79

Wine,Wine Blogger,Wine Business,Wine Writer

The 10 Most Important Wine Bloggers in the US, Paul Mabray Inspired

The most important thing to remember with any list is that it’s subjective to the author, and it’s limited by that person’s experiences. I’ve heard a lot of scuttlebutt about Paul Mabray’s 9 Most Important Wine Bloggers in the US list since it was published; and it’s a good list, based on his experiences and relationships.

And, as with any list, it’s not so much who is on the list; but rather, it’s about who’s not on the list.  That’s always the way it’s going to be. You can’t please all of the people all of the time, and a list is a sure fire way to have that prove itself to be true.

When I saw the title, like so many others, I was curious to see what Paul’s perspective would bring. There were very few surprises, as I had hoped it would be. The one hiccup for me was to find someone only blogging for a year on the list as being listed as one of the most important. That’s a subjective addition, in my humble opinion. People’s worth is developed over time, dedication, experiences, connections, and reputation. A one year blogger is a great addition, if listed as such, but would all of us see that as one of the most important as Paul Mabray has? Not really… but it’s Paul’s list and it’s his party. That’s the beauty of it all. It’s one man’s perspective, with brings me to another opinion.

One man’s perspective about men, that is… There are no women on this list… Not one.

Now, I’m sad after so many years of being a woman’s libber. Sigh… that there isn’t one woman who jumped out, as I can think of several who offer leadership from one area or another.

I decided to try to better understand his list, too, by getting some available analytics (on www.compete.com) for his people. I need to prove to myself that he’s not only got some established wine bloggers, but he’s also got some up and comings, as I saw it. If a wine blogger’s been around a while, s/he’ll show up on this site. The date for this numbers gathering was 1/20/12. I’ll list them from the highest to the lowest.

  1. Jon Bonne – blog.sfgate.com/wine~ 610,929 unique visitors for the month. (Remember, this is a newspaper, so the numbers will be exorbitant as compared to an independent blogger. Jon has a built-in audience, and someone else will inherit those numbers when he moves on.)
  2. Eric Asimov – the Pour (New York Times) ~ 109,804 unique visitors. (Again, this is a newspaper, and the wine blog has been diluted to become food and wine, being called Diner’s Journal about dining, food, and wine, so it’s not really measurable in the same way as a strict wine blog with that singular focus, because Eric moved on from daily blogging.)
  3. Alder Yarrow ~ vinography.com  ~ 12,338 unique visitors for the month. (This one is solid for understanding how many unique visitors do visit his site daily.)
  4. Tyler Coleman – www.drvino.com ~9,252 unique visitors. (Same as Alder above.)
  5. Steve Heimoff – www.steveheimoff.com ~ 3,149 unique visitors.
  6. Tom Wark – fermentation.typepad.com ~1,700 unique visitors
  7. Joe Roberts – www.1winedude.com ~ 1,216 unique visitors for the month
  8. David White – www.terroirist.com ~159 unique visitors for the month.
  9. Lenn Thompson/Evan Dawson aka NY Cork Report – www.newyorkcorkreport.com~ No data found for newyorkcorkreport.com.

PERSPECTIVE from the female point of view. I couldn’t help myself, and had to check out my own numbers as compared to these other sites, because I wanted to see how any female, including myself, fit into this study:

So there, that’s pretty interesting, huh, for all the numbers.

  • The two biggest numbers have to do with print media, which millennials think is dead, so I’ m thinking not-so-fast, guys…
    • Jon Bonne
    • Eric Asimov
  • The next two numbers are bloggers who are seasoned in the short blogging world, but seasoned, none-the-less.
    • Alder Yarrow
    • Tyler Coleman
  • The next group are the average, passionate wine bloggers.
    • Steve Heimoff (Steve’s an established wine writer with Wine Enthusiast, so he’s got a built in audience)
    • Tom Wark
    • Joe Roberts
  • And, last , but not least, are the up-and-comings
    • David White
    • Lenn Thompson/Evan Dawson

I went through this exercise so you could see how subjective anyone’s list is. This way if you’re not on the list (and I’ve heard from several who aren’t), take heart.

Please understand, I adore Paul, and he knows it. What I’m writing isn’t a rag about Paul, it’s a balancing act. I believe in fairness, and with all that I’m hearing, I want to write the yin of the yang. Then, we’re in balance as wine bloggers once again.

Because Paul’s list doesn’t have one woman, there are bloggers that I know who have just as much power and influence from my seasoned deck chair. It’s a male/female world, and I want to bring some lightness to further balance Paul’s group.

I had one wine writer say to me in an upset manner, “You’re not on that list!” Well, I wouldn’t ever expect to be on a list like that, because I take myself too lightly, so I expect others to do the same. (I’ve set my own stage.) Anyone who reads my blog knows that I’m a stream of consciousness kinda gal. Today, it’s dark and heavy and a rant, the next day it’s what we learned in charm school and how to apply it to the wine world.

Before I begin with my Top 10 List (not really one upping it from Paul’s, I just like a top 10), I have to tell you that Jose asked me, “”Who do you see as the top female wine bloggers?” I thought and I thought, and I realized, I don’t have that top, pinnacle person. When I started wine blogging, I was ahead of most of the pack. I knew plenty of women writers, but I didn’t see a clear leader like an Alder or Dr. Vino. I was the only female, wine professional blogging. I had no role models. I set my own course, which I’ve stuck to…a wine journal from a wine publicist. Today, it could be a wine I’ve tasted, tomorrow it could be some issue that’s really set me off. Regardless, it’s from my learned experiences.

I’m NOT going to include those included in Paul’s list.

Tomorrow, the list. I want them to have top billing, not be on the bottom of this blog as a footnote. They’re too important for that, and I do take this list seriously.

 

Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

79 Responses to “The 10 Most Important Wine Bloggers in the US, Paul Mabray Inspired”

  1. 1WineDude says:

    Jo – Respect what you’re doing here but this needs a bit of an intervention of sorts because those compete.com numbers are complete rubbish and are almost useless for getting a sense of total reach for *anyone* on the Internet. The data are off by more than a factor of ten for 1WineDude.com, and I suspect similarly low for the other sites you mentioned. You need a better data source before making any relevant conclusions.

    Not saying you’re not an interesting track here, just that your source of data undermines what you’re trying to do. You’d be better served contacting the sources to get their numbers directly from them (1WD had over 16K unique visitors this past March, for example, and that’s a relatively conservative calculation).

  2. EVO says:

    Jo,
    After 12 years online and stats keeping on my site, I concur with Joe that Compete numbers are suspect.

    There is no solid way of determining traffic to other sites short of access to their logs, but I find that a browser plug-in SEO Quake (www.seoquake.com)
    can give you a pretty good read on a websites stats.
    It includes Google Page Rank, numbers of links Google shows as well as Yahoo and Bing, etc.

    By taking a read on my own site with SEO Quake and comparing it to what I know from my own logs/analytics, I can then use it to get a good idea of any other site’s traffic levels.

    As you point out though, big media site’s will show overall numbers instead of sections so Jon and Eric’s will still show inordinately high.

    EVO

  3. EVO says:

    BTW,
    SEO Quake works in FireFox and Chrome. It did not work in IE when I quit using IE 5yrs ago.

    Also, I’ve no affiliation with SEO Quake.

    EVO

  4. 1WineDude says:

    I should add that we often assume website stats have one “correct” or “true” answer. That is not the case – different companies/tools measure different things, but sometimes call them the same things. So it can definitely be like comparing apples to oranges.

  5. Jo Diaz says:

    Joe,

    Yes, I know. This is one place to gather data, and I did, because it was quick and handy. It know that your, everyone else’s and my numbers are all a bit skewed, so the numbers will improve for us all and that’s a good thing. Still, the face remains that there are lots of people who could be put into any top “Pick the Number” list, and the list is always going to be subjective.

  6. Jo Diaz says:

    EVO, thanks for more SEO number gathering options for readers.

    Another consideration ~ which also adds to eyeballs, but makes anyone’s unique visitor numbers immeasurable ~ are the aggregates that grab our information either in entirety or in a quick paragraph, and further broadens the scope of someone’s visibility.

    And, one more thought… My own site stats put Compete.com to shame. I have triple (sometimes quadrupled) the numbers of Compete. I just used a quick source, as I wanted to move it. It was Easter weekend when I wrote this. I had a lot of family obligations. I’m not trying or wanting to be a journalist. I’m jut journaling my wine industry experiences and observations.

  7. Paul Mabray says:

    Jo,
    Thank you for the kind and thoughtful post. Last weeks post was, unbeknownst to us, the most controversial post we’ve ever made. It spurred lots of vitriol at VinTank and myself. Everything from “why was x, y, z blogger not included” to our lack of diversity to the fact that we included professional writers. Your post is exactly the kind of tempered and thoughtfulness that should come from something that stimulates conversation.

    Our post was meant to be a strong follow-up to http://www.vintank.com/2012/03/hey-wine-industry-youre-looking-at-wine-bloggers-all-wrong/ to demonstrate that bloggers have key influence and “here is a list that proves our point.” We used a very complicated equation with a myriad of factors including traffic but we put the most weight on two key components: quantity of earned media (meaning others talking about the bloggers listed or their mentions in mainstream media) and their ability to cross over to mainstream media to extend reach (like the WA Post with David and Playboy.com with Joe). This was to demonstrate that the phrase blogging should not have the negative connotation of amateur but that a blogger is now just a digital writer using a blogging platform. What resulted (with the exception of Jameson) was a math based list. Perhaps our equation was measured wrong but that was our perspective in building it.

    We wished there was more diversity and bloggers like yourself, Pamela from enobytes.com and so many more were in the top 50. I love that you and others are constructively building your own lists to feature female only writers, or “up and coming,” or writers of ethnicity. That means we did our job and I look forward to all the lists.

    You rock as always and we have nothing but thanks and respect for you, your blog, and your thoughts. Thank you.

  8. Sharon Kapnick says:

    Thanks so much for putting together a list of important female wine bloggers. I look forward to seeing it.

    I was astounded when I saw Mabray’s list without any female bloggers on it. Maybe it’s just part of the larger “War Against Women” that’s going on in this country. It certainly fits right in!

  9. Couple things. Joe is correct in that our own web servers (whoever they are) typically report far higher (10:1) numbers than does compete.com. However, since most of the industry, including advertisers, does use compete.com, that’s the reality we’re dealing with. Right or wrong, compete.com is what is perceived as real. You might also want to check out http://www.prchecker.info. It calculates page rank based on an algorithm. At steveheimoff.com, I’m 5 out of 10. So is 1WineDude. Jo Diaz is 4/10. Vinography and DrVino both are 6/10.

  10. Jo Diaz says:

    My list actually will have a couple of guys, said she, gigglingly.

    It’s amazing that when a list of bloggers gets put together, everyone comes out, isn’t it? And now you know that too.

  11. Paul Mabray says:

    Sharon,
    Apologies but that is ridiculous and your comments perpetuate that this list was made from a bias to exclude women. Instead of more controversy, please contribute positively by listing female wine writers that have the reach of the aforementioned people that have made the list using the key elements we have described.

    As I have stated many, many, many times, I too was saddened at the lack of female wine writers as a result of the math. The writers listed were a result of the math equation which heavily weighted earned media and mainstream media cross-over, not a personal bias. Jo knows me and our firm well and we are fellow “libbers” so your statement is not only inflammatory, but also insulting.

    Moreover, the number also point out another sad fact, that wine writers of ethnicity are not on the list. Does that represent a “war against minorities?” That is just absurd.

  12. Jo Diaz says:

    Thanks, Steve, for the other options and insights.

    My own numbers for that same period that Compete.com and my own Google Analytics shows (they’re very similar, so I know at Google is using about the same methodology as Compete) was Compete-2,077, versus my site analytics via WordPress-11,212. I knew when I posted this, it’s just a snapshot… And as you’ve stated, how we’re judged by potential advertisers. This, too, is why anyone wanting to advertise will ask us about our numbers, versus relying on compete.com.

  13. Jo Diaz says:

    Actually, Sharon, I wasn’t so much shocked, as I was intrigued. I once read a story, and I can’t find it on the Internet anymore (darn), that stated (and I’m paraphrasing for brevity’s sake), men tend to read other men. Women read men and women; we don’t tend to be exclusive, men tend that way more. I think if each of us examines our own behaviors, we’ll find that true.

    Now, does that mean that it’s because more men have those coveted higher, more visible writing positions? Does it mean that women who have used a male pen name got it way back when (or even now)?

    I remember reading a book authored by a woman, and I was so taken by its esoteric content. Then, I read a male review of it and he totally missed the point. Are we – as a demographic – more sensitive and more easily understanding of something with such emotional depth that it might even scare the average (male) bear?

    Who know… the facts remain. Men read men, first and foremost, so it made sense to me.

    I decided to level the playing field… and yet, in my list I have a couple of guys. So, guess what? That story that I read was correct; with the caveat that I flipped it to woman reading woman and – then – men, versus how it was presented in the story.. That women read men and women.

  14. Alana Gentry says:

    Jo,

    You are definitely the right person to post this–you were the first person I thought of when I saw Paul’s list. Not to dis beginners in either the wine or blogging world, we just can’t compete with decades of knowledge and experience. You are the only woman blogger that I can think of who should be in the same list as the the newspaper guys – except you’re an actual blogger.

    I am an advocate of blogging as a genre. Food bloggers, Mommy bloggers and Tech bloggers are respected (by the mainstream media) as bloggers (not writers using a digital medium) as demonstrated by articles written by journalists that feature and refer to them as “bloggers” not writers.

    Thanks for being our leader, Jo.

    Fellow Wine Blogger,

    Alana Gentry aka Girl with a Glass

  15. As others have pointed out, this sites data is ridiculously off. I compared it to Google Analytics reports for 2 sites, and it under reported by as much as 75%.

    That kinda throws the premise of this article out the window, IMO.

    My comments from Paul’s post hold.
    – comparing full time paid giants who have print behind them, like Bonne’ & Asimov as ‘bloggers’ to people who do this on the side mostly isn’t really comparing apples to grapes.
    – unless everyone provided stats reports, there is no accurate way, IMO to really measure reach. A large social media following does not equate to eyeballs on a page. Or vice versa. In fact some of the better wine bloggers, who didn’t make it here, like RJonWine I suspect are greatly under reported.

    We can keep making up lists – because thats what we are doing: MAKING THEM UP. :)

    Thats also why this doesn’t bother me as much, that women didn’t show up. We all know what an incredible role they play in influencing the industry, and some of the key players, don’t have ‘blogs’ per se.
    You will always rank in my blog world :)

  16. Jo Diaz says:

    Alana,

    Thanks for your thoughtful and flattering comments. I enjoy having the years behind me to have walked into this early on.

    When Wine Business Monthly became on line, and then decided to list wine bloggers as a daily feature, there were 11 wine business bloggers listed… Of the 11, there were their “Top 10,” ) I’d say, plus one more… my blog. And, I was the only female on the list (probably my alpha personality). Also being in the wine business for as long – if not longer than me, the editors knew who’s who at that time. And, there I was, kinda like having a lifestyle section for WBM. And… that’s really what my wine blog represents.

    A little known fact is that I was a writer long before I was a blogger. (The Wine News, Wine Business Monthly, Vine Times, Wine Country This Week, Patterson’s Beverage Journal that’s now The Tasting Panel, and others.)

    I’ve also given up opportunities that have now come to me, because of my wine blogging, simply because I’m too busy as a publicist and advocacy group director with PSILY. I’m so busy that I don’t have time to write for others.

    I make much more money as a publicist, and that’s another primary factor. I would then be doing it for cache, and that’s not what I’m looking for. My blog is an outlet for the stories that I hold within. I don’t want to hold them anymore. It’s that simple… and why I’m not taken seriously as a blogger. I don’t write things that are controversial (mostly), and that’s what drove Paul Mabray’s numbers for wine bloggers. I write what I write, people read it, think about it, and move on. Therefore, my consequence won’t show up in that equation, because I’m not writing and then also looking for engagement. I wonder if that’s a female thing; say it and move on, not looking for the great debate. Mom’s tell their kids what to do (based on right and wrong), and don’t expect a debate. It may all be a gender thing. I really don’t know. I just know that tomorrow a few women will have their moment in time, and it will stay online – frozen in time.

  17. Rojo says:

    I am not a blogger but I work in the industry, been drinking and collecting wine legally since 1970 and I follow some writers. This was a well written and thoughful article. I look forward to your followup list.

  18. Jo Diaz says:

    William, you’re so right, and that’s what I was pointing out… It’s all made up (subjective, as I wrote, to one’s experiences and exposure at the time.

    You’ll always rank in my world, too. :)

  19. Mike Meisner says:

    For Sharon to project Paul Mabray’s post as being motivated by the “war against women” is a bit silly. I didn’t see any underlying motive to denigrate women, or even a hint of misogyny in his writing. Perhaps he should be more aware of the women wine bloggers out there, but it’s quite annoying when people project their own interpretations on you, especially when they’re loaded like that.

    In any case, Compete does give you a decent idea of traffic trends, but is always way off when it comes to actual numbers. Alexa offers decent insight, and so does semrush.com, which shows a nice graph of organic search traffic trends for a site.

  20. Alana Gentry says:

    Jo,

    When I start compiling my list of important bloggers (based on my criteria), it will be interesting to see how many are also professional writers (myself included). Just off the top of my head, my top bloggers are also seasoned writers. I also agree with you about reading habits; I read more women bloggers because I resonate with what they are writing and usually how they write.

    Additionally, you’ve made an excellent point that controversial posts drive re-tweets and interaction (in the whole Internet world, not just wine blogging) thus causing the Vintank list to include blogs that are not relevant to readers of many consumer-centric blogs. Not an issue, just an observation.

    Fellow professional writer and blogger,
    Alana

  21. Jo Diaz says:

    Yeah, it’s great isn’t it, Alana? I see another blog coming out on these issues in the near future on my end. Can’t wait to read your list. (Alpha women, arise!)

  22. 1WineDude says:

    “My blog is an outlet for the stories that I hold within. I don’t want to hold them anymore. It’s that simple… and why I’m not taken seriously as a blogger.”

    Jo, that statement makes NO sense.

    Based on last year’s wine blog awards, I think the exact opposite is true and that you ARE taken very seriously. I probably wouldn’t be commenting here regarding the data issue if I felt otherwise. I also think a good number of people would agree with me in thinking that your articles here carry influence.

  23. Catie says:

    Paul,

    Like Jo, I also adore you. You have been a big supporter of wine bloggers, as well as for me personally you have been a listening ear for my questions and sometimes dilemmas.

    However, I am disappointed that you would answer back to Sharon that her comment/feelings were ridiculous, absurd, insulting and inflammatory. As a woman, I believe that another woman who is questioning a “war on females,” yet being told by a man that her feelings are ridiculous, et al is the last thing she needs to hear – – and possibly confirms in her mind exactly what she is feeling and was trying to point out.

    I’ve been wine blogging for eight years and up until the last two years I have been consistent with 4-5 blogs a week. I too have often wondered why I have never been on a list or even a nomination for an award. I’ve been told that I was too specialized and also no one had ever heard of Walla Walla, let alone their wines. And yet, I have seen men with “specialized awards” be on the lists and given accolades and awards.

    Therefore my conclusion is that since there is no such thing as a “good ol’ boy network,” that it must be just in my “purty little fickle hormonal mind.” It’s obviously then, that my blog must not be of any value to anyone but myself. In the mean time – – I will keep on blogging because I enjoy it.

    C~

  24. Paul Mabray says:

    Catie,
    Thanks for the kind and thoughtful comments (adore you too). Perhaps I owe her an apology for my tone but I am a bit tired and frustrated after the accusations of intent or over-blown meaning to my blog post.

    Again, to reiterate so that hopefully everyone understands

    1. It was math based on two key factors: earned media and extensibility.
    2. We too were upset that no women OR NO OTHER TYPES OF DIVERSITY (e.g. ethnic wine bloggers, etc) were able to meet the math criteria.
    3. This was not a purposeful exclusion of women, minorities, or OTHER GREAT BLOGGERS. This is not an attack on any category, just an objective equation with our subjective math criteria which we have been incredibly tranparent about what we mostly looked at for the list.
    4. If we didn’t put someone on the list it was not a statement of the QUALITY OF ANY BLOGGERS WORK as we are huge proponents of ALL bloggers and greatly value the work of each and everyone of them (our work as bloggers in that context as well).

    Thank you Catie for letting me hijack your comment. Again, perhaps I was too harsh in my tone but to correlate a math based blog as “part of the larger “War Against Women” seems very frustrating to me.

  25. Jo Diaz says:

    Catie,

    V-e-r-y- interesting points.

    1) I’m sorry to have to tell you this… There is a Good ‘ole boys network. Did you catch the Masters over the weekend? Nuf said there…

    2) I apologize. I don’t read many blogs, because I’m either working for clients, running wine grape advocacy groups, loving my children and/or grandchildren, gardening, or blogging. Isn’t multitasking what women do best? So… I’ve totally missed your blog, but now I’ve got to check it out. Forgive me for not getting there a long time ago.

    3) I felt that Paul came on a little too strong, too… I saw it as a communications issue… There’s a great psyche course to take, or a book to read: The Psychology of Effective Communication. The idea is to get your point across in a way that allows for a person to get your point across without having the other person lose face… Guys – I’ve learned – do this to each other… they spar and like to insult… “Your Mom is so ugly she looks like Alan Greenspan after a market crash,” and don’t take it personally, or get emotionally involved. I’m not setting out any apologies or defending anyone… It’s just my age, having sons-in-law, watching one of them with his brother and even at 40, they still wrestle. Men are from Mars, women are from Venus.

    That’s why I didn’t react, by the way. Being in the business of communications, though, this inspired me to write a blog about effective communications. I just had a client who had to write an Email using effective communications, and I explained the method to him. Now I see that it is a good topic that would fall under my “free advice” section.

    Thanks for stopping by… now off to see what you’re up to.

  26. Unless Sharon’s comment was tongue in cheek, I have to agree its a bit ridiculous. Or a Ready Fire Aim comment after maybe skimming a title and not reading.

    I am a huge advocate of women in wine in all capacities, and I doubt anyone would refute their role, more prominent than men, in some roles, IMO.

    The whole point of the Mabry article, was an EMPIRICAL list. Objective not subjective. He never stated that it was his opinion, and I think the constant arrows of disappointment ‘at’ him fail to understand his premise.

    So then what people are suggesting was the Mabry article data should be manipulated until it reports what we want?

    And to be clear, I stated before, and above that the premise for data collection in both of these has its challenges, social media reach measurement may not paint the whole picture. But, odds are it wouldn’t topsy turvy the list.

    So, what IS the real question we should be discussing? Not sure we have put emotion aside and got to the heart of it.

  27. Taylor Eason says:

    Jo,

    I like your line, “My blog is an outlet for the stories that I hold within.” I think very much in the same way, especially since I’ve made the transition from “professional writer” to “blogger”. Since 1999, I’ve been writing consumer wine education columns without the snobbery so tragically rampant in this delicious industry. My, how things have changed…

    Although I still get paid to write about wine, I wonder whether “wine blogging” and “wine writing” is more of a style rather than a professional definition? Or is that the difference — getting paid to write versus just writing? I’m not sure how I’d characterize my website/blog at this point. I garner over 12,000 uniques per month and feel like I “influence” my readers but, at the end of the day, does it matter whether someone is a “blogger” or a “writer”?

    Isn’t it the character of the content that matters rather than the definition of the person who formulates the sentences?

    Go Girls,

    Taylor
    http://www.tayloreason.com

  28. Mark says:

    While there are many useful comments to this blog post, I think Steve’s point is well taken. They may not be completely accurate, but are what is perceived as real. And can we really trust what individual blogs would “say” is their “unique Visits” as opposed to what they really are? I would say that its really hard to verify any of the stats completely as there are always inherit bias and access to source data based on the different blogging platforms. Not convinced that Google’s are any better based on the lack in many of my Google Alerts working 25% as well as they did a year ago. Good conversation. Helps drive traffic to all your blogs. Nothing like controversy for that ;)

  29. Jo Diaz says:

    Taylor, you go girl, too.

    Blogger, writer; some day, it will all be the same… on line writing.

  30. Jo Diaz says:

    Mark, no kidding. After Paul Mabray’s story, my husband said, if you want to drive traffic to your site, write about bloggers. The interesting thing, though, is that the people who usually read what I’ve written have nothing to read today. I’ve opened up a new audience, who will be gravely disappointed after this has run its course, because I’ll simply return to stream of consciousness. (Not their reading preference)

  31. Jo Diaz says:

    William, the real issue I stated right away is that any list is subjective to the gathering process and the gatherer.

    I like to find balance, always.

    Women will generally get into something on a more emotional level, because that’s the nature of the beast. Men will always (also generally speaking) be on the analytical side.

    We each do things differently, and that’s what makes the world go yin, yang round about…

  32. Jo Diaz says:

    1WineDude,

    I just saw your comment about my being taken seriously… perhaps it’s because I don’t take myself that seriously within the wine blogging community, that I wrote: “My blog is an outlet for the stories that I hold within. I don’t want to hold them anymore. It’s that simple… and why I’m not taken seriously as a blogger.”

    I know that it was the female community that nominated me. Without their support, I know that my being nominated would most likely have never happened. (But, I do have to give the panel of judges credit for not throwing my blog out of the running, because I know there were some men on that panel. then, the voting speaks for itself; and Tom Wark WAS my inspiration… so all’s well.)

    I know that I bring credence to the wine world, because I’ve been in it for so long and being the director of PSILY has it’s cache; but I don’t blog with the intent of building credence… I’m simply doing it – from day one – to get out stories that I held inside for at least 15 years… stories that as a publicist I couldn’t put into press releases, but were never-the-less a possible interesting read.

  33. Tom Wark says:

    Sharon and Catie:

    I read this in Paul Mabray’s comment:

    “We used a very complicated equation with a myriad of factors including traffic but we put the most weight on two key components: quantity of earned media”

    In other words, an equation was used to create the list. It wasn’t just an opinion. You can argue over whether the equation is proper. However, nothing about the equation that was used had anything to do with women or men or Hispanics or African Americans or Irish or aliens or animals or puppets…or any other racial, ethnic or gender consideration.

    So here’s what I’m wondering…How is it possible to call this list a slight toward women, let alone part of a “war on women”, when the issue of women never entered the equation?

  34. Reading this post, it got me thinking if I would make it on anyone’s Top 10 Wine Blog list? Maybe Top 20? Top 30 perhaps? This in turn got me to think if was not someone’s Top 10/20/30 wine blog, what am I doing right, wrong, differently, etc.? This finally brought me to the thought, “If these wine blogging ‘big-dogs’ could take a look at my wine blog, what feedback would they give me to help me become a Top 10/20/30 worthy wine blog :) It’s like being picked for school yard kick ball, haha :)

    This brought me to the final thought of how cool and generous that could be for these Top Wine Bloggers of whatever list to offer up something like a monthly post where they could sort of ‘spotlight’ a not-so famous wine blog and offer up some feedback to help give them more tools to move them into more vinously influential territory? Then the other wine blogging ‘big-dogs’ could comment on said post with their additional critiques/feedback … and before you know it, wine bloggers out there have some really neat feedback and actual examples to go off of to help them create better and more valuable wine blogging content?

    I know I would really enjoy reading Paul’s, Steve’s, Joe’s, etc., your, commentary on various different wine blogs that offer some wine blogging potential but can still use some various improvements to propel them into a next level of wine blogging. Not that I don’t enjoy reading Top 10 Wine Blogging lists from all over, cause they always change, but I think seeing something like the above mentioned would provide very useful for us wine-bloggers looking ‘up’ :)

    What say all you wine blogging big-dogs?

  35. Wine Harlots says:

    “Lies, damned lies and statistics…”

    For me, Compete reports 10-25% of my traffic. Alexa? Even my direct report from Google and WordPress don’t mesh together.

    The Vintank report was interesting, but I’m interested in what metrics they deemed important in crafting the report. Gender issues aside, Jancis Robinson and Natalie Maclean wield more juice then some others listed in the report.

    All the best,

    Nannette Eaton

  36. Jo Diaz says:

    I never said it was a slight, Tom (as you may know, if you followed the entire stream, and I’m betting that you did.).

    That said, I do understand how others (women) who are sensitive to having been slighted can take that stand, if they’re feeling that emotionally and you’re wondering “How is it possible.”

    I can’t even begin to tell you what it was like to be one of the first women in a Rotary Club in Maine, after breaking into that all male bastion in the early 1980s… and what the president did to me, trying to break my spirit as the first female board member…

    Or the day some headhunter called looking for “Joe Diaz.” When I said, “I’m she,” the line went dead for a few seconds. I thought to myself, “He’s thinking, Joe, Pat, Chris… you just don’t know anymore.” A month later, a letter came addressed to Pat Diaz to thank me for my time, but I wasn’t the perfect fit. (I had *fits* of laughter, because I didn’t call him…He called me.) I think I’m a pretty good mind reader.

    I’m also a good reader of how women have been put into their subordinate role for so long, I now get how that can pop up in someone’s (woman’s) mind. When you’ve lived it (for as long as we have), you easily get it, regardless of how someone came to a conclusion. It’s almost the first thing that pops into our minds.

    It’s like, if you’ve witnessed an accident at a certain intersection, and the accident left someone dead, you can’t pass that spot without thinking of the day you saw the accident. (I can write this because I’ve witnessed four separate fatalities and can tell you exactly where each one was, and who left the world.) Our memories are like elephants, when a slight has happened, regardless of gender.

    That’s how it happens.

  37. Jo Diaz says:

    Wine Harlots,

    I thought of both Jancis and Natalie, but they don’t blog. That takes them away from the blogging lists, as powerful as they both are… Andrea Immer is another one with clout, as is Karen MacNeil… Again, writers, not bloggers.

  38. Jo Diaz says:

    Vinously Speaking,

    I’d say… Oops, wait a minute, you wrote “Joe…” Oh, sorry.

    (Forgive me, I just couldn’t help myself.) :)

    It’s all pretty funny, with its own serious tone.

    It’s a yin yang world, after all.

    I appreciate you weighing in; and to Tom Wark’s credit, he’s featured a lot of bloggers. Not sure about the current status of that, but he’s done a lot for wine bloggers, including his original blogger awards.

  39. Wine Harlots says:

    Wait.
    So if Janis publishes on the web she’s a writer, but if Jon Bonne does it, he’s a blogger?
    Writing is writing, no matter what the medium.

  40. Jo Diaz says:

    Excellent point.

  41. Mary says:

    Jo,
    Thanks for igniting a good conversation here, and to VinTank to get us to think about this. I don’t consider myself a female wine blogger, but a wine blogger. Add video producer to that, not sure if one word sums that up. Anyway, I think what VinTank reports shows how hard it is to break through the proverbial glass ceiling of wine blogging. The top 10 bloggers (who in my mind are also writers) have been highly rated for a long time except for one or two newcomers (go David White!). I wonder how bloggers at online sites, like Fortune or Huffington Post, where I blog about, are counted. I do think you have to count Jancis Robinson for her leading presence online.
    Cheers,
    Mary

  42. Jo Diaz says:

    Love your Wine Fashionista! Clearly I’m going to have to continue my list to be more than Top 10 after all the bloggers/writers I’m now encountering, because of this blog post.

  43. Paul Mabray says:

    Nannette,
    Thanks for being kind. The filter we used for defining a wine blogger was someone had to be using a blogging platform and could not be behind a paywall.

    The metrics we used to weigh influence and reach are described above.

    Jancis and Natalie are amazing writers but Jancis does not use a blogging platform and is behind a paywall and Natalie, though now a blogger, did not have the numbers against the measurement metrics we set above. Both Natalie and Jancis are friends (and so are you) and they are some of the most powerful writers in the world (both digital and traditional print). I wish I would have made that list instead of the math based blogger list since it would be dominated by women (Karen MacNeil, Andrea Immer Robinson, Jancis, Natalie, Alice, etc, etc, etc).

  44. Deborah Gray says:

    Jo,

    By virtue of what you choose to write about, coming from a place of such authenticity, lack of bias and generosity, is the very reason you should be on anyone’s Top 10 list. For you to say that because your posts don’t have sufficient sustained gravitas or that you don’t always tackle the tough issues should have nothing to do with being considered as anyone’s top blogger, but it’s your humility that makes me want to read and take on board anything you choose to post.

    Look, guys, you can say, with all sincerity and the most genuine soul-searching possible that there is no attempt to exclude women in any given situation and this isn’t proof enough. No man can understand what it takes to be a woman in a male-dominated world, where those of us, like Jo and me and countless others, have endured so much discrimination over the years of breaking through those glass ceilings.

    Where I was the only board member of a company and not one man would address me, and I would be cut off mid-sentence as if I was the uppity secretary who didn’t know her place.

    When I was the President of a company and a client with an appointment would come into my office, see the nameplate on the door and STILL ask me to find Mr. Gray for their appointment.

    When I once tried to buy a sports car as a single woman and shown the cup holders and radio and asked when my husband would be in to negotiate the deal.

    Or the myriad of slights and misogynistic comments and snubs, snide remarks, sexual innuendo or sexual harassment we’ve all experienced many times. I rid myself of the resentment and anger a long time ago, because it no longer served me, but discrimination lives, despite the strides and advances. It just got smoothed over and gentrified.

    So when Paul says he used objective math criteria, but his criteria is stated as: “quantity of earned media (meaning others talking about the bloggers listed or their mentions in mainstream media) and their ability to cross over to mainstream media to extend reach (like the WA Post with David and Playboy.com with Joe)” then I find myself wondering how the ability to write for Playboy is so mathematically objective, and how often do women get offered gigs writing wine articles for Playboy?

    I note that Joe Roberts called Jo’s statistics “rubbish” and proceeded to quote bigger and better statistics to defend his traffic, and Tom Wark said that women couldn’t possibly be offended because we never entered the equation! Yes, gentlemen, therein lies the rub!

    Our problem, as women, is that we’re too darned quick to take a backseat, too slow to defend our own numbers or accomplishments.

    And the poll, however well-intentioned it is, relied only on a male perspective of what was considered worthy. Far better to reference those statistics before the poll, but tell readers you didn’t find that helpful and constructed your own poll taking into consideration the reach, the breadth and the undeniable worth of blogs like Jo’s.

    And yes, I know I’ve now pissed off most of the male bloggers here with my comments, but I hope you can appreciate I did it in the spirit of providing another perspective. I don’t have a horse in this race, since I do not (yet) have a blog worth mentioning.

  45. Jo Diaz says:

    Deborah,

    First of all, you humbled the humble.

    Second of all, you cracked me up… big time.

    Lastly, I wonder how many wine bloggers have run wine business like you have, including wine importing… which is the task from hell, BTW, when you’re first starting out… and have written about it with such depth, practical experiences, and willingness to help others without one care for what might become your competition? (And, I will be blogging about your book very soon, as it’s a fabulous read.) Then, got the book published?

    Guys don’t get what we’re going through, because they haven’t had to live it. It’s like when my husband was trying to tell me what to do when I was giving birth to our daughter Lyla. I finally just screamed at him to shut up. He was on level three, while I was on level five and the baby’s head was emerging. Could he tell anyone what that felt like?… Could any guy? It’s more complicated than a kidney stone, I would imaging.

    LOL

  46. Jo Diaz says:

    Paul,

    Looks like you can blog again about your relationships, when and if the spirit ever moves you. “The Immeasurable Influencers We Know and Love…” Little did you know…

  47. Deborah Gray says:

    Jo,

    You see, not tying yourself to any pesky old label means you are free to blog about childbirth if you want! So liberating!

    And thank you for such kind words. Much appreciated.

  48. Paul Mabray says:

    Candidly Jo, I think I’ll just keep talking and promoting people like you on Twitter instead of writing another blog post. Blogging about bloggers and the subsequent backlash has drained my desire to write about that topic again for some time. Plus I am sure that my Palate Press article and our release of our Winery Social Media Index will keep me busy (they are 10X more controversial – at least I thought – than my blogger post). I need the rest.

    In the meantime, thank you to all the blogger friends that know me and understand my motivations and know that my writing was coming from a place of positive intentions.

  49. Tom Wark says:

    Deborah:

    Are you really suggesting that in order to create a list of the most influential bloggers that gender ought to account for the tiniest piece of the puzzle? Really? That’s what it sounds like. In fact, it sounds like you are saying that any criteria to measure influence, no matter how mathematical, would be biased if it were done a man and therefore would have no authority. Yet you don’t explain how a penis influences an equation looking at blogger influence.

    What to make of Einstien’s equations? He was a man after all. And what of the equations of Maria Goeppert-Mayer. She was a Nobel Prize winning physicist…But she’s a woman, so we have to appreciate her efforts noting that she’s influenced by her gender?

    Mabray’s list was based on some pretty basic criteria, none of which, thankfully, took into account gender and none of which were biased by gender. IF women wine bloggers suffer in any way because of discrimination of any sort, how is Paul’s equation responsible for that. Wouldn’t his equation produce results that reflect that, rather than cause it. It’s as though you want to blame the census taker for the low median income they discover in their census results.

    If you think there is a better way to measure wine blogging influence that would not be biased by the researcher’s gender, then please explain what that measurement process is.

    If you can offer proof that Paul’s equation was biased by his gender, then please do. If you can’t, then man up and offer an apology for suggesting it was.

  50. 1WineDude says:

    Deborah – You’ve totally misread my initial comment. I was pointing out to Jo that the numbers she cited from Compete are wrong (and not just be a little), and therefore undermine the points and expressions that she goes on to build in her post here. They’re likely wrong for EVERY blog that she cites in this post. That’s not being defensive, it’s me ***trying to be helpful***. Bad data is bad data, and building even part of a post around bad data makes the post less legitimate, and Jo is onto some interesting things here that I’d rather NOT see undermined – in fact, I’ve written in the past on 1WD about wine blog lists, awards, etc. and the lack of diversity among the winners/chosen/etc.

    Now, the only way I can prove the data are bad is by **citing numbers I know to be legitimate*** – and the only example I have for that are naturally my own blog numbers.

    If you think you’ve ruffled feathers with your comment, let me tell you that you have NO idea what I’ve been through when airing similar topics publicly… Let’s talk offline sometime about the borderline-racists who were skewering me on my post about the lack of African American influence within the winemaking world… *that* was a baaaaaad day!

    I, for one, sincerely want these memes to be raised, the voices heard, and (hopefully!) some change to result from it all.

  51. 1WineDude says:

    Vinously Speaking – I’m not going to call myself a ‘big dawg’ (hell, I’m 5’5″! :-) but I can tell you that privately, off-line, I’ve spoken to dozens of people (wine bloggers and bloggers in other fields) who have come to me for advice.

    That door is already open – nothing particularly special is needed, apart from the gumption to simply reach out and ask.

    I’d never even thought about it before now, but those following this thread might find it interesting that the majority (something like 70%, by a very rough calculation) of those who have come to me in that capacity were women.

  52. Deborah Gray says:

    Tom,

    I really don’t want to engage in a flame war here, but I do feel obliged to respond since you seem to really have your dander up about this and I feel you have not taken the time to read my post thoroughly.

    I was not suggesting that Paul deliberately allowed male bias to enter his equation, and you’ll note that I did not say that anywhere in my comments, so I really think your penis argument was just unnecessarily inflammatory. (I wonder what Jo’s search analytics are going to look like after this!)

    I took a long time to consider my comments and I made them thoughtfully, despite my “gender bias.” That’s as much as I can do, the same way a man responds to a woman or considers what is important or unimportant – from his own male-based experiences, despite his best intentions.

    I took Paul’s own comments at face value, which I quoted above. He referenced various criteria, including “others talking about” and “their ability to cross over.” Comparing this data to Einstein or Maria Goeppert-Mayer is ludicrous. Perhaps we should talk about the years that Dr Goeppert-Mayer was unable to gain a full professor position because of sexism instead.

    My observations were based on the idea that if Paul were using data that he had decided upon to use, why not conclude it may not be that useful and we should look instead at more realistic criteria. This is not theoretical physics. This is the musings of a wine blogger on how important other wine bloggers are. Not to denigrate anyone in this field, far from it, so please don’t now castigate me for that statement. I’m just pointing out that perhaps we should do more to be inclusive, especially using traffic, influence, how widely read and commented upon, and consider the very real merits of wine writers, male and female.

    When I concluded my remarks noting that I’d probably pissed off male bloggers everywhere, it was meant as a light-hearted attempt to diffuse an attack, not provoke one.

  53. Deborah Gray says:

    Joe (IWine Dude)

    I appreciate your comments.

    I did not mean to throw you under the bus with my reference to the stats. It was 1) a way to illustrate how flawed this data is and 2) perhaps a little to contrast the differences between men and women in the way they react to an issue.

    I feel for you with the racist backlash. Not anything anyone should have to endure, but the price of fame I suppose.

    I’d be glad to talk to you offline any time. We don’t even have to get into race or gender!

  54. Paul Mabray says:

    Deborah,
    Your comments dilute the reality that we have measured over 330 million conversations about wine across 10.5M+ consumers. There is no bigger and more definitive empirical database about wine conversations than ours. I am not a wine blogger nor does my gender influence my math. The insinuation is insulting and Tom is right. Don’t insult the census taker because he is male based on your gender bias. It is an objective math perspective based on Social Media best practices (which are not male generated as a point of fact).
    P

  55. 1WineDude says:

    Deborah – as long as we can also avoid politics, I’m in! :)

  56. Tom Wark says:

    Deborah:

    You continue to imply that there is male bias in Paul’s list. In your earlier comment your wrote:

    “Look, guys, you can say, with all sincerity and the most genuine soul-searching possible that there is no attempt to exclude women in any given situation and this isn’t proof enough.”

    What would be proof, Deborah?

    Further down in your original comment you write:

    “but discrimination lives, despite the strides and advances. It just got smoothed over and gentrified.”

    And then you IMMEDIATELY follow that up with this:

    “So when Paul says he used objective math criteria, but his criteria is stated as: “quantity of earned media (meaning others talking about the bloggers listed or their mentions in mainstream media) and their ability to cross over to mainstream media to extend reach (like the WA Post with David and Playboy.com with Joe)” then I find myself wondering how the ability to write for Playboy is so mathematically objective, and how often do women get offered gigs writing wine articles for Playboy?”

    I know a little bit about how proximity of words and ideas leave impressions. And immediately following up a declaration of the ubiquity of discrimination with “And so when Paul says…” can only leave the impression that Paul’s work is in league with the discriminators you note are still among us.

    Finally, you note that “And the poll, however well-intentioned it is, relied only on a male perspective of what was considered worthy.”

    Deborah, you are implying, if not straight out saying, that the equation and formula Paul used to come up with this list is inaccurate because it is influenced by a gender bias. You make this clear when you explain that you don’t think “Paul DELIBERATELY allowed male bias to enter his equation”.

    Your comments don’t read like someone merely asking that we try to be inclusive because you don’t explain how using this or that metric to measure blogger influence would be inclusive or free of gender bias. Your comments read like someone trying to debase a person’s research merely because it was done by a male. Please offer a gender neutral formula that you think would actually gauge blogger influence if you think Paul’s is so rife with bias.

    If my dander it up it’s only because I’ve actually witnessed the impact of REAL gender bias on family members. It’s only because in a not to subtle way you are unfairly demeaning Paul’s work. It’s only because of the insinuation that there exists real gender bias driving the wine blogging world.

  57. Catie says:

    First of all,

    Paul, thank you for understanding what I read in regards to your response towards Sharon. And FWIW, I totally understood how you came to your conclusion of the top ten.

    Tom, I never said there was a war on women. Those were Sharon’s feelings. My dander didn’t get up about the article or Paul’s top ten conslusions until I saw Paul’s response to Sharon and I felt his response to her was rather strong and perhaps a bit personal.

    Jo, you are forgiven for not reading my blog, but now you know there are at least a few of us who write about Walla Walla (and a woman) other than the adorable guitar playing Paul Gregutt. (Walla Walla who? They make wine?)

    Joe Wine Dude, I do not believe you are 5’5″. I am only 5’2″ and I have always enjoyed standing next to you because I felt taller. Perhaps one of us have been wearing wearing heels?

  58. Deborah Gray says:

    Paul,

    I stand by my statements, my perspective and my opinion. I don’t know whether you and Tom have deliberately chosen to misinterpret me, but I don’t believe you have accorded me quite the same latitude in expressing myself as you did on your blog when the same concerns were addressed by women you knew and liked.

    Let’s just agree to disagree. This is your opinion and this is mine, amid many others.

  59. Paul Mabray says:

    Deborah,
    My list is not opinion but fact founded on 330 million conversations and the algorithm (fan ale KPI based) to derive my results. Your ininsuation that me being a male report uniting those facts is the insult. There is no greater consumer survey than the database of 10.5 million social customers on my list. If that is wrong, it is not me but 10.5 million consumers. I am just a messenger who happens to be male.

  60. [...] The 10 Most Important Wine Bloggers in the US, Paul Mabray Inspired (wine-blog.org) [...]

  61. 1WineDude says:

    Catie – back to data… my doctor’s office measures my height, not me! If you felt taller standing next to me it’s because EVERYONE ELSE is soooo much taller than you are that standing next to a shorter-than-average person makes you feel taller (this is a phenomenon with which I am quite familiar)…

  62. 1WineDude says:

    Deborah – just throw the shovel away… :)

  63. Jo Diaz says:

    Deborah,

    What you wrote to Tom Wark above hit a chord: “This is not theoretical physics. This is the musings of a wine blogger on how important other wine bloggers are.”

    It’s important to mention, to defend your thoughtful ideas… I have a lot of people tell me, including Steve Heimoff years ago, that he’d like to comment on my blog (for number purposes, obviously), but that he can’t because I don’t write to engage most of the time. How can anyone engage in a someone else’s diary?

    Also, when I began blogging, Tom wrote, and I’ve got to paraphrase because I didn’t copy his words at the time, but I remember what it was generally about… He hoped that I didn’t blog more frequently, because I was such a good writer… He saw competition, and it’s okay to see competition. I’m not, however, competition to anyone, because that’s not why I’m blogging. I’m not looking for engagement. I’m writing to unload stories that are worth telling… That aren’t waiting for a book deal, can’t go into a press release, nor are they wanting to have a conversation about some issue. And, I avoid being snarky (as much as possible), because I’m in the world of communications and I’d like to think that anyone looking for a publicist would consider someone thoughtful, not arrogant. Snarky really drives up numbers, but that’s not why I’m writing; i.e., to be the most popular kid on the playground. That’s NEVER been a concern of mine. Being rude really does drive up numbers. People love to get into it, I don’t. I’ll debate if I have to, but let’s just say, I didn’t join the debate club in high school.

    Does engagement mean that someone is more powerful, or does it mean that someone is more communicative? It depends who’s answering, obviously.

  64. [...] Wine Blog » Blog Archive » The 10 Most Important Wine Bloggers in the US, Paul Mabray Inspired. ShareDiggEmail [...]

  65. Deborah Gray says:

    Jo,

    As always, a boldly authentic commentary – and the voice of reason – on the situation, and an important contributor to the wine writing community – heck to any community.

    Cheers!

  66. Paul Mabray says:

    Apologies about the spelling errors from my last comment, I was using the iPhone (damn autocorrect).

  67. Jo Diaz says:

    I wish there was an auto correct for humans. Paul, get busy on it, please.

    Deborah, thanks… It’s the PR person in me. It comes naturally, to find the “reason.”

  68. Why are so many people up in arms over Paul’s list? There have been many lists like this one published over the years.

    Was it nice to be included? Sure, just like it has been nice to win a few WBAs over the years. But here’s the thing — much like wine competition medals, they don’t really mean a whole lot.

    Accolades from other bloggers — even people I respect like Paul — have absolutely nothing to do with how we operate the NYCR. Unlike MANY wine blogs, we don’t blog for other bloggers. The bulk of our readership are folks in and interested in the New York wine industry. We’re a focused, niche blog in that sense.

    Our measurables are a mess because I’ve been lazy, frankly, and have a few different domains pointing to our site at the moment (that will end soon when we migrate to WordPress and get things cleaned up).

    Anyway, to the people going after Paul — what is your motivation, really? Is it not being listed yourself? I sit just to get more (blogger) eyes to your site?

    Maybe instead of attacking Paul, you should spend more time honing your craft — your focus, your writing, your editorial framework — to make your own blog better. And come on, stop blogging only for bloggers. If you ever want to have a real impact with your blog, you’re gonna need to get people outside of the blogging bubble to read what you have to say, to care about it and to take action on it.

    Having 6,000 bloggers visiting your blog a day doesn’t matter. It doesn’t make you an influencer. Having wineries change how they operate or having consumers buy or visit wineries based on your recommendations — now that makes you an influencer. You can’t do that with the same old crappy content that everyone else is producing.

    And you certainly can’t do that by wasting your time attacking other bloggers on your own blog.

  69. Jo Diaz says:

    Lenn,

    Thanks for weighing in.

    Just who is attacking other bloggers on his or her own site? Do you have instances and or examples that you can demonstrate that show an “attack?” I’m lost and need more information.

    Thanks.

  70. Jo,

    I hope you don’t think that I’m — in any way — implying that you are one of those attacking.

    Anyway, I’m not talking about anything specific in this instance, but I’ve been in this wine blog game long enough to see it plenty — though it’s usually in comments and via Twitter etc.

    Paul was pretty well lambasted after his post, agreed?

    LT

  71. Jo Diaz says:

    Thanks, Lenn, for clarifying. I’d rather be safe than sorry, which is why I asked for clarification.

    Yes, blogs can be that “game,” which I’d rather not play. And, it does drive the numbers, which then have nothing to do with the writer’s ability and content… just numbers diving up unique visitors. That’s what made me wonder about Paul’s list in many ways. the people doing the commenting on blogs are bloggers to bloggers, more than – what you pointed out – consumers actually deriving some benefit from the story written.

    This was why I felt the need to take it to my own perceptions, based on my own experiences… just to have a balance between art and science. We need both in life, so no harm, no fowl.

    (When Einstein discovered the atom, he never thought it would be taken to the atomic bomb stage… which was a big energy, but not representing the “little people” energy among us. Blogs are for interaction, by Web 2.0’s designed nature, but the same people writing back and forth among themselves do not constitute a powerful energy that I feel or care about; however, the energy does deserve to be written about, simply because it exists.)

    I didn’t see yesterday’s blog as lambasting… again, the other side of the coin. It’s a man’s world, and I know we can all agree on that. Paul’s list begin devoid of any female content was pointed out, which I also noticed, and then it exploded atomically.

    It was then clarified, “I was not suggesting that Paul deliberately allowed male bias to enter his equation, and you’ll note that I did not say that anywhere in my comments…” Then, it was taken further and became a lot more about emotions versus content, and not really about Paul. We love Paul, he brings A LOT to the table.

    The entire thought process was about having lists is based one person’s experiences. Paul has access to data, and that was what he was presenting…his data gathering. The danger of any list is that there are only 10 (or whatever) slots on it, so from my perspective… more lists are needed. That helps to balance it all out…

    Gender came into it, and everyone had to stand his or her ground. I tried to remain an observer and neutral, because what I wrote for this blog was really neutral.

    My list today, another story. I gave the yin part of the yang. Now I see it in complete balance.

  72. Sofia says:

    great list, awesome resource especially for someone who is new to the wine blogging game to see who the key players are!

    Feel free to peruse the Entaste wine blog http://www.blog.entaste.com – we are a young wine blog, but have had about 1,700 unique visitors this past month and continuing to grow :)

  73. Jo Diaz says:

    Sophia,

    Thanks for sharing your blog story.

  74. There is also Vinously Speaking Wine Blog to add to the list of women wine writers if you would like … written by two ladies, myself and Melissa Unsell :)

  75. Jo Diaz says:

    Ceci, Thanks, I’ll add you to my links for Women Writers… I see a new list developing.

  76. [...] Jo Diaz entered the fray once more with not one but two blog posts about the matter.. The first one analyzes Vintank’s list, (and has 75 comments so far!) and in the second she produces her own list of 10 Women Bloggers and [...]

  77. [...] The 10 Most Important Wine Bloggers in the US, Paul Mabray Inspired (wine-blog.org) [...]

  78. Hard to believe that I am just now reading your post. I also found the metrics on Paul’s post interesting, and noted, too, that not a single woman blogger was on the list. I thought I commented on Paul’s post itself, but may have been so annoyed that I didn’t give it any ink at all.

    My woman lawyer friends and I have a theory – that a man’s penis accounts for 10 extra points on anything for the sheer fact that he has one. I’m amused to find the vitriol directed at your post, although, sadly, I must say I am not surprised.

Leave a Reply

``

CAPTCHA Image
*