Analysis: The LGF “Front PageView Effect”

Last week, we exposed an “error” in the way the custom-built LGF page view counter reacted to visitors’ clicks, and touched on a few other causes of page view inflation.  Since then, CJ appears to have corrected the IE problem that I demonstrated in our video (although we’re not convinced that this was the only “bug”), but what remains as the largest culprit to inflated thread page view numbers is the one in plain sight: the “front page effect” (fpe).

First, I’d like to say that we say “plain sight”, because CJ did explain exactly how it works and admitted that it would significantly increase the page view number that is displayed at the top of each thread.  So, while this explanation was buried in the comment section of an unrelated thread, we can’t claim that this trick was snuck in without telling anyone about it.  For the sake of thoroughness, here is CJ’s comment one more time:

Instead, The Boiler Room was naturally curious if there was a way to quantify this effect, and therefore get an idea on the level of bias it adds when comparing page view numbers to all the other websites which don’t employ this technique (and/or when it is used to trash tweet).  Additionally, this kind of data might come in handy if another blogger was thinking about doing something similar. What we found is that this isn’t that hard to do with some sampling and a little statistical analysis. 

For our analysis, here’s what we have to work with:

  • CJ has set 12 threads to display on LGF’s front page (at the time the fpe was announced, it was set at 10).
  • Each front page thread gets a “view” count when the front page is hit.
  • The view counters are observable.
  • Each thread is timestamped to the minute.

We’ve also got some smart and resourceful people here in The Boiler Room, and we can set things up so that the data can be gleaned from automated samples and fed into a database to be charted and graphed.  In short, we can track the reported view increases for any LGF thread from publication until it drops off the front page (and beyond).

What CJ may or may not have realized is that, with just those few things, we can actually get a pretty good idea of levels and patterns in LGF’s front page traffic by simply tracking what happens to these page view counters over time.   Apply a little math and logic, and we can separate the approximate fpe number from the “real” views by applying 2 rules (and these are key, so they deserve bolding):

1. The fpe # can never be greater than the lowest view increase amongst the 12 front page threads over the sample period (except in cases where a new thread is published in between samples and yields the lowest number).  In other words, the increase from the “deadest” thread on the front page contains the highest % of fpe views.

2. The greater the sampling frequency, the more accurate our estimate of the fpe becomes, and the % of fpe views in the increase approaches 100.

For 1, we can’t assume that the lowest view increase # is 100%  front page views, rather that it still may include a few other views that come from click-throughs, referrers, searches, etc., but we know that it will be the closest to the true fpe #.  But based on observation, and knowing generally what happens to views as a thread ages and moves down the front page of a blog, along with the fact that we have 12 threads to sample for the “deadest” and do so frequently, we can say that it’s going to be a very close estimate. 

For 2, we realize that we must balance the effect that our own samples have on the data, as every time we do it we register a front page view ourselves, so we wanted to limit our influence to only 1-2% if possible.  This balance was found taking samples a few times an hour.

So, there you have the methodology.  Take snapshots of the view increase of a thread, and each time subtract the increase of the “deadest” thread on the page, and what you’re left with is the increase that couldn’t have come from fpe (therefore, “real” views).  Make sense?

But, before we reveal the graph and the data, we should ask ourselves: Knowing about this fpe effect, what would we expect the page view counter increases for any given thread on a relatively popular community-style blog like LGF to look like, from the time it’s first published to where it later moves down (and eventually off) the front page? 

A: We’d expect it to increase very rapidly when first published, because in addition to the fpe, you have the lizards and lurkers who will click through to the comments, and the outside referrers (from twitter, other blogs etc.), and refreshing while the thread is “active”.  Then, as the thread ages and moves down the front page, we’d expect the increases to level off slightly, as the extra views from this thread activity dies off and you’re left with mostly fpe views increasing the counter steadily (with “waves”, as time of day will effect front page view rate) until it reaches the bottom of that front page.  Finally, we’d expect the increases to virtually flat-line the minute it is bumped off the front page and becomes thread #13, as it will no longer get fpe increases. 

And what would we expect a non-fpe counter to look like for the same thread? 

A: We should also see a steep increase at first (although not as steep, and not in the same quantities, obviously), and see that taper off as it becomes older and moves down the front page.  After the thread got to be a day old or about 4 spots down on the front page, the thread would essentially be dead for most commenting activity, but we should still see some increases from delayed lurker click throughs, lizards coming back to read comments they missed, searches, etc., and perhaps even a “bump” if/when it sees late hits from other sites.  It’s obviously going to vary a bit by the nature of the thread (for example, we wouldn’t expect an “open thread” to get late traffic from outside referrers, where others may get a lot more; so again, 12 to sample from helps), but for the most part, “real” page view increases should reduce themselves to a creeping pace with periodic bumps by the time the thread is a day old.

Well, we tracked and charted one, so what did we find?

Using a random thread that shall remain anonymous*, from the moment it was hatched to beyond the front page (the #s indicate the changes in its position on the page):

click to enlarge

The red line represents page views recorded from the counter.  Now, remember that with rule #1, the blue and green lines are estimates; it is much more difficult to pin down exactly.  Again, this blue line represents the lowest “real” views could possibly be, and the true line is undoubtedly a little higher for this particular thread (if another thread were sampled, we may see a blue line that is significantly closer to the green). But, since we believe that our methodology is sound, we can say that we’re darn close (to the point where you wouldn’t see much difference in the graph).

Alot of this is fairly intuitive, since the effect stipulates that these dead threads will keep accumulating “views” as long as they’re on the front page.  No one should surprised to see the view counters on these threads to show higher and higher numbers as you scroll down to #12, simply because those threads have been there longer.  So the effect is fairly clear to anyone who stops by LGF and takes a quick glance at all the view counters. 

In conclusion, the point of this exercise was not to prove beyond a doubt that thread 37xxx really got only x number “real” views (as most blogs count them), but to demonstrate the magnitude of the fpe inflation, and show that the technique renders the individual view counters meaningless.  Specifically, the “Front PageView Effect” puts so much weight on the counters that you can’t discern if one thread has a higher count than another because it was particularly insightful/important, or because of thread scheduling it just happened to sit on the front page longer.   That’s why normal blogs have a separate counter for “front page” views, and probably the biggest reason why a claim like this

is rather ridiculous, and deserves to be smacked down.

*the thread # is anonymous for IP security reasons

(Hat tip: The Boiler Room)


145 Comments on “Analysis: The LGF “Front PageView Effect””

  1. spaceallah says:

    This is exactly what I was trying to explain in the first thread about this. A view is applied to every entry on the front page whether one actually views the dedicated page (and comments for it) or not.

    Good job of showing a visualization of that effect.

    • nil says:

      Okay, here’s the next step in this. Suppose you tracked the net increase in the (12) front page threads over twenty-four hours. Wouldn’t you expect that number to be roughly 12 times the number of hits on LGF in that same time frame?

      Now suppose the (12) front page threads showed a total increase in views, over twenty-four hours, of say 140,000 (i.e. summing all of them). And suppose over the same twenty-four hours the official LGF Page Views statistics showed 90,000 views.

      Well those in fact are the numbers 140,000 vs. 90,000. So, the challenge is, how can those two numbers be reconciled, since you’d expect approximately a 12:1 ratio between the two?

  2. Bagua says:

    61 lawhawk Mon, Jan 31, 2011 12:11:43pm

    * 4
    * down
    * up
    * report

    re: #57 Charles

    Posting hate comments at the stalker sites even though he was busy calling for napalming the protesters to keep Mubarak in power.

    Nice and classy. What a surprise.

    There is the power of smear merchantry, it is why “don’t bear false witness on your neighbour” made it to the top 10.

    Lawhawk is one of the few remaining clear thinkers on LGF. Yet even he will buy into Charles’ lie defaming Ryannon. The group think and CJ have enough credibility that he gives them the benefit of the doubt.


    • spaceallah says:

      A wise man once said “trust, but verify.”

      Seems Lawhawk doesn’t care to put that into practice.

    • Formercorpsman says:

      I have to say, Lawhawk is someone I used to put on a pedestal. Go back, and read his work from the time when LGF was known as a right leaning blog with an emphasis on terrorism, and the guy was solid. Totally solid. Moreover, the guy had a penchant for reducing some bullshit posts, and making the case plainly.

      For someone so matter of fact to stay there still, (not because of the change of political ideology) but overt, and blatant lies Charles has been busted for on numerous occaisions, I can’t wrap my head around.

    • Grimcargo says:

      If this is an authentic lawyer in the real world. God help the clients.

  3. jd says:

    Charles is giving the articles a free pageview even if someone doesn’t want to read the article. If he were to install google analytics his page views would be lower. He is doing ajax inflation. Google is the current expert on this stuff. He could just run analytics and show the money.

    But your analysis here is stunning.

  4. ZIP says:

    Any guesses as to what his real traffic is using what he displays on an average day (around 80-90K page views a day)?

    • jd says:

      At LGF the unique daily users would be the heavier stat. A huge amount of his pageviews are fluffing commenters constantly refreshing. A more useful stat would be the pageviews and daily users that are not registered.

      • blogwarriorx says:

        Looks like he is including lgf pages in the total too.So those will need to be subtracted.
        Before he made his changes the page views on lgf pages were mostly fairly low and if by magic they numbers jumped significantly.

  5. Bagua says:

    633 Sergey Romanov Mon, Jan 31, 2011 3:32:57pm

    re: #632 Charles

    He showed up almost immediately at the stalker blog, talking trash.

    Yeah, already read in the other thread. I took a peek there and he writes as if he was always there, using all their terms, derisive nicknames, insults… Now I get why one could be pissed off about banning, but running straight to the blog run by genocide deniers, racists and truthers?

    I’ve never seen genocide denying, racism or 911 troof posted by the admins either here or on blogmocracy. I’ve seen some insults… but no where near the degree to which they appear on LGF.

    So, newbie Loozard Sergey Romanov is a full on cult member already, repeating lies he reads on LGF as though they are facts.

    Laughing at you Sergey. Learn to think and research for yourself mate.

    • jd says:

      When an LGfer says they take a peek here it means they read here all the time. I was one of those. lol

    • snowcrash says:

      We have truthers? All kinds of smack talk gets talked, but truthers-ism? Lol russian name nic is a liar.

    • Stillactive says:

      Sergey Romanov (MustKeelMooseandSquirrel). I’ve been following his career since he first showed upª. He knew the site and commenters well so he must have been lurking (stalking) for awhile before he came on stage, and is getting better at Chunkspeak all the time. From day one he has been working to gain prominence in the clutch. KKKalegore should watch is back.

      Hey KKK. You might want to run a gigercounter over your kale. MustKeelMooseandSquirrel may be setting radioactive slugs loose in your garden.º

      ª Will be referred to as “stalking”.
      º Will be refered to as “death threat”.

  6. jd says:

    A page load of the Head section is a pageview, not all the little javascript widgets. They are page elements not page views. His sub articles only become unique page views once someone clicks into them. Else his stats will all be skewed compared to everyone else that does it the conventional way. inflated ego = inflated stats.

    If he were actually making money on his proposition and advocating as he does all the SEO clients would slap him silly.

    • Bagua says:

      Except not. He does list “visits” as about 80% of his “views”. That is a fraud, his “views” are just page views/refreshes, and at least 90% are the people reading the chat and refreshing for new comments.

      Add to that these revelations about one view of the front page adding a view to every subpost on that page, and, the little buy that gave 9 for every 1 click, and we see Charles Johnson committing fraud. Both for his ego and to defraud his advertisers and registered and unregistered users into thinking they are appearing on a popular blog.

      Not conning the rest of the internet though, thanks to the Boiler Room Crew!

  7. Bagua says:

    ZIP :
    Any guesses as to what his real traffic is using what he displays on an average day (around 80-90K page views a day)?

    I’ve estimated it at less than a 5th, based upon my time their. Note that most of the visits are people coming to stare at the freak.

    • ZIP says:

      That’s insane, his advertisers get wind of this and he’s in for a heap of trouble.

      • Bagua says:

        Yep, fraud. Even if they base their metrics on advert impressions, he is still actively publicising fraudulent data.

        He is open to a suit from his advertisers and subscribers as a result.

      • spaceallah says:

        Most ad networks have their own system for payout that you can verify against your own system logs. There’s no way you can fool a legitimate ad network. Now as far as sponsorships you’ve worked out with individuals, that’s something different.

      • Bagua says:

        Right, but any directed advertising targeting LGF would likely involve looking at the blog and the fraudulent statistics.

      • spaceallah says:

        Yeah that’s what I was getting at with the individuals who have no way to verify the stats, unless they are smart enough to host their own ad and track it themselves.

  8. ZIP says:

    I should add, his advertisers are getting ripped off if he’s charging based on these absurdly inflated stats.

    Consider this, the going rate is between $1 – $5 for every 1K page views. It’s not hard to imagine an advertiser being furious finding out he’s being overcharged by a factor of 10 or more. That’s lawsuit material.

    • Bagua says:

      You’re right, but only if their advert impressions is based upon his statistics counter. Probably not.

      But… and advertiser targeting LGF would also do due diligence and be deceived by the phony statistics on the front page listing 80,000 “visits” a day, which implies unique visits. Yet the same day lists 90,546 “page views” which we know are mostly refreshes and inflated at that.

      Fraud. Pure and simple.

      • ZIP says:

        On second thought, anyone who trust Chuckles deserves to get ripped off 😉

      • Basement Cat says:

        Yes, they deserve it, but that does not make it right or legal.

        I must point out that many online ads go through third-party advertising placement services. The person placing the ad in the first place is getting ripped off, and that person does not have any contact with Chuckles and may not even know he exists. But he is paying for page views that he is not actually getting.

  9. spaceallah says:

    I noticed Johnson somehow managed to avoid posting anything about ObamaCare being declared unconstitutional … again

    Somehow this is not news in his world.

    Also he’s pimping the fact that he’s got some kind of BS guest post with Talking Points Memo.

    You can’t make this kind of irony up. At all.

  10. jd says:

    Designs site poorly for IE, then inflates pageviews to adjust for IE fix. Not too ethical. His advertisers should insists on a standard Google Analytics CPC analysis. Well they probably do that anyway on their end.

    • spaceallah says:

      He’s on a Mac. Odds are he never even tested it in IE since he probably doesn’t have anything other than a Mac, so no IE.

      • Whatever says:

        Like a P-III 1 gHZ for IE testing was going to break the bank.

      • spaceallah says:

        Heh yeah, it doesn’t take much. He’s probably one of those Mac zealots that can’t bear to have a Windows box in his midst.

        (Disclaimer: I use Mac, but it is just a tool, not a religion LOL)

    • Whatever says:

      He used to have Quantcast and Alexa counters, and deliberately removed them last fall. Never explained why.

    • blogwarriorx says:

      When I checked to see if he had fixed it (yesterday)I noticed that there is also the same problem when using Firefox.The page views jump just the same as in I.E.

    • m says:

      It wasn’t just IE. It was doing the same thing on Firefox for me.

  11. Lunatic van Coyote says:

    That’s just denier obfuscation. You’re using a lot of mathematical flim-flam to deny the accuracy of Charles’ scientific measurements. You’ll do anything for Fox sluts and Exxon money, won’t you?

  12. garycooper says:

    That piece was really enjoyable to read, Minotaur. Neat and clean as a straight right to the jaw. It’s a TKO, at the very least.

    Great work, as always.

  13. Mark says:

    Check this out. Charles is writing for Talking Points Memo, not terribly surprising. However, read this section of his post:

    “Within the tribe there’s no need to be concerned with facts or accuracy; if the goal is to demonize a hated opponent, for example, anything and everything goes, including smears known to be false. That’s because the objective is not to convince an impartial observer — it’s to reinforce the tribal bonds, the sense of belonging to something, with its own shared reality. That shared reality doesn’t have to reflect actual reality; anybody who doesn’t share it is by definition not part of the tribe, and therefore an enemy.”

    Now, doesn’t that describe the exact same tactics Chuck uses to keep his followers in line?

    • Whatever says:

      O. M. G.

      The irony doesn’t get much more ironic than that.

    • Bagua says:

      Yep, that is from Charles Johnson’s play book. Tonight’s smearing of Ryannon was the latest example.

      • spaceallah says:

        The thing is, it doesn’t take Sherlock and Columbo combined to crack this case. All you have to do is check it out for yourself. Which is why I posted the video above. Those folks are so damned brainwashed over there they probably think it would an insult to venture over to see what the facts are instead of “trust me.”

        Truly a live example of a cult of personality. Why, I have no idea. Johnson’s kind of a dick IMO. I’d probably would have been banned if I had ever registered over there.

      • Whatever says:

        >> “Johnson’s kind of a dick IMO”

        Kind of by definition.

      • snowcrash says:

        spaceallah you couldn’t register there with that insulting nic.

      • spaceallah says:

        I love a good double entendre, although in this case its just a synonym

      • Whatever says:

        Nope, google the string, and you get exactly one hit:

        The Amazing Self-Reinforcing Paranoid Rube Goldberg Machine | TPMCafe

      • Whatever says:

        Besides, nobody but teh Chuck could possibly come up with a title that lame.

      • spaceallah says:

        There’s nothing quite like making 75-year-old cultural references. I’m surprised that he didn’t bust out “23 Skiddo” while gushing about how swell it was to get some kind words tossed his way.

    • Stillactive says:

      I’m sure that Chunks exhaustive study of anthropology has lead him to this moving insight and because of this study he surely knows that there are some tribes that it is better avoid rather than beat you drum about. I offer as evidence the Boiler Room Crew™ which through exhaustive research I have discovered are from a tribe known as the Kickitupanotch, a derivative of the Ratchetups and once they have your scent…you better make sure all your shit is covered up, even to the point of going back to all of the places you’ve shit over the last…oh I don’t know, decade? Of course if you’re full of shit, every time you open an orifice shit will come out.

    • Basement Cat says:

      Projection is one of the main defenses and tools of the malignant narcissist.

  14. garycooper says:

    Gutter-sluts, and oily bucks,
    Never get my fill.
    Genocide, and billions died,
    Pam, I love you still.

  15. Bagua says:

    27 Talking Point Detective Mon, Jan 31, 2011 7:53:48pm

    * 5

    Charles Johnson posting at TPM. Man. Times have changed.

    Weird huh? Also posting at Al Guardian. A complete flip.

    • spaceallah says:

      Usually you see these kinds of shifts in behavior among the brain damaged. You know, fall off a bike and suddenly they’re talking with a British accent (PISS OFF). I wonder if he wasn’t wearing a helmet when he had his bad wreck (being serious here)?

      • Bagua says:

        But also among weak minded people, converts and such. From one to the other is a quick switch. Comes naturally.

  16. garycooper says:

    Lawhawk is still participating in that hot mess? Good grief, man. Tbere are only about 20 million better blogs to waste time on, when you’re not hawking the law. Believe me, I know. 😉

  17. PrivateJohnson says:

    “Not just the atavistic racist tribalism of a small section of the far right base, but a new kind of widespread mainstream tribalism enabled by modern technologies.”

    Someone (with at least a ninth grade education) please tell me that this is or isn’t a sentence.

    Oh. wait.


    • swamprat says:

      Sounds like the left-wing version of the Berkeley Barb underground newspaper;

      “Running yellowdog lackeys of the warmongering capitalist fascist pigs”.

  18. PrivateJohnson says:

    holy shit….. this guy DOES NOT HAVE COMMAND OF THE WRITTEN WORD.

    Chubsucker Chunk… do your own self a favor and stop already.

  19. PrivateJohnson says:

    just. wow.

    “I see it as a marvelously self-reinforcing paranoid Rube Goldberg mechanism; technology-enabled right wing reactionary tribalism.”

    This is his swan song…. closing, killer argument/sentence… but WAIT…. this “stand alone argument”, this summary of his point, his theme, his MEME…. (as it were)is what??

    Oh, that’s right… meaningless drivel… what the fuck are you talking about Chubster? Oh, that’s right….(again) we don’t know…. and YOU don’t know how to write a succinct, cohesive argument.

    Color me surprised.


  20. PrivateJohnson says:

    remember Charlie…. starkist doesn’t want tuna with “good taste”…. starkist wants tuna that tastes good….


  21. PrivateJohnson says:

    -and the douche bags over there falling all over themselves to suck up to what?


    Welcome home.

  22. PrivateJohnson says:

    Rube Goldberg mechanism indeed.

  23. swamprat says:

    First he said the tape showing the increase was faked

    When it was discovered the one commenter was able to replicate the results, it was declared a “bug”..

    Now it is shown that the increased page count was due to a deliberate javascript manipulation, which he wrote a comment about.

    pants on fire

  24. spaceallah says:

    Have you ever noticed that Johnson never has a photo where he is actually looking head on into the camera? I know people like that, that won’t look you in the eye when you talk to them. It always bothers me when that happens.

    I bet Johnson won’t look you in the eye when you talk to him. Which to me says he’s inherently dishonest. Anyone that won’t look you straight on in the eye has a problem.

    • sacred ham says:

      Come on, now you’re just making stuff up. I’d rather just stick with ridiculing the preposterous stuff he writes, which is more than enough of a goldmine of crazy.

      • spaceallah says:

        Your opinion is duly noted, but I don’t think I’m “making anything up.” I proposed a hypothesis. But meh, I really couldn’t give less of a shit then I do already.

        It just that he tries to look all supa dramatic or something in the one photo he uses for his avatar, like he’s a one man crusade against bad craziness.

      • sacred ham says:

        Hey, I agree, he looks like Serious Crusader Dork in every photo I’ve seen of him. I was only disagreeing with the part about “he probably never looks you in the eye.” Who knows, who cares… by all accounts, L. Ron Hubbard looked people straight in the eye and had a hearty handshake.

      • spaceallah says:

        Fair enough, and yeah, L. Ron Hubbard, nuff said there.

    • swamprat says:

      Since they only post unflattering pictures of him here, that is not very telling.

      • Internet Septic Tank Engineer says:

        We are not biased, we just report the truth.

        Stand up to the challenge and you find one pic that is flattering and I am sure one of the ones who write the topics will feature it as an article.

        Hey you could do it and send it in and they will put it up as a guest article.


      • swamprat says:

        Ok you got me. That was worth a chuckle.

      • Stillactive says:

        Ok. Here is the challenge. Find a flattering picture on Chunk. (must be within the last 8 years.) Maybe we could have a contest?

      • Internet Septic Tank Engineer says:

        Ok. Here is the challenge. Find a flattering picture on Chunk. (must be within the last 8 years.) Maybe we could have a contest?

        I think that would be a great idea. Charles has our E-mail address. We are fair and open. We have integrity.

  25. freetaxeskill says:

    Geek hate speech now too uh?
    Not fair, and it will make cj feel bad.

  26. freetaxeskill says:

    This geek stalking of the code’ing king is going to force cj to take his skills and use them where he fits in. Bet he knows all the stuff to make hockey stick graphs of Saraha Palins tea party attendence at the last tea party of lgf’s.
    Ya, he will be at home working on inclines of heat islands for NASA.

  27. freetaxeskill says:

    CO2 heat code king of NASA.

  28. PrivateJohnson says:

    hmmmm…I am thinking….. thinking…. thinking…..

    Okay, I have got it!!

    Chubster went to school in Hawaii…!!

    (Chub, you cannot write a meaningful piece of information while standing in a county park parking lot in front of a 1964 Nova with all of your homies smoking an oversized doobie.)


  29. PrivateJohnson says:

    okay… I was joking a little….
    YOUO cannot write a meaningful piece…. ANYWHERE!

  30. dwells38 says:

    LRon Hubbard. And THAT dude COULD write

  31. swamprat says:

    he wrote the pageview improving code to “hide the decline”

    say goodnight, gracie

  32. Charles wants a new gig says:

    Charrulz’s TPM article currently has one comment – and that one is so over the top it reads like parody.

    Poor Charrulz. In the real world it’s hard to get praise and updingeewingees for every random brainfart.

    • Internet Septic Tank Engineer says:

      What site is that?

      Can you post the comment?

      • beeduwine says:


        “That was an excellent article, well written, deep, thought provoking and succinct. You are a master of words Charles and I am grateful to Talking Points Memo for giving you yet another venue to express your inner thoughts.

        Great article Charles, and kudos to TPM.

        This is a win, win.”

      • Charles wants a new gig says:

        It’s a logrolling article Chunk wrote for TPM to thank some hack for praising The Thin-Lipped Moral Paragon™ in his book.

        The comment reads:

        1 HOUR AGO
        That was an excellent article, well written, deep, thought provoking and succinct. You are a master of words Charles and I am grateful to Talking Points Memo for giving you yet another venue to express your inner thoughts.

        Great article Charles, and kudos to TPM.

        This is a win, win.


        Slinky? I think you’ve been punked, Charrulz.

      • Bagua says:

        The funny thing is…

        If it was a “stalker” poking fun at CJ it would read no different than if from one of the ass kissers.

  33. Stillactive says:

    Whatever :
    Nope, google the string, and you get exactly one hit:
    The Amazing Self-Reinforcing Paranoid Rube Goldberg Machine | TPMCafe

    1 HOUR AGO
    That was an excellent article, well written, deep, thought provoking and succinct. You are a master of words Charles and I am grateful to Talking Points Memo for giving you yet another venue to express your inner thoughts.

    Great article Charles, and kudos to TPM.

    This is a win, win.

  34. beeduwine says:

    Actually, over the top praise is a lot funnier than angry-ness. If we could get a hundred similar comments, that would be hilarious.

  35. beeduwine says:

    “Brilliant insight Charles! You have been spot on since 2001!”

  36. Kos Laughs At Chuckles says:

    Funny how a year later, TPM does try to bring him on, but he failed even at that. I see this being as successful as digg, Trueslant, and al-Guardian.

    What would be even better would be some of his old comments attacking TPM, Josh Marshall, Soros, or, better yet, praising Malkin or Coulter

  37. davehm says:

    Slinky probably linked from here.

  38. beeduwine says:

    “Thank you, Charles. I have been a GOP cult member since 2002, but this article really changes things. Thank you again.”

  39. Charles wants a new gig says:

    “Thank you, Charrulz. You are a master of verbal chastisement. May I have another? I’m your number-one fan.”


    Ms. Misery Chastaine

  40. beeduwine says:

    “You are a true pioneer, Charles. Thank you for always putting yourself out there. You are our Uriah in the front of this battle.”

  41. beeduwine says:

    “Wow. I just discovered Little Green Footballs! What a great site! You can get insight like this every day for less than 33 cents a day. That is cheaper than the cheapest cup of coffee at Starbucks!”

  42. beeduwine says:

    “For those of you who don’t know, this is THE Charles Johnson of, the premier blog for political discourse. It comes complete with a spell checker.”

  43. Kos Laughs At Chuckles says:

  44. beeduwine says:

    “So true, Charles. Once again, spot on. You dare to speak up where the rest of the cowards stay quiet. Taking on the GOP here at is brave!”

  45. beeduwine says:

    “Well and true written, Charles. I am glad to see the impact you have had on outlets like the UK Guardian and Talking Points Memo. Who would have thought they would change to the extent that you would be writing there? Once again: Well done!”

  46. Charles wants a new gig says:

    “Thanks, Charles. Keep up the apologetics and pretty soon we can discuss removing you from our frivolous lawsuit target map.”

    Ibrahim Hooper

  47. beeduwine says:

    “Right on! Keep speaking the truth to power, Charles. You are our bacon of hope!”

  48. beeduwine says:

    “A million trillion updings, Charles! And then a thousand more! God, how I want to give you some karma.”

  49. Charles wants a new gig says:

    “Wow, Charles. I can’t tell you how grateful I am that you and Loody woke me up and freed me from the clutches of the New Tribalists. Can we play the bukkake game again soon, please?”

    Megyn Kelly

  50. Charles wants a new gig says:

    “Charles, without your deep inner thoughts I would never have become the success I am today.”

    Jack Handy

  51. Charles wants a new gig says:

    Whaddaya bet CJ is on the phone right now, frantically trying to get the satire removed?

    Screenshots now!

  52. beeduwine says:

    Walter chimes in with a little bit of praise too:

    “Great article. This should put an end to the speculation regarding the devious nature of Charles’ evolvement.”

    • garycooper says:

      BWAHAHAHAH, Walter! Gut one.

      Say what you will about Fig The Newt, he’s a master of deadpan sarcasm. ZING!

  53. Charles wants a new gig says:

    “Charles, now that you’ve used me and left me in the cold, can I at least get an introduction at al-Guardian? Maybe TPM would be aiming too high for now. Whatever. You know I still got your back, bro.”


    • beeduwine says:

      Let me help you out with that one:

      “Charls, now that you’ve used me andl eft me in the cold, can I at leest get an interduction at al-Gardian? May be TPM would be aiming to high for now. Whatever. You know I stil got you’re back, bro.”


  54. Charles wants a new gig says:

    One more:

    “Charles, I take it all back. If you can make it here, you can make it at the NYT. Call me when you’re in town – we’ll do lattes and I’ll introduce you at Gawker. Love ya!”


  55. garycooper says:

    Dear Charles,

    We only had the one evening together, but it is a memory that will flame on forever, thanks to the photos taken by TMZ of us embracing. I can never expect you to forgive me for shutting you down cold, my Blogfather, but I was terrified that your great intellect would find me tedious once the ardor cooled. I would only ask that you would please stop calling and sending me letters, snail and email, for we can never be together (alas!), now that our paths have diverged so diametrically.

    –Pamela G.

  56. Sharmuta says:


    I still can’t believe what you did to me, but I’m sorry for the way I left. I mean, I hope karma slaps you in the face before I do. Again, I’m sorry. I can’t stop saying I’m sorry, but I still hate your guts. DIE! (sorry!)



  57. Corporal Markos says:

    “Dear Charles,

    Your evolvement has been duly noted. Debate still rages over whether it’s genuine, but personally I feel your metamorphosis from tthree-toed conservative sloth to liberal ring-tailed lemur is convincing enough to give you a tryout. Unfortunately Andy Sullivan currently holds the sidekick position, so can I interest you in an unpaid internship as my personal pet? I’m sorry, but yes, you will have to wear the collar. You can bring the one you used to use for moonbats, if you wish.”

  58. tanker on the horizon says:

    Charles, love all that erudition on display at TPM.

    PS – can you help me get a gig over there?

    Mary Mapes

  59. Noam Sayin says:

    Try the logged-in statistics…