Like the story of the 3 bears, me thinks you blog just about right. Once a day?! hah. Not nearly enough.

Also, the riders deserved to win.

You don't post enough. Please post much, much more.

Heh - at least noone will ever accuse you of making Mistake #7.

It sounds like a failed blogger to me. Keep posting as much as you want; we love it.

But he's a smiley dude, you must listen to him.

Kate, you do a fine job, far superior to most and we love your blog. After all you are the climategate champ. I know there is a lot going on but you are right up there , 'firstest with the mostest' getting out the details we are all looking for.
Thanks, Kate. After all, you can post what you want whenever you want. It is YOUR blog!
And we love your for it.

Kate,

Sorry to point this out but you have been doing it wrong all this time.....15,208,940 X wrong!!

Well done!!

The problem before all of us in the conservative blogosphere is not the quality of blogs, there are plenty of good ones. The problem is rather that they go largely unread by the 90% of society that needs to clue in about the realities of the world around them.

As a result, many of us spend large amounts of time talking to each other day after day. But few of us spend any time talking to people who are not already conservatives. Granted, most large blogs and forums have a handful of liberals which creates the illusion of a "dialogue" or even a "confrontation." This is about on the level of the homeless guy giving the banker the finger at lunch time.

We should not kid ourselves; there is another step that needs to develop from the internet blogosphere. When I read conservative blogs, I sometimes get the impression that things are "just about to change" on climate change, or free speech, or multiculturalism illusions, but in reality, society is pretty much the same largely liberal asylum it was before the internet gave us this opportunity.

I blame nobody for this. It's an extension of a more subtle problem, the internet has created a false economy. People do things for nothing on the internet. They then compete to some extent with people who get paid a lot of money to do (in some cases) more shoddy work -- in journalism, in economic analysis, in weather forecasting, these rather odd economic disparities are cropping up all over the place. Add the wild card of lawfare and SLAPP suits, and you have the even stranger economy where you pay to work.

Clearly this can't work, to have truth filtering out of society into some sort of black hole where only randomly selected individuals are aware that the black hole even exists. If you don't believe me, try asking your non-conservative neighbours, co-workers or family members what they think of climategate or deceptions of famous figures in the field of climate change. They won't have a clue what you are talking about. And chances are, they will spend less time on the internet than you, and much less if you subtract personal e-mails, facebook, personal banking or whatever does not provide analysis or insight.

My observation is that social liberals don't go to independent blogs and forums very much, they go to mainstream media news sites, which is pretty much the same as watching TV. If they do go to a liberal blog, they just get repackaged mainstream media news and opinion.

We don't really need a lot more blogs, we need a lot more accountability of elected politicians to deal with the issues that the blogs have talked pretty much to death over the past five years.

I don't think this will change until some prominent bloggers have some sort of political success, elected to parliament or provincial legislatures for example. Otherwise, there would be nobody for the blog readers to contact to get their concerns dealt with, when you try to contact traditional politicians who take their cues from the mainstream media, you just get a blank silence because they have no clue what you mean when you say "climate fraud" -- I mean, don't the "leading experts" agree on this? That's what it says in the paper. At that elite level, thinking processes have not changed much. Sure, a few backbenchers might read the blogs and forums. But if they are caught doing it by more powerful political figures, they will be dismissed as cranks and they will stay on the backbenches.

You make some good points, Peter. It is tough for those of us in the base.

I want to be Prime Minister of Canada one day, who wants to help?

Black Mamba beat me to it!

#7's not a problem. In fact, Kate, I don't think you need this guy's advice at all!

Peter O'Donnell: "I don't think this will change until some prominent bloggers have some sort of political success, elected to parliament or provincial legislatures for example."

I was thinking about this just the other day, wanting to propose Kate for PM, knowing, however, that she'd probably consider running for any public office as a fate worse than death. I imagine that most other bloggers would feel the same way.

Too bad.

Better watch out, your traffic may plateau or even begin to drop!

He seems like a nice enough guy, but I did find some of his "mistakes" amusing.

First off: who?

Second: the LAST thing we need are more politicians, even (esp) those we deem to be on our side.

Politicians are the problem. Lawyers are the problem. We need to change the CULTURE. We need artists, painters, actors, directors and yes, writers.

Electoral politics is a corrupt money sucking scam and a waste of time. Anyway, the real power in govt is in the hands of the unelected bureaucracy, and in the NGOs and special interest groups who pressure them.

We need to ignore them all, give them no respect or power over our lives, and create a new everyday culture. Part of that culture IS online and Kate is helping build it.

You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

Kate, you post just the right number. Please don't change anything!

Kate, the only other thing you need to do is make it a 48 hour day, rather than the 24 hour day we now have, so that we can keep reading the material and attempt to pass on to the 90% of society that Peter is talking about.

I would suggest that anyone from Saskatchewan should post no more than 12 entries per day.

Thirteen would be one too many .... if you get the drift of what I'm saying.

Kate, I'm sure you could find some of the IPPC scientist that could work out the data to show even though your posts are up that they are actually decreasing at a rate that you will be out of existance if we don't start reading less.

Nothing more annoying than an Ex-spurt giving their unwanted opinions.
I notice he begins with "Assuming you want to"... he who assumes....

Peter: I also think you bring up some good points, but I agree with Kathy that, bottom line, it's a cultural shift that has to occur.

Kate and Kathy, each in their own hilarious but serious way, gather and provide commentary upon much of the information ignored or downplayed by the MSM (with plenty of assistance by many of their invaluable regulars), and their massive traffic stats reflect how good they are at what they do (notwithstanding that dude's 'good blogger' criteria).

The way I see it, we the people (regular news surfers, other bloggers, lurkers, commenters, etc.) are then responsible for: spreading the good word to friends and family (people who will actually listen to what you have to say), writing letters to newspapers and contacting editors (forcing the MSM to acknowledge their omissions and ignorance, deliberate or not), contacting politicians (ditto), grassroots organizing, etc.

Obviously we all have lives with only so many hours in the day. But every little bit helps.

I come to SDA regularly, contribute what I can, and always enjoy the illuminating commentary. I then try to do something constructive with what I've learned. While I wish it were otherwise, the culture isn't going to change overnight, but it is indeed the culture that we need to change.

Elections matter, but they matter less the further right we pull the centre. (Kate WOULD make an awesome Prime Minister though. She could then appoint Kathy as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.)

Surely you're referring to this:

Quote "Mistake #2: You post too much. Yes, this is possible, too. I don’t need to hear from anyone more than once a day—unless it is a group blog or a news site. You would do better to focus on writing one really great post a day rather than several mediocre ones. The trick is to find your frequency sweet spot. For me, it is four to five posts a week." end quote.

"...UNLESS IT'S A GROUP BLOG OR A NEWS-SITE...." and that's the key.

Anyone who does not consider your site a news site, isn't reading it or following the links.
It's also what drives the Lame Stream Media nuts.
We get information here that is hidden or skewed deliberately by the so called professional media.
(Remember Dan Rather and how he was outed?)
Just keep it up Kate. When I want fluff I read the paper or watch television. When I want what's important with inciteful and often humourous feedback I hit the SDA icon.
Last week I cancelled my subscription to two newspapers. I simply don't need their BS anymore. And I will be no less informed.

Well, I don't think you post too much. My own posts tend to be longer, though I've done fewer, at a rate of 4,300 or so since 9/05...

Can't hold a candle to you in terms of comments, I must admit...

Please post as much as you want 'Kate'.

Who he?

The analogy of house party host is perfect. You neither superimpose yourself nor neglect the guests. Kate is doing extraordinary hosting at SDA.

Frequency is not the thing with a blog, content is. If you post once a day and your posts are boring, then you're posting too much! Generally I've found the posts on this page of interest to me, therefore no amount of posts is too much. Content, content, content!

Kate, you are more qualified to write that article than he is.

"We don't really need a lot more blogs, we need a lot more accountability of elected politicians to deal with the issues that the blogs have talked pretty much to death over the past five years."

Yes,and we need to contact our politicians regarding important issues,like "Climategate", send them the links their staff can check out and report to their boss.

I E-mailed my MP on "Climategate",heard back from his office the next day. E-mailed PM Harper,heard back from his office two days later. A friend of mine works for an MP, and says that E-mails are ALL read and reported to the MP by staff. They DO carry some weight.

This article, like any other providing a "checklist", has rules that pertain to some,not all. Just like the flu, because you don't have every one of the symptoms doesn't mean you don't have it.

Regarding SDA, this is like the coach of a Peewee team giving advice on hockey to Scotty Bowman.

SDA obviously works,and as they say,"if it ain't broke,don't fix it".

Some of the more amateurish bloggers,though, would do well to heed some of the "rules".

Frequency is not the thing with a blog, content is.

True. Content is most important of all.

One can do one post a day or five or even more, and I've found that one's readers will be fine with it as long as one's content doesn't suffer regardless of number of posts. Those of us who can type fast can manage more posts, obviously, long as we've got the right stuff to write about.

Guess I'm doing ok, with steadily rising visitation stats.

That is a well-meaning post but is written to meet 'lowest common denominator' thresholds. I haven't read you since last Wednesday but still find there isn't enough new stuff. I like your voice.

I agree with Peter but definitely use a lot of material culled from Kate's climate posts and links to give pause to some of my seemingly intelligent associates that drank the AGW koolaid. Because he is right: 90% of your associates aren't aware of any scandal, do not question the science and really don't want to talk about it.

The blogs and the tea party participants are the front-line in protecting conservative American values. We need to join in. I'm currently attempting to gain a footing in the local GOP. I've been ignored by the county bureaucracy [even while they call me for contributions] but have a big stick I'm getting ready to wield as it relates to my company's standing in the community. I'm getting active even while it's much preferred to spend spare time walking the dog and reading. The time for action is now. who's going to join the fray? It has to be us.

Please indulge an old lady for patting herself on the back: I've been challenging the lame stream media for over 30 years and, occasionally, had my letters to the editor printed, though more often than not, not printed.

The blogosphere has helped me maintain my sanity. When the only way to contact the MSM was by phone (I called the CBC a lot) or by a letter to the editor, it was discouraging to realize that more often than not one was excluded from the media loop, no matter how articulate or informed one was. In fact, the more informed and articulate one was, the more excluded one became.

Being able to share my opinions and benefit from others who are more informed and articulate on issues important to me means a great deal. And of great satisfaction to me is to see the great and mighty MSM toppled by its own elitist arrogance and self-importance.

Thanks guys at SDA! And, of course, thanks Kate!

Curmudgeon
[...It sounds like a failed blogger to me.]

Yeah...really...

I can't play bagpipes but I can identify expertise just by listening.....but I would rather read Kate than read this self-appointed X-spurt.

Mr. Hyatt would appear to be one of the expensive media consultants the MSM has been using to such good effect of late.

Meh....

Over the course of the last 5 or 6 years I've read a number of articles by differebt people who think they have some special insight as to what makes a blog good or not.

Some of them even tried to justify their opinions by how long they'd been involved with the pastime.

None of them seemed to have anything earthshaking to say.

In the case of Hyatt I'd say The Phantom has his number.