... I don t have the ego issue either. In fact, my longest show is 1 hour, and I am probably on it all of 5 minutes. I use the show to promote unsignedMessage 1 of 33 , Nov 2, 2005View Source--- Paula Berinstein <pberinstein@...>
> You know, I usually agree with just about everythingI don't have the ego issue either. In fact, my longest
> Steve says, but I
> disagree on this one. It isn't just about ego. It's
> about visibility and
> assessing whether your publicity methods are
> working. I don't check my
> numbers because of my ego; I check them to see if
> I'm doing the right
show is 1 hour, and I am probably on it all of 5
minutes. I use the show to promote unsigned artists. I
say it is 55 minutes of music, and 5 minutes of me.
Not very ego driven. My other show is a half hour, and
I talk about news, and gear for podcasters and
Everybody has their reasons. To generalize as to why
people do certain things, well I find that
egotistical;) But that is just my opinion.
I too look at my numbers at least 3 times a week
though, but I do it to see if a certain way of
promoting my show is working. My plan is not to stroke
an ego, but to see if my show can generate enough
audience numbers to justify any type of financial gain
for myself and the artists. That is the plan for the
future. Right now, it is a slow process. But it is
just what I expected. A slow but sure growth.
Unsigned Podcast Network
The site: http://www.unsignedpodcastnetwork.com/
The blog: http://unsignedpodcast.blogspot.com/
The feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/unsignedpodcast/dmMp
The store: http://www.cafepress.com/unsignedpodcast
Promotion without shame.
Podcast pickle origianlly had a 5 star rating method when we first started. The problem with it was that people would rate a podcast with a bad rating to lowerMessage 33 of 33 , Nov 3, 2005View SourcePodcast pickle origianlly had a 5 star rating method when we first started.
The problem with it was that people would rate a podcast with a bad rating
to lower it. Then by lowering it, they passed it and became a higher rated
On 11/2/05, alex_nesbitt <alex_nesbitt@...> wrote:
> We've been having a similar debate about how to rate/vote on
> We have used overall rating score, number of votes, number of
> inclusions in My Podcast favorites and outbound hits ( all with ip
> limits) to create lists of top ranked podcasts. I think we have two
> (and maybe more) problems with our rankings. First, ratings are
> on a 1-5 star scale and it's hard for a podcast that's been in the
> directory awhile to maintain a perfect score. Second, none of these
> measures take into account the number of days a podcast has been in
> the directory. Old podcasts really get an advantage over new
> for total click throughs and total votes.
> Here's how I'm thinking of changing our overall ranking - we need
> something that considers the curiosity factor (click throughs),
> quality (ratings/reviews), quality of ratings (number of votes ) and
> inclusion on favorite lists. Then we need to make sure we normalize
> for the number of days on the site to take listing age out of the
> So something like clickthroughs/day*weighting factor
> +votes*ratings/day*weighting factor +favorites/day*weighting factor
> What do you think about this idea?
> Digitalpodcast.com <http://Digitalpodcast.com>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]