Over in Dipping into the Blogpond, Meg has been challenged about her "Top 100" index of Australian blogs.
I’m confused. I can think of hundreds of ways someone could create a "Top 100" list, but I don’t see any problem with Meg calling her list "THE Top 100"and not "A Top 100". On Meg’s blog, the list IS a definite article. The guy doing the complaining, Lee, is entitled to think of it as an indefinite article on his blog.
I check out my own stats (on Site meter) every so often, mainly because they are… fascinating. Maybe if my blog was used for revenue raising, I’d worry what they really meant? Even trying to imagine how open to interpretation my stats are, depending on which stats are given priority over others, that someone could challenge Meg over there being better ways to calculate a "Top 100"...
I've visited the list of the "Top 100" twice in the last year. It's a handy way to check out blogs I hadn't discovered before, but many of those listed are not of interest to me, no matter how their stats are calculated. I never thought of it being definitive for anyone beyond Meg herself. And I understand that Lee is on the list (currently #76, up from #86); maybe just not high enough for his liking?
I’m confused... and bemused.