminal piece on this behavior remains Clay Shirky’s “Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality“. It’s a must read. It’s funny when A-listers deny the A-list – they don’t link to – or mention – this piece.

Some would argue that the A-list, even if it exists, doesn’t matter. That thousands of D-list links can exceed the value in attention-driving a single A-list link can deliver. Indeed, I think this is true. However, the time it takes to be heard among so many can take much, much longer then what one related A-list link can do in a few hours. The difference can be astronomical and can’t be underestimated.

Some would say that bloggers who need traffic should look elsewhere for attention – their local newspapers for example. I agree 100%. Bloggers seeking attention from bloggers can be fruitless – a good habit of those in the A-list is to use primary sources – mainstream media — even as they deride it. Look at how often Jeff Jarvis is on the TV. If he thought it had no value — he wouldn’t be there.

Some would argue that if something is worthy of attention, well then the A-list will link to it in the first place. I don’t think those who have this influence necessarily have magical powers to discern that.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it – does it make a sound? If a post is blogged and no one links to it – does it get read?

Some would argue that the existence of the A-list is a ‘problem’ to be solved. I don’t think so. That’s like trying to solve human nature. There will always be those in any sphere more influential then others.

Some say they need their feet held to the fire – that A-listers have some kind of responsibility to the rest of the web. That they should attempt to give voice to those that may not have one.

That’s a big question. I think the answer is we ALL have responsibility – but damned if I expect others to do what I won’t. I will vote with my links.

No – the A-list isn’t a “problem” to be solved. It’s something that if stands in the way of getting a message out – needs to be routed around.

Links that can be given can be taken away (very rare – but still doable). Links that can be given can be given to others. The A-list is changeable, and has changed over time. Take a look at this funny parody of the A-list posted a while back. Today that list would be different. Not by much. But still different. Shoot, we could nuke our blogrolls.

There’s a larger web outside of blogs. And there are webs of blogs (MySpace, LiveJournal, Xanga) that are not engaged (take a look at Sifri’s latest “State of the Blogosphere” report). Simply making direct contact with the mainstream media can make a huge difference. Tools like del.icio.us and Digg, and sites like Philly Future are emerging all the time to give avenues of expression for folks to share what *they* feel is important to a wide audience. Regardless of what the influencers may say. When these tools get bogged down in false hierarchies – new tools will come along to subvert them as well. It is the way of things.

It’s just technology enabling new expressions of human nature. Not changing it.

And so is engaging, complaining, arguing, conversing, working with, and yes – fighting – those who have influence. Nick wonders what it means to play the A-list game – well there ya go. This is it. And ya know what – those things I’m never going to stop.

Neither should you. No matter what the influencers might say.