i never knew how popular i was until a few tried to prove how unpopular and non-notable i am
the latest test that someone had was to show that i got just as many Google hits as many of the Looney Tunes characters except for Buggs who has 1.2 million and a few others.
(Yosemite Sam has 307,000 Google hits. Tweety Bird has 449,000 Google hits. Elmer Fudd has 430,000)
to disprove that theory someone said oh theres the actor and the soccer coach and they get way more than the dumb blogger
so i went to Google and i put this in there
im sleepy right now cuz i have to go to the Disney Animal park tomorrow early in the morn, but that looks like weeding out most of the other “major” tony pierce’s including the actor the baseball player the Microsoft software dude and several other fellas
i still have pretty close to a half million Google hits.
color me impressed
i know i have some haters out there, do me a favor if you will and put together a better link than the one above so i can see what the number really is
im sure its closer to 400k no way are more people talking about me than yosemite sam.
and im sure you dont want me to spend my vacation with a big head
by the way, its fascinating to me how many of the so-called tough guys over there causing trouble totally shut up when they get called out and enter a discussion of logic
one reason i love Metafilter is if youre full of shit you get called on it and trounced by the group.
you have to base your allegations on facts, you have to link to your theories in some way and no one is afraid of anyone.
at Wikipedia people can waltz into a vote/discussion/witch hunt and say the most outrageous things as if they were facts and people will just let it slide.
one dude posted that I was listed on Google a ton and another guy said to remove ‘blog’ from your search results and “Most results seem to be for ASU coach Tony Pierce”. now what idiot would remove the word “blog” from a discussion about a blogger and whether or not he’s notable?
likewise when challenged about whether or not i have been quoted in major newspaper a guy said
“A quick search of the Dow Jones/Reuters Factiva service shows Pierce has been the subject of articles from the New York Times (27 May 2004) (followed by an echo to the Times-owned Int’l Herald Tribune on 29 May); Reuters (10 July 2004); Straits Times (Singapore) (5 March 2006); Reforma (Mexico City) (2 April 2006); EL PAIS (Madrid) (20 April 2006); Los Angeles Times (16 October 2003, 27 Feb 2003, 12 July 2004, others); Le Monde (25 June 2005); and others”
a differnet guy basically yawned and said “In terms of references, all I’ve seen are passing mentions in articles about blogging, or short interview blurbs used alongside many others. Is there anything specifically about this person?
Hi, im a blogger. its the only reason i was in wikipedia in the first place and the only reason i will ever be in there. if i find the cure for cancer the headline will be Blogger Discovers Cure for Cancer. so OF COURSE the articles are going to be in reference to blogging. and now since my Job is to blog, other than my amazing skills at chowing box, there really arent any other reasons for a newspaper to write about me. pardon me for being committed to the field that i am possibly notable about.
by the way, i do plan on obsessing over this as long as the debate rages on, so if you are getting bored by all of this, feel free to take a short break from the busblog. before all of this i was a big fan of Wikipedia, but now that the curtain has been pulled back, showing the wizard(s), it’s actually really depressing and disappointing and it makes me wonder how Wikipedia’s final product is actually as good as it is.
i know some of you dont believe that it’s good, but for someone who does an hour or more of research for many posts that i write, Wikipedia is either a great place to start or a great place to cross reference for factchecking. also, as far as the writing goes, often times its quite good and concise. unlike your boy who needs to hit the hay.