LAist: Note from the Publisher

Craig

Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:27:34 -0800

Of the two sites I find blogging.la to be vast superior in capturing the Los Angeles attitude. LAist just tried to fit the Gothamist mold onto LA. The features are horrible and lame, and just not enough news/quirk items that make this fantastic melting pot of culture what it is. Also, LAist has no personal voice that I can relate to. Whereas I can get a feel for the writer's POV in bloggin.la LAist, stop feeling the need to measure your dick. Get over yourself. All in all, a classless move that doesn't fly well with the many Angelino's not in the industry. Also, thank God the Dodger's lost so I don't have to wade through boring baseball posts on LAist.

Brooks

Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:49:40 -0800

I had never heard of this site until Sean mentioned it on his blog. I still haven't heard of it. :-)

bacon

Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:51:19 -0800

You say your comments are lighthearted, but to say that someones talents are suited better to other endevours is hardly a "lighthearted" comment. If anything, its shows me what a classless individual you are. And what am I to think of Gothamist for letting you run a site? If it wasn't for Phil Wallace.. I wouldn't come here anymore.

Ted

Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:59:05 -0800

Also, Sitemeter is not very reliable (I would estimate that there is a plus/minus of about 15-20% on Sitemeter results), plus it may only be on the front page and thus not measure visitors who hit individual posts (if there are sep. pages for them) etc.

Ted

Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:56:28 -0800

Personally I think this is great, and everyone who is freaking out needs to relax. There's room for lots of good LA websites, and there's nothing wrong with some competition... school yard stuff? Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's not fun. Just don't take it too seriously.

jake

Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:41:08 -0800

come on now, jason- are you calling your site stats a liar? why run them if they aren't accurate? for instance, today they say you got 536 visitors so far. anyway- i think your extreme sensitivity about your stats is a little much. the post was meant to feed a little light hearted competition- not start a big bruhaha. but if you want to settle the beef, we could always resort to a brooklyn style crotch-kicking contest. but we get to kick first.

Captain Tralfaz

Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:06:47 -0800

*Yawn.* This is the first time I've ever been to this site. Didn't even know it existed, frankly. Only found out about it via blogging.la. Not to downplay whatever fine contributions your bloggers might be making, but I agree that it is very rude on your part, Jake, to pull this junior high school-level shenaniganry. Shame! Shame! The most serious indictment on your character? I'll bet you guys don't even drink lemonade! Pushaw!

bacon

Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:14:10 -0800

This is friggin lame. Why do you care how much traffic another site gets? I don't give a crap, I go to both sites. Blogging competitively is LAME. Sorry.

Jason DeFillippo

Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:54:00 -0800

I'd also like to add that your stats are completely wrong. Those numbers aren't even close to ours so before you hop back up on your high horse maybe do a little fucking research.

Jason DeFillippo

Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:50:29 -0800

Can you possibly be any more childish?

Caryn Coleman

Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:35:01 -0800

"Oh jeez- lighten up Caryn...LAist is just ten thousand times more interesting to read." That's the crap attitude I'm referring to. You can't possibly think you don't come off sounding like a jerk. Regardless, if BLA is such a bad site, then why are you SO interested in comparing the two? Why are you excited to pat yourself on the back that you're "better" than a site you don't like? Why don't you try to compare yourself to something you think is"good"? I certainly don't see the Defamer comparisons being tallied up. Thing is, I know you're doing this to get people's feathers in a ruffle but it doesn't matter. Worry less about Sean and Jason's talents and what would make BLA better - it's literally none of your business.

Van Helen

Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:33:17 -0800

And that kid Will Campbell on blogging.la is hilarious! But they should call that site grouchy.la. It's an uptight art-nerd faction. (Mind you that "I, Robot" 'bot protest posted in binary code was klassic. And the disgust w/ Uggs has spread like wildfire onto Defamer and such.) But what I'd like to know is why, still -- with so many LAcentric sites kicking around -- that none really nail this town?

jake

Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:24:34 -0800

Oh jeez- lighten up Caryn. I just don't think Blogging.la is a very good site- and the traffic indicates that others agree with me- does that mean I have a bad attitude? I know that might sound harsh- but it's true. LAist is just ten thousand times more interesting to read. Sean and Jason are very talented- I just think they should be focusing on more interesting projects.

Caryn Coleman

Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:13:32 -0800

I think this reeks of a bad attitude and if there's one thing that's true in the blog world, it's that being shitty has a tendancy to bite you in the ass. Be less concerned about blogging.la Jake - it only makes you look petty. P.S. The LA Times called - they want their content back.

Paul Davidson

Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:41:41 -0800

Damn. Will proceed with relocation operation immediately.

Jerry

Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:19:56 -0800

Sorry, Paul, but if you live in Rhode Island, you really shouldn't be writing for LAist, the #1 blog about the great state of Louisiana. Just my opinion. (Filed from my plantation outside Baton Rouge.)

Paul Davidson

Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:29:59 -0800

I file all my column posts from Rhode Island, FYI.

Scott Garner

Sun, 10 Oct 2004 22:06:31 -0800

Corporate HQ may be in NYC (what media venture's HQ isn't?), but us grunts are definitely LA-based. I mean, it would be ridiculous for me to write about LA from my 4th floor walk-up in Greenwich Village, if indeed I was in NY. Which I'm not. Really.

Kyle Bunch

Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:59:02 -0800

We can only hope that the healthy competition drives both of you to do lots of new, cool shit over the coming years, make all of us L.A. proud (even if you are out-of-towners) and increase your traffic tenfold and beyond, before merging into 1 huge L.A. blogging powerhouse, controlling the entire town's blogosphere like something out of Chinatown.

jake

Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:11:10 -0800

quantity probably does play a role in these things- but i think quality plays even more of a role. the blogging.la idea is not that strong- it's just a bunch of people who live in LA blogging as they would normally do on their own site. there's no central voice, no recurring features, no interest in really building up anything. i think you could create a better blogging.la pretty easily- just pick the ten best individual LA blogs, pull their RSS, and aggregate them. Voila- you'd have something a lot better than blogging.la, and you wouldn't even have to coordinate anyone.

Kyle Bunch

Sun, 10 Oct 2004 16:26:02 -0800

"the most popular group blog in Los Angeles" Considering you out-post Blogging.la by at leats 5-to-1, I'm surprised you guys aren't beating them by more.

jake

Sun, 10 Oct 2004 10:34:14 -0800

Defamer gets about 20 times as much traffic as LAist on most weekdays- or about 40,000 visitors per day.

Van Helen

Sun, 10 Oct 2004 10:10:28 -0800

I find both sites to be a bit...uhm...snoozey. (Less sports, people, more local weirdness!) Speaking of which, how are your #s compared to Defamer?

jake

Sat, 09 Oct 2004 20:00:18 -0800

yep- it does sort of rub their nose in it. i'm comfortable with that!

david

Sat, 09 Oct 2004 17:16:05 -0800

Congrats to LAist on its popularity. But you'd never guess it with the few that post on comments section. Angelenos are very shy?

eric m.

Sat, 09 Oct 2004 16:41:38 -0800

um, I don't know the relationship between the two sites, but this seems sort of "rub your nose in it"... you went to their site, pulled their traffic stats and then graph how much more badass y'all are? :-(