My site is kind of pink, and I have hot photos of myself on my main page, and I'm not popular!!

Okay, so it's a random image, and it's pretty much a toss up whether someone will actually get one of the "hot" photos to load. hahahaha!!!!

But what I really think this guy's trick was - he was the best of both worlds for a conservative guy blog reader... he wrote like a MAN and looked like a woman! Maybe deep down, that's what a lot of these guys are looking for! A woman who thinks like a man, has opinions of a man, but looks like a knock-out girly girl!

Wait—Hot Abercrombie Chick, Majikthise, and Michelle Malkin? Is this "which one doesn't belong?" Because one is psychotic, one apparently knows how to shop, and one studies analytic philosophy.

no, i know that lindsay beyerstein is intelligent. i just personally don't find her blog to be very interesting - at least not "blog most deserving of wider recognition" interesting. i could think of 3 or 4 other blogs written by women that are far better. but maybe i just haven't been reading her long enough.

catherine:
I agree, there are a lot of other women bloggers, who are just as intelligent as Beyerstein, have just as much credential or whatever, and who I happen to think have more of a flair with the written word - and even post more consistently interesting stuff. Of course this is a matter of opinion, everyone has their thing. And I think her site is worth reading from time to time.
But it's often occurred to me that some of those other, less popular, women either don't post a photo at all, or if they do, it's not a shot with them looking all girly & sultry in a tight little cutsie t-shirt.
Often because they're not single & not in their 20s.

I don't know the ambercrombie chick girl - never looked at that site before. But just the name "hot ambercrombie chick" - sounds like an internet nick name girls choose when they're on the make. Like "horny bunny", "hot lips 4 u", "cutie lover" or "soft n silky baby". hahaha.

As for Malkin... Well, I shouldn't even say what I suspect might be up there. But I would be very suprised if a lot of people weren't thinking it, so I don't think I have to say it.

Fair enough—there might be other writers with more flair; I like what she writes (hates Jesus and GOP, science stuff, etc). You're right that it's a preference thing (and as far as these things go, I for one don't like Belle Waring, and she's the queen of bloggers). But I think it's unfair to cast that doubt about Beyerstein that Hot Abercrombie Chick deserves. (Apparently the folks who outed LG say that HAC is a man, too.)

This bodes poorly for me, since I have the biggest picture of all on my blog.

it just seems she's got a lot of short posts linking to other articles with little interesting commentary. so i just wonder if she didn't have that picture if she would have become as widely read (see this post for an example) - but obviously i don't mean to put her in the exact same cateogry as HAC or craaazy malkin.

This bodes poorly for me, since I have the biggest picture of all on my blog.

Yeah, I wasn't going to say anything but that tight suit jacket makes you look like a total slut.

Lindsay also comments a lot on other widely read blogs which probably boosts her readership quite a bit. Especially because she has good comments. From how I understand these things.

ah yes - good commenting is definitely a key to more readership.

maybe i could be directed to some of her better posts so as to not be totally unfair?

This one struck me as strong (though I never blogged it) and maybe represents an analytical approach that you might not see everywhere about a topic that comes up frequently enough.

. . . though on her main page she's currently misspelled "triumphalize" in her title. Not helping my case.

that post you linked was kind of interesting, but the majority of her posts seem to be like the current one - she links to another post and doesn't add anything or adds very little to its analysis. so...anyway, to each his own.

Hmmm... Maybe I should come out as a hot girl and put up some pix on my site...

Seriously, this post totally made my day. LibertarianGirl's blog was supremely infuriating. And I never thought "she" 'wrote like a man'. I think "she" wrote like an idiot. It's really not hard to articulate libertarian views (or, at the very least, quote Ayn Rand), and that blog failed to do even that properly.

As far as getting traffic to your site, I think my blog and "Libertarian" "Girl"'s blog show that it's not about some picture on the front page (unless there is a seriou Galvatron fetish in DC), but it's simply to provide content based on strong, polarizing opinions. The stories I post that are the most opinionated (and the least objectively evaulable) generated the most traffic on my site, by far.

Kriston:
I've never even heard of Belle Warring - how could she be the queen of anything? Do I get a link so I could check this chick out? haha. ;)
And just to be clear, I'm not "casting doubt on Beyerstein" in the same way I'm commenting on "hot lips 4 u" or the like. haha. Having Beyerstein's site bookmarked myself, I would in no way say that her blog doesn't have any interesting content, or that she's a poor writer.
I'm just saying, as I think catherine was, that we're just not sure she would have 1,500 visits a day if she didn't have that photo on her site.
Like I would bet if she suddenly set up shop under a different name and continued to post the exact same things with, say, this photo of me, on the main page - she might not be quite as popular.
But naturally, yes, I think posting controversial stuff doesn't hurt - regardless of gender or physical appearance!
So I don't think my site would necessarily be as popular even if I only posted photos of myself of me dressed like this, because I may be a woman, but that doesn't mean I don't know the difference men see between these two photos in terms of sex appeal.
Though I am convinced that if I only posted sexy shots including my chest, and regularly made a big deal out of posting controversial topics, I would probably be more popular.
Thankfully, I'm not so interested in popularity, so it's not an issue. But it is frustrating that there's probably a lot of cool web sites out there that I won't ever find.
Some of the most interesting & talented people would never be cast in a magazine cologne ad. But if you go by fame & popularity among female bloggers, you might doubt that fact.

tom: "Yeah, I wasn't going to say anything but that tight suit jacket makes you look like a total slut."

Thanks for the laugh! I was thinking the same thing when I clicked on that link! hahaha.

catherine: "ah yes - good commenting is definitely a key to more readership."

Yeah, and commenting controversially on a-list blog posts (getting into the pit & mixing it up) is also definitely a key to more readership.

Here's a Hint: Sorry, what I meant by "wrote like a man", and i should've specified - I meant "she" wrote like a man that would appeal to men like that - infuriating, chauvanistic, right-winger, extremist... or what have you. (I didn't read "her/his" site, so I wasn't going to specify because I wasn't really sure what I'd be specifying.)
Sorry, that wasn't a blanket statement saying all men are like that girl/man person! Honest!

As far as getting traffic to your site, I think my blog and "Libertarian" "Girl"'s blog show that it's not about some picture on the front page

actually, libertarian girl's site proved that it is indeed sometimes about that. the author said he'd previously had a blog where he wrote more or less the same content and he never got any traffic; when he changed the name of his blog, put up the photo, and started off, he got dozens of comments and nearly a hundred incoming links.

I don't disagree with any of the points you've made, Chloe, just that it applies to Beyerstein's site. I think she used to provide a lot more analysis, and that for some reason she hasn't as much lately (Catherine's right about that). It seems to me that the reason that she's suddenly skyrocketed in popularity recently (while her posts have declined in meat) has a lot to do with the fact that James Walcott linked to her, and he's big enough and selective enough to play kingmaker. LG, on the other hand, was a right-leaning douchebag able to attract hundreds of right-leaning douchebags with one glossy.

I'm inclined to say that this girl/photo thing is part sexism but a larger part a left/right thing. The thing is, if Jeanne d'Arc put up a sexy photo today, I think some of her readers would be surprised; if "Rebel Gun Chick" showed up tomorrow, her readership would skyrocket. I think there you're going to find more sexist attitudes among right-leaning douchebags than left-leaning douchebags, but I can't back that up except on anecdotal grounds.

Still, it can't be denied—Washingtonienne shows up, takes some pics with Wonkette? The whole blogosphere goes nuts.

it might also be worth noting that when james wolcott linked her, he said, "The intriguing Majikthise has been added to the blogroll, or will be momentarily. She has the sulky look and style of a philosopher punkette."

Catherine, it's more than a little disingenuous -- not to mention offensive -- to mention Beyerstein, Malkin, and "Hot Abercrombie Chick" in the same sentence and then claim, "Oh, gosh, I never meant to put them all in the same category." (I seem to recall some internet rule about the propriety of comparing people to fascists... )

Same goes for where you write "I won't critique a woman's choice to feature her sultry photo in her sidebar or banner or whatever," in a post dedicated to doing precisely that.

If you're worried about "having turned sexist overnight," maybe think twice before posting something that amounts to, "That bitch, she only got where she is because of her looks." You post that, and then you have the gall to criticize Beyerstein for not being substantial enough?

Finally, forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but Atrios posts mostly links to other sites without adding much original commentary.

See, now that's funny. I don't even recognize the name "James Walcott". haha.

"it might also be worth noting that when james wolcott linked her, he said, "The intriguing Majikthise has been added to the blogroll, or will be momentarily. She has the sulky look and style of a philosopher punkette.""

I wonder if she was a man, would he describe her like that - say as having "the sulky look and style of a philospher punk"?

"I think there you're going to find more sexist attitudes among right-leaning douchebags than left-leaning douchebags, but I can't back that up except on anecdotal grounds."

Well, is that surprising considering that the left has been more taken towards the cause of equal rights for women?

Thad: Why does it gall you so bad to point out that Beyerstein has a photo of herself looking very young & pouty in a tight little cutsie t-shirt, and that some men (and perhaps some lesbians, who knows), might be inclined to be a little more interested in her site than they would if she were a 250lb 35 year old married woman with 3 kids, acne, and a prominent scar under her left eye? ;)

A comparison of those 3 blogs, as being women, with a possibly alluring photo on the main page, and being popular is accurate - and is NOT tantamount to saying Beyerstein has the same political leanings, morals, or personal views as the other 2 women. That's illogical - a red herring or a straw man or something. The comparison is not off-base because they do all have photos of themselves on the main page & they're all popular... and apparently they might all post provocatively too, no? (Never read the 'hotlips4u' girl's site, so I'm not 100% sure on that one.)

I could just imagine if catherine only mentioned women of one political leaning - someone would've slammed her for that and brought up the other women who also have photos of themselves on their site who are popular, and accused catherine of some kind of political bias. Big whoop.

I didn't see anybody make any accusations that the Beyerstein photo wasn't real. Nor did I see anyone say that Beyerstein shouldn't post a photo of herself. Or that she shouldn't look the way she does in her photos.
And I didn't see anyone accuse Beyerstein, (nor the other women), of posting photos deliberately with the motive of being sexually alluring to men.
I didn't even think intent was the issue - so much as effect.

What, we're only supposed to discuss effect of photos on women blog popularity among bloggers we hate and oppose? Or only among bloggers who share our own political or moral beliefs? How fair & logical is that?

I mean, really now. I think that Atrios blog is trash. I have no idea why he's so popular, except that he posts every 10 seconds - so maybe he appeals to blog addicts. I'm assuming he must've had some celebrity before he started blogging, but I've never been interested in him, so I've never bothered to learn what the appeal could be or how it developed.
Or perhaps he was wowing at one time, and then "sold out", as happens to celebrities of many types so often... Once established there's often more pressure for quantity than quality. Sure I think it's sad when people give into that pressure, even unconsciously, because obviously that means their celebrity itself is important to them - and I don't think much of that; and if they don't realize how important their celebrity is to them, I don't think much of that either because they're obviously not very self-aware... But we can't blame the blogger alone - surely the readers have their part in going back for more emporer's new clothes.

whaaaa? obviously i've offended one of the legions of beyerstein's fans. look - chloe answers for me well when she says that mentioning all three of those women have pictures of themselves on their front page is nowhere tantamount to me saying their content is the same. beyerstein, in my opinion and from what i've read of her, is a million times more thoughtful and has smart politics that i often agree with. however, i still don't think her blog (at least of late; i haven't been reading for more than a couple of months) is that fascinating or thought-provoking, and i don't think it's a leap for me to say that some of her readers are probably interested in what she has to say because of how she looks and an image or personality they might have created of her in their heads. look at wolcott's commentary above or the post i linked earlier, where it says, "I will admit to having occasionally visited Libertarian Girl's blog, less for the Libertarian than for the Girl. To see the picture that originally adorned the blog, click here. Pretty cute, huh? In the faraway possible world where I know her and she's single and I don't have my squirrelish timidity, I'm hitting on her....Lindsay, don't change anything [about your picture]!"

i really didn't mean to criticize anyone who decides to put their photo up on their page, but i guess my statements thus far have come with some implicit disapproval. but i really don't think i'm criticizing when i point out that what, to me, is obvious - that some people enjoy going back to some blogs because of the way the writer looks. but really, that is all part of blogs and getting readers - creating a cult of personality, and sometimes images and photos play into that. i honestly don't want to dismiss anybody who uses their looks to advance one way or another - i'm sure many people, including myself, have done this to their advantage - but is it unfair of me to call on it when i see it happening?

as for atrios - what the hell? no one is going to eschaton for pictures of duncan black.

i guess to clarify further, i'm not saying attactive female photos on a front page bringing in extra readers is a good or a bad thing - but simply that the phenomenon exists.

i honestly don't want to dismiss anybody who uses their looks to advance one way or another - i'm sure many people, including myself, have done this to their advantage - but is it unfair of me to call on it when i see it happening?

That's what's unfair! I don't think that Beyerstein is using her looks to advance any more than Matthew Yglesias is using his looks to advance by putting his picture up on his blog. I think that by the topics she chooses and the opinions she expresses, she's distinguished herself as the sort of person who wouldn't be so pandering. As for the picture, it would be one thing if it were radically Photoshopped or revealing or what have you, but it appears to be a very normal photograph of a girl who happens to not be God-awful.

If readers (like the guy you found) choose to go to her site because her photo is attractive, that speaks poorly of them; if a blogger (like Libertarian Girl) puts up an attractive photo to lure those kinds of readers, it speaks poorly of that blogger. But the intention marks the difference between innocent and manipulative—otherwise it sounds as if you're saying she should've never worn that dress.

okay, first off, i'm not sure how you get out of anything i've said that lindsay is asking for rape or something akin to that. that's a pretty riduclous and offensive comparison.

but you're right - we have no idea of lindsay's intention at all with the photo, how it looks, and why it's up there. like i said, though - the phenomenon exists. what's wrong with acknowledging it?

and yes, i think it reflects poorly on wolcott when he links to lindsay and comments on her sulky punkette image; i think it reflects poorly on readers who say in comments that they're fans of her photo and wish that she'd put up a new one for variety; i think it reflects poorly on men who were huge fans of libertarian girl's commentary when he was a blond, beautiful woman and now say it's useless and deriviative (which it was all along). my beef is not with lindsay or her choosing to put up a photo of herself. i guess i can't say exactly what i find wrong with the phenomenon or the readers' responses and the way they might imagine her. but i don't think i'm being sexist or unfair when i say that people do look at someone differently and more appreciatively when they know what they look like and may not evaluate them as objectively as they should. it's a fact of life.

This whole thing is sooo funny, I just now caught on. I think people love to put a name to the face. I get all excited when people post pictures so I can finally find out what the people I've been reading look like. Libertarian Girl in my imagination seemed so plausible. . . . .

However, bottom line, I don't think the examples you cite really are examples of people trading on looks.

Not that they couldn't be or anything :) They're all fine looking folk . . . .

okay, first off, i'm not sure how you get out of anything i've said that lindsay is asking for rape or something akin to that. that's a pretty riduclous and offensive comparison.

Well, I didn't mean to offend you—I'm sorry. I was going for shorthand about who should be responsible for these kinds of conflicts. I think that in your post and in your comments you've assigned a lot of blame to her for men's dumb reactions to her blog. You clearly disapprove of the phenomenon—so do I—but I don't see how Beyerstein has earned your disapproval as she has if it's some segment of her readers promoting her for her looks.

I don't think the examples you cite really are examples of people trading on looks.

that all depends on intention. kriston's right in that it's wrong of me to assume any intention on lindsay's part. but libertarian girl is an obvious and incredibly successful of somebody purposefully using a photo to gain readership and fans. and you know what? it worked, and the blogosphere fell for it.

Eh. I think Catherine's right in saying Beyerstein would be less successful without that punk-rock sneer, and I think Kriston's right in saying that there's a big difference between her and the other two -- Libertarian Girl was stupid and deceptive. Abercrombie Chick is a little dumb and some subset of [really stupid | deliberately titillating | deceptive]. Majikthise is undeniably smart, and I doubt she put her pic up as a means of building traffic. I've never been grabbed by her writing, but to each their own.

All that this really shows is that the internet is full of creepy, lonely guys. Shocking, I know. But if you're a guy you've long ago learned to throw up your hands in the face of overt female manipulation, laugh, and dutifully surrender. Then again, I'm a guy who doesn't really believe in free will, so maybe I have an easier time accepting all this than usual.

To me, the most fascinating part of this whole saga is the bit about Libertarian Girl's male commenters flipping from madonna mode to whore mode in the space of a single blog entry. Predictable but hilarious.

Beyerstein would be less successful without that punk-rock sneer

and that's really all i meant to say here. if i assigned blame to lindsay along the way, i definitely retract all of it.

Kriston: "That's what's unfair! I don't think that Beyerstein is using her looks to advance any more than Matthew Yglesias is using his looks to advance by putting his picture up on his blog."

Again, nobody accused Beyerstein of doing that. Why bring Beyerstein into that quote of catherine's at all? RED HERRING - STRAW MAN - IRRELEVANT THESIS - WHATEVER.
Surely you took a logic class at some point, Kriston - you look educated. LOL. ;) ;)

Why are some people's knickers in such a knot at even the round-about possible suggestion that might be the case? And why have some people jumped to the conclusion that anybody was accusing Beyerstein of that, so quickly, when nobody actually did accuse her of such?
Hmmmmmmmmm... ;)

How could we ever get inside Beyerstein's head and prove positive or negative that she is doing that or she's not? It's moot. We'll never know, unless the so-called blogosphere starts calling for lie detector tests. haha.
You can argue that she doesn't seem pandering all you want... But maybe that in itself is pandering - being anti-pandering! HA-HA! So there. ;)

I'm starting to wonder if some men are so hot to defend her against that, because on some subconscious level they're scared they don't really respect her, or perhaps wouldn't be so interested in her opinions if she wasn't a hot young chick in a tight t-shirt... Maybe they're scared that she is manipulating them with her looks??? hehe. ;)

Well, that says more about her defenders than it does about the young lady's character, I must say!

And it says more about the people hot to criticize or attack straw mans around catherine, than it does about catherine's rational observations of humanity.

"If readers (like the guy you found) choose to go to her site because her photo is attractive, that speaks poorly of them"

I don't know, I have a lot of respect for the honesty there, even though I might scoff at the implications.
Shows the person is not afraid to expose their most distasteful prejudices. That might mean they see nothing wrong with it - but it could also mean that they're honest & self-aware.
I think I'm more comfortable with someone saying it outright, even if it's distasteful... Than those of you who "protest too much". haha.

"some of her readers are probably interested in what she has to say because of how she looks and an image or personality they might have created of her in their heads"

In my opinion, that isn't a judgement of the bloggers that post photos, it's a very astute observation of readers based on real human sociology, psychology, and celebrity phenomenon.
I applaud it!

And this is exactly the psychology & sociology I had in mind when I chose to put my photo on my main page as a random photo. Up until last year I did not have my photo on the main page of my blog, I resisted that for a long time. But a few people - some strangers, some friends - some women (not just lesbians either hehe), actually suggested that it's nice to be able to put a face to written words. And I agree with that. It's the reason me & my pen pals years ago used to send each other photographs of ourselves.
But on more than one occasion people have remarked about how I look so vastly different from photo to photo - I would've had a difficult time choosing one photo to represent me even temporarily. I look different in every photo because I look different from year to year, and sometimes day to day.
So I went with a random photo generating cgi script.
So when you visit my page for the first time, or repeatedly... you might see a photo of me as a small child in a bunny suit, me looking quite goth, me in a hard hat & overalls, me looking sultry, or me on top of a pyramid in Mexico... and you might see me with one of my friends, or a few of my friends... I think that's telling to, I have a lot of friends that are important to me.
And there's a reason I don't hide the photos from the year that I was 50lbs overweight because of gallbladder disease. I was not ashamed of my weight then, and I'm not now. Nor do I think anyone else should be.
And if someone were to decide to visit my blog based on my 'style', or who they would like to believe me to be, might wind up a very confused person, very disappointed in me, or with the wrong idea, on many occasions.
It was my agenda with the random photo... To forcibly prevent strangers on the internet from slapping a label on me, and to make it very hard for anyone to come up with assumptions in their mind just because they visit my site regularly.
It's not difficult to get to know me, but I'm not going to make it easy by handing you my ego on a silver web site platter. Because I am not my ego, after all. And I think it's a tragedy that it seems all too common in my nation's current culture for people to build their self-esteem from the outside in.
You will not define me just because you like who you think I am or who you want me to be. And that probably explains my fear of celebity... being controlled.

Catherine, you don't need to apologize to anybody, or explain yourself. But I'm sure you likely know that.
You've come across to me as observant, smart, and not at all inappropriately judgemental.
And you've been civil and empathetic to those who disagree.
I didn't see you draw any pat conclusions... you just started a discussion on a very relevant and interesting topic, with a very entertaining post.
If that's not flair, I don't know what is. ;) haha. I don't have any idea what you look like, or what your political views are or what you're lifestyle is about, but I already like you more than I ever liked Beyerstein. :)

well, i did accidentally say (poor phrasing) that beyerstein was using her looks to her advantage, so i don't think it was too far a leap to assume i was blaming her for trying to boost her readership by posing for a sultry photo or whatever - even though i really meant to only talk about the fact that i think she's more successful *because* she has a photo, not that she was trying to lure readers in with a photo in the first place. kriston is right that i have no idea about her intentions, and i doubt the reason she put up a photo was to gain popularity. it's just my opinion that a photo has resulted in more readership than she would have had without one.

but you have to admit a LOT of her male readers are creepy. a comment from her most recent post: "Google should give you a 10 out of 10 for looking amazing in a Johnny Cash shirt."

Well, that's my point, that none of us know for sure what her intentions are, and I hardly think it even matters at all.

"Google should give you a 10 out of 10 for looking amazing in a Johnny Cash shirt."

How did she respond to that?

How would you respond if you were in her shoes, catherine?

How does anybody else think she should respond to that?

i think she ignored him, which as far as i can tell is probably the best way to deal with commentors who say things like that.

See, now I would actually most likely delete that comment.

Because if I got that kind of comment on my web site, I would most likely conclude the person was using the content of the post and referencing Google in the comment, as a sort of sneaky manipulative way to make an off-topic objectifying & belittling comment, which detracted from the content of the post, in my opinion.

I would feel that leaving the comment there would be "accepting" it, and inadvertantly inviting more such comments - indeed, more such readers.

It would be different if it were a joke made by a regular visitor or friend, along with a relevant comment. But it wasn't from what I could see.

look - chloe answers for me well when she says that mentioning all three of those women have pictures of themselves on their front page is nowhere tantamount to me saying their content is the same.

But you did intend to lump them all in the same category. Otherwise, why run them together like that? Look -- "Hot Abercrombie Chick" is explicitly, openly pandering to her male readers, and she's a complete idiot. Michelle Malkin is an honest-to-god fascist and a completely loathsome human being. How could sandwiching Beyerstein between those two be anything other than an insult? And you can't squirm out of it just by saying, "Oh, gosh, I never meant to say their content was the same..." Oh, please. How naive do you think we are, exactly?

Clearly, I don't know what you look like, but let's say for the sake of argument you've got blond hair. You'd probably be pissed if I mentioned you in the same breath as Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham -- even if I said, afterwards, "Oh, I didn't mean to compare the content of Catherine's writing to those two, I was just talking about blond female pundits."

i really didn't mean to criticize anyone who decides to put their photo up on their page, but i guess my statements thus far have come with some implicit disapproval.

Gee -- you think?

but is it unfair of me to call on it when i see it happening?

I don't know about "unfair," but it certainly comes across as petty and vindictive. Look, the "point" that you are making -- that attractive women have it easier than unattractive women -- is completely obvious to anyone over the age of two. It's still lame to go around trying to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the accomplishments of attractive women who are in fact smart, talented, etc.

Recently, you linked to a story about Maria Schneider, who won a Grammy this year for her record "Concert in the Garden," available exclusively through her website. Maria's a very beautiful woman who has glamorous shots of herself on her website and on her album covers, and wears attractive clothes when she performs. Would she be as successful if she weighed 200 pounds and had bad skin? Obviously not. Everyone knows that, including her. But she's a very good composer, and she's worked hard to rise to the top of a male-dominated profession. She's overcome obstacles that male jazz musicians never even have to think about. So it would be really, really catty to write an article about Maria Schneider's Grammy win that said: "It's ten times easier for a woman who prominently features her hot photo on her album covers to become popular in music. Witness: Britney Spears, Maria Schneider, Ashlee Simpson.... "

as for atrios - what the hell? no one is going to eschaton for pictures of duncan black.

Er, yes. That was my point. For years, no one knew who Atrios was -- whether he was male, female, black, white, etc. -- but people still flocked to his site. And, as I said, his site is mostly a collection of links, without a lot of analysis. That suggests to me that a lot of people like that "link central" style of blogging -- after all, pointing people to important (interesting/amusing) stories around the web is a valuable service. Other Koufax nominees in the same category as Beyerstein (Suburban Guerilla, BradBlog) have even less original content than her. So complaining "Why's Beyerstein so popular, she doesn't have as much original material as I like" is missing the point -- you may prefer fewer, longer posts with original content, but that's not necessarily the model that most blog readers prefer. In fact, the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

do you date lindsay? can you in any way be objective?

my only point is that lindsay would not be as successful or well-known without her photo. i do not think she is using the photo to boost readership; i do not think she is pandering to male readers; i do not think she is in any way similar to malkin or HAC except they are attractive women with photos prominently displayed on their web pages. if lindsay started an anonymous blog without a photo and achieved as much acclaim, i'd be SOL. but it's a hypothetical that nobody can prove, so i can't see what there's left to to argue about. i think she's become well-known due *in part* due to her photo, you apparently think she gets readership due solely to her writing. i have read through a few months of archives and found some good posts, but really nothing amazing. i'm sorry we disagree on the subject, but it's a matter of opinion and there you go.

i'd also like to point out that i'm not complaining about lindsay's nomination or popularity - my whole point was just to acknowledge the phenomenon that it's easier to get traffic in the blogosphere if you're an attractive woman with a photo on your home page. this doesn't reflect on lindsay; it reflects on the blogosphere and its sexual identity or whatever. and it's just the way it is.

i think she's become well-known due *in part* due to her photo, you apparently think she gets readership due solely to her writing.

Actually, no. I never said that, and you're putting words in my mouth. If you read my post again, you'll see that I agree with your (mundane and obvious) point that attractive women have certain advantages. That was the whole point of my discussion of Maria Schneider. That doesn't mean it's right to pedantically point out that someone's attractiveness might have contributed to their success every time they obtain even some small measure of recognition. Especially when that person is clearly (at the very least) competent at what they do. (We object to this kind of behavior when people gripe about affirmative action, don't we?)

You admit that Beyerstein isn't a waste of bandwidth like the women you likened her to -- just that you personally happen to think she's overrated. Well, there are lots of Koufax-nominated bloggers whose appeal eludes me, but I'm not going to go lumping them in with Instapundit and Jonah Goldberg. Not only would that be unwarranted and classless, that's also kind of contrary to the whole spirit of the Koufax awards, and the leftie blogosphere in general.

well, i'm sorry if i've offended you or your girlfriend. one of your main problems seems to be that i've listed lindsay along with HAC and malkin, but if i knew of any other competent liberal female blogger that displayed a sultry photo of her on the front page, i'd have included her, and if you can point me to any, i'll happily edit the post to reflect that (and not that this is relevant, but i didn't post about maria schneider, my boyfriend did). my original point was, like i've said many times, that i wanted to highlight sexual politics and identity in the blogosphere as shown by the fallout that occurred when libertarian girl was shown to be a fake and not a beautiful woman; the other ladies listed were just offhand examples of people who have seemed to create a cult of personality based in part on their looks that they voluntarily highlight on their sites. and being attractive in the blogosphere is very different than being attractive in real life - one of the main wonders of the blogosphere is that people can deal with you on an intellectual basis, on what you write, on your thoughts. when one chooses to introduce his or her looks into the equation, that and the ramifications are interesting to me. i certainly don't condemn it - this was originally a photoblog, and there are pictures of me all over the archives, and i still post photos of me and my friends. i just choose not to prominently place a photo of me on the home page, and when one does it, i think the choice to do so, the way it changes the content of the blog or the blog's personality, and the reactions of readers can be fascinating. but again, i'm sorry you've found everything i've said to be so offensive (though i can only imagine that lindsay is amused at the enormous amount of time spent on this conversation).

thad, I think you're being a little uncharitable. Catherine's point isn't just the "(mundane and obvious) point that attractive women have certain advantages". It's that the blogosphere serves to illustrate and quantify the point in somewhat unique ways. The Libertarian Girl phenomenon is as close as you can get to taking a writer, turning him into an attractive girl then turning him back and observing how his work is received. Is that photo just what gets folks in the door, or is it the reason they were staying?

Well, I'm sure the answer varies from writer to writer, but I think Catherine's point was just that -- whatever the specific answer -- majikthise is subject to the phenomenon.

I also don't find Catherine's specific observation mundane; it's a new and interesting phenomenon that happens to fit under a very mundane umbrella. But I think it's overreach and incorrect to assume that anywhere a picture of a girl may be found, the Libertarian Girl affect holds to such a degree that other factors need necessarily assume the back seat. Catherine says that Majikthise wouldn't be as popular if she didn't have her picture up, and I don't accept what I think is a legitimate example of confirmation bias on Catherine's part. Not only is Majikthise in a league apart from LG, so are her readers, whose comments are usually topical and informed. There's an important right/left divide that Catherine doesn't seem to be considering—a blogger who posts a cute (read: glossy) photo and then streams rightwing garbage is likely to find rightwing jerks; a blogger who posts a cute (read: happenstance) photo and then streams intelligent leftist material is likely to find far fewer jerks of the same caliber. It's not about the photo, it's about fishing for jerks.

no, i of course don't think that majikthise is popular due solely to her photo. nobody would keep reading her if she spouted crap. but in my opinion, i do believe that if she were have started up a blog without any photo, it would not be as popular. you mentioned earlier that she's become even more well-known lately because of wolcott linking to her, but did you even consider his commentary when he did so? it was in part about her image. would he have thought it worth his time to link her (or even found her in the first place) if that photo hadn't been there and he couldn't refer to her as a sulky punkette?

i agree that there aren't nearly as many sexist jerks on the left side as on the right, but i don't think it's a huge stretch at all to claim that, subconsciously or not, some (not all) of majikthise's readers are influenced in their perception of her by the photo.

Kriston: There's an important right/left divide that Catherine doesn't seem to be considering

Catherine: i agree that there aren't nearly as many sexist jerks on the left side as on the right

Ahhh... now here's an interesting debate. I disagree with both of you. I think we lefties are every bit as easy to manipulate with sex; it's just that being sympathetic to feminist principles makes us a) deny and explain away this biological inevitability in high-falutin' language and rationalizations and b) less likely to express our our approval of, say, a woman's decision to have large breasts.

yes, but being manipulated with sex is different from being sexist. at least more lefties seem to realize their inclination towards biological sexism and try to keep it in check and not say totally rude and gross things to large-chested women or whatever. so i think that qualifies as being less sexist.

i do believe that if she were have started up a blog without any photo, it would not be as popular.

As I've said before, that's almost certainly true. The question is how much of a difference that makes, and whether it's fair to zero in on that one variable to the exclusion of all others. In the case of Libertarian Girl/Hot Abercrombie Chick, the blog photo is clearly the single most important factor. In fact, the blog photo was clearly selected to be the deciding factor. But that's because those blogs are clearly lacking in any other merit. You've already admitted that that's not the case with Majikthise.

Now, let's say (for the sake of argument) that I posted something about how things are ten times easier for Matthew Yglesias because he comes from a wealthy and well-connected family, and has all the advantages of being tapped into the Dalton and Harvard old-boy networks, how he parleyed those connections into a cushy job at The American Prospect, how if he blogged anonymously he wouldn't be nearly as popular, and how there are tons of more-deserving anonymous bloggers out there who don't get Matt's level of traffic because they lack the imprimatur of institutions like Harvard and TAP.

Now, I don't actually believe all that stuff about Matt -- but let's say I did. How do you think I would come across if I actually posted something to that effect? Especially if I compared Matt, to say, Paris Hilton?

thad, i'm sorry, but you only seem intent only on proving that i am a "petty", "vindictive" person for having stated my opinion that your girlfriend's blog has had more success with a photo rather than talking about any substantive ideas on sexuality and identity in the blogosphere.

How do you think I would come across if I actually posted something to that effect?

obviously you don't think i come across well, and obviously i can't change your mind. my mentioning majikthise at all in the first place was merely an illustration of a larger point i was making, and i never intended for this thread to become entirely about her blog. i can't reiterate enough that i do not think her content or writing is anywhere near comparable to HAC or malkin, and like i said previously, i would say the same thing about any other competent liberal female blogger who prominently featured an attractive photo of herself.

The question is how much of a difference that makes

that's a good question and worth thinking about, but it also is likely unanswerable. i really would like to hear any ideas you have on why some people choose to put photos on their blogs and the ramifications of that choice, but i don't appreciate comments whose main purpose is to try to make me come across as malicious. i realize you want to defend your girlfriend - i know my boyfriend would do the same - but i think it's too personal for you and it's not allowing you to comment objectively or clearly on this subject, beyond thinking that i'm being venomous.

I, for one, would not be insulted if someone said all these people have the same colour hair... and then mentioned me along with Hitler and whoever else. Why would I be insulted if I do in fact have the same colour hair?

"That suggests to me that a lot of people like that "link central" style of blogging"

A lot of people like Britney Spears. A lot of people think the earth poofed into existence 6,000 years ago.
Just because a lot of people like "link central" doesn't mean a "link central" blog is better. Nor does it mean that a blogger who posts all original content is less intelligent because that's not as popular.

"You admit that Beyerstein isn't a waste of bandwidth like the women you likened her to"

If Malkin and that other Chick are a "waste of bandwidth"... That totally negates your former claim about "link central" blogs. Obviously if so many people visit their sites, they're popular. Obviously a lot of people like them! HAHA.

"In the case of Libertarian Girl/Hot Abercrombie Chick, the blog photo is clearly the single most important factor."

I thought Libertarian Girl was also popular for "her" (his) controversial political opinions. I don't think Libertarian Girl would've been even half as popular if s/he posted nothing but cooking recipes.
And I thought that was your point about Majikthise?
Same argument could be applied to Libertarian Girl and Malkin!

And Thad, if you find this topic so mundane - why are you posting furiously with frenzied comments on a post about the topic? LOL.

And I happen to think coming to someone else's blog, specifically to insult the content is a lot worse than posting your opinion of the blog on your own blog, as catherine did.

I must say Thad, you're coming across as something of a busy body. LOL.

"i agree that there aren't nearly as many sexist jerks on the left side as on the right, but i don't think it's a huge stretch at all to claim that, subconsciously or not, some (not all) of majikthise's readers are influenced in their perception of her by the photo."

Right... And I, for one, think that just because a guy is liberal, or agrees with my politics, does NOT mean he is free to be a perv, or okay in objectifying a woman.

"b) less likely to express our our approval of, say, a woman's decision to have large breasts"

There's a difference between "deciding to have large breasts" and "deciding to have risky surgery (and all surgery has risks & side-effects) to have large breasts", isn't there now?
Perhaps you don't understand the issue fully, regarding breast enlargement surgery.

That said Tom, I will fully lend my approval to your penis enlargement surgery. ;)

"try to keep it in check and not say totally rude and gross things to large-chested women or whatever"

I wish that were my experience. I know someone who's active in liberal politics who has made remarks about the size of my chest, very inappropriately. And I know a bull-headed Republican who is downright verbally abusive when it comes to discussing politics... and he's never commented on the size of my chest. (And the liberal is in a relationship, and the conservative is single, no less.)

hello. i just wanted to give a quick greeting and tell you i enjoyed reading your material.

government grants

Frankly the Majikthise (what the hell kind of name is that) blog is really, really overrated.

I've seen things she's posted over there, and they are truly infantile in thinking.

Just because somebody has a degree or degrees in philosophy, that doesn't automatically confer genius.

It often means the person is more than capable of spewing b.s.

I've read her stuff about Schiavo (disability activist Diane Coleman would rip Beyerstein to shreds) and about the new pope, and I decided she wasn't worth two s***s to link on my blog.

Accidentally stumbled in here. Interesting,

After checking out majikthise, I can see where, on a scale of 1-10, a big chunk of her posts would rate about a 12 on the bullsh*t meter.

Attitude and posturing are not the same thing as substance. She is an unimpressive, unseasoned know-it-all.

The photo is definitely a drawing card. Don't doubt that she knows it.

The Thad guy ranting on this thread posts over there. Has to be either her man or a wannabe.

Actually the name of this blog might better suit majikthise or a ole buncha blogs. Cheers!