Too Obscure...

The problem is, as far as I can tell, taking the piss out of things which despite deserving it, are far too obscure. I should provide a link I suppose, but as the site I'm having a swipe at sees web hits as not only legitimatising what they do, but also giving it a sense of authority. I don't see any reason to feed their egos. Of course this veneer of legitimacy is ultimately undermined by the execrable horseshit which fills their site. Nonetheless I'll be damned allowing even the minuscule traffic a link from AS1967 could generate to contribute to their delusion. 

And this is the thing now. Many websites, not just those run by aggrandising amateurs like the one I've referred to above, equate "hits" with "authority" and "legitimacy". This is especially true of those related to newspapers with declining circulations. One Belfast based paper now, to all intents and purposes, runs its printed version as a teaser for the online version. Were once they sold 120,000 a day they now sell less than half this. Now newspapers have always had their influence ascribed by their circulation. As their readership declines, so (and I think rightly) their relevance declines as well. They can no longer claim to speak for "the people" if "the people" don't bother their holes any more buying their publication. And it's the "buying" which is important. In a previous post I suggested that whoever came up with a level of engagement less than pressing a like button would be a billionaire seconds later. If you buy a newspaper you are making a conscious decision to engage with it. If you accidentally surf to a page which happens to be related to a newspaper, or look at a link to one story then frankly you are not engaging with anything. 

Web hits are not, regardless of how much they howl to the contrary, equal to paid for circulation.