I just wrote about the Harry Reid Smear letter and Rush Limbaugh’s auction a couple of hours ago. Thus far the response has been overwhelming, emails, comments etc. etc.. What is most interesting to me though is who the visitors are. I am obsessed with stats, so much so in fact that I check the server logs after some stories to see what response I get and who is looking. Today I found that within an hour of posting a story about the US Senate I have a bunch of visitors on the site from the US Senate. Now there are also visits from a barrackobama.com and hillaryclinton.com, maybe before it’s done I will have visits from all 41 from Lettergate.
Conspiracy theories are not really my thing but it is interesting to see the interest the US senate has in this story. After all it does make at least 41 of them look very foolish including two presidential candidates. Oh, did I say that? By the way, this is an excellent example of influencing our elected officials.
A quick message to the US Government visitors:
Welcome to Malagent.com - Senator Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton & others, I’m glad you decided to visit and I know my loyal readers would love to hear your views on this fascinating story. If you are one of the 41 Lettergate Signators we would like to know if you are going to match Rush Limbaugh’s donation? Have you ever thought that stunts like this combined with an overall inability to achieve anything meaningful might be contributing factors in your approval ratings?
Lets check out some of these visitors & their agencies. So on with the server logs…
We have a lot of hits from the US Senate today, make sure and check out some of the search terms used on these as well to show you (a good idea of) who is looking up the info. One can’t blame a politician for checking the blogs about them - particularly when they have an approval rating lower than President Bush, who most Democrats call the “worst president ever.”
(Update 17:00) It’s interesting to note times of visits and links clicked compared to comments posted on the article. If you see anything worth noting please comment below.
(Update: 18:05) OK, that did not take long for me to make someone mad. Sorry, but I have had to remove some images with “potentially identifying” information on them. I will post what I can soon.
(18:30) Images are back after minor “sanitizing” (don’t you just love lawyers?) I had to omit a couple of minor things that could lead to “specific computers” at “specific times” in order to avoid what could be “uncomfortable discussions” - So that’s what I did.
Say what?