how do i read the evil ramblings of gengis khan without supporting her?
April 10, 2010 3:35 AM Subscribe
How do I read the evil, right wing, dangerous bloggy part of an online newspaper without contributing the to hits and therefore the perceived popularity of her diatribe?
I read the Sydney Morning Herald online every day... and there is a dreadful, truly, truly dreadful "journalist" called Miranda Devine there that frequently writes opinion pieces about things in my field... and subjects that affect me and my husband.
I cannot express in strong enough language how much I dislike this woman and everything she says. She's smart and ignorant... a terrible combination.
Anyhoo... I want to be able to read what she says, but do not want to encourage her voice, so don't want my "click"on her links to register with the newspaper's counting/ratings thingo.
I am not in a position to have access to the physical copy.. so that is out, unfortunately.
Is what I'm asking for technologically possible?
The technological solution is what I think I want. I just don't want my desire to know what "the enemy" is saying, to vote for her in any way shape or form.
I read the Sydney Morning Herald online every day... and there is a dreadful, truly, truly dreadful "journalist" called Miranda Devine there that frequently writes opinion pieces about things in my field... and subjects that affect me and my husband.
I cannot express in strong enough language how much I dislike this woman and everything she says. She's smart and ignorant... a terrible combination.
Anyhoo... I want to be able to read what she says, but do not want to encourage her voice, so don't want my "click"on her links to register with the newspaper's counting/ratings thingo.
I am not in a position to have access to the physical copy.. so that is out, unfortunately.
Is what I'm asking for technologically possible?
The technological solution is what I think I want. I just don't want my desire to know what "the enemy" is saying, to vote for her in any way shape or form.
Response by poster: Ah... I should have mentioned in my first post.... I know NOTHING about clever internet things. I don't know what a cache does. To Bob and everyone else... you're going to have to explain things very slowly and in small words if it gets more complicated than... metafilter!
posted by taff at 3:51 AM on April 10, 2010
posted by taff at 3:51 AM on April 10, 2010
Well, you've just encouraged her voice even more by advertising her column here. I'm curious to find out what's so evil about her.
If you find her worth reading, you should just deal with the fact that this could accrue to her benefit. There's a big difference between the writers who are worth reading and the ones you agree with. In fact, writers you disagree with are often more valuable, since they allow you to consider a range of perspectives outside your own. They should benefit if they provide this greater value.
But if you must keep reading her without contributing to her traffic, use an RSS feed. I can't see that she (or any other component of the SMH's site, for that matter) has one, but maybe I'm missing it.
posted by Jaltcoh at 4:21 AM on April 10, 2010 [2 favorites]
If you find her worth reading, you should just deal with the fact that this could accrue to her benefit. There's a big difference between the writers who are worth reading and the ones you agree with. In fact, writers you disagree with are often more valuable, since they allow you to consider a range of perspectives outside your own. They should benefit if they provide this greater value.
But if you must keep reading her without contributing to her traffic, use an RSS feed. I can't see that she (or any other component of the SMH's site, for that matter) has one, but maybe I'm missing it.
posted by Jaltcoh at 4:21 AM on April 10, 2010 [2 favorites]
I don't know how you could go about invisibly reading her columns, but don't you think it's a little unethical to try and gain something for nothing? No matter how "evil" (c'mon, I just read a few of her columns and she's hardly Hitler) she might be, her words are obviously of value to you and you have a moral responsibility to compensate her, especially if it is "about things in your field". Either that, or take the moral high ground and don't read her work at all.
posted by thesailor at 4:40 AM on April 10, 2010
posted by thesailor at 4:40 AM on April 10, 2010
Your one click on an online article isn't going to matter much, monetary wise.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:51 AM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:51 AM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
Write the editor a letter saying how despicable you find her and how you wish someone else was writing on [subject you're interested in] so you didn't feel forced to read her rubbish?
Sites should be able to track how many subscribers they have to their RSS feed, so if she had one I probably wouldn't want to join it: they'll think she's so popular she's got a dedicated fan in you! ;)
posted by springbound at 4:57 AM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
Sites should be able to track how many subscribers they have to their RSS feed, so if she had one I probably wouldn't want to join it: they'll think she's so popular she's got a dedicated fan in you! ;)
posted by springbound at 4:57 AM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
I don't know if RSS feeds "count", but I read a lot of things I find controversial through Google Reader, mostly because that way I avoid the dreaded comments section. Does her column have a "subscribe" option?
posted by OLechat at 4:58 AM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by OLechat at 4:58 AM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
Write the editor a letter saying how despicable you find her and how you wish someone else was writing on [subject you're interested in] so you didn't feel forced to read her rubbish?
But that's not true. He wants to read her column. And he's not forced to read it. This is silly.
posted by Jaltcoh at 5:00 AM on April 10, 2010
But that's not true. He wants to read her column. And he's not forced to read it. This is silly.
posted by Jaltcoh at 5:00 AM on April 10, 2010
Plus, if you write the letter than the editor could take that as someone who's reading it. I know plenty of people who read a certain columnist because they're looking for a reason to write to the paper/editor to get the person fired.
In the end, readers are readers.
posted by theichibun at 5:05 AM on April 10, 2010
In the end, readers are readers.
posted by theichibun at 5:05 AM on April 10, 2010
Where I live, this person is called "David Warren," and it is my belief that he is kept on at the paper solely for the entertainment and outrage of people like you and me. I felt much better once I stopped reading his ramblings, but found I was still (unfortunately) current on them because I still read the letters to the editor page. Would such a dodge work for you?
posted by kmennie at 5:13 AM on April 10, 2010
posted by kmennie at 5:13 AM on April 10, 2010
But that's not true. He wants to read her column. And he's not forced to read it. This is silly.
Perhaps my misreading, but if it's to keep in touch with goings-on in their field, it sounds like the OP feels more obliged than really wants to read this column.
The other problem, well, yeah. Depends on what the OP's trying to achieve I guess. If there's no technical solution, at least with a letter they'll have registered their discontent, if the intent is primarily to prevent the newspaper assuming the journalist is regarded highly by this reader. If the aim is more to reduce her potential value to the newspaper in terms of ad imprints, of course a letter will improve nothing, but the OP indicates nothing either way on if that's their goal.
posted by springbound at 5:23 AM on April 10, 2010
Perhaps my misreading, but if it's to keep in touch with goings-on in their field, it sounds like the OP feels more obliged than really wants to read this column.
The other problem, well, yeah. Depends on what the OP's trying to achieve I guess. If there's no technical solution, at least with a letter they'll have registered their discontent, if the intent is primarily to prevent the newspaper assuming the journalist is regarded highly by this reader. If the aim is more to reduce her potential value to the newspaper in terms of ad imprints, of course a letter will improve nothing, but the OP indicates nothing either way on if that's their goal.
posted by springbound at 5:23 AM on April 10, 2010
Perhaps my misreading, but if it's to keep in touch with goings-on in their field, it sounds like the OP feels more obliged than really wants to read this column.
She never says that.
She says it's relevant to her life.
If there's a column you read regularly because it's important to your life, the writer or publication might benefit. That's just life.
posted by Jaltcoh at 5:28 AM on April 10, 2010
She never says that.
She says it's relevant to her life.
If there's a column you read regularly because it's important to your life, the writer or publication might benefit. That's just life.
posted by Jaltcoh at 5:28 AM on April 10, 2010
(Also, sorry for incorrectly referring to the OP with a male pronoun before.)
posted by Jaltcoh at 5:29 AM on April 10, 2010
posted by Jaltcoh at 5:29 AM on April 10, 2010
To the original point, that website uses Omniture for statistics, and disabling Javascript will allow you to browse without counting.
posted by tmcw at 5:33 AM on April 10, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by tmcw at 5:33 AM on April 10, 2010 [3 favorites]
The OP likely doesn't want to be contributing to the pagerank
Clicking on or reading an article has no influence on pagerank.
Also many publishers track rss subscriptions so subscribing to an rss feed may contribute to the writer's value in respect to the publisher.
posted by sexymofo at 5:38 AM on April 10, 2010
Clicking on or reading an article has no influence on pagerank.
Also many publishers track rss subscriptions so subscribing to an rss feed may contribute to the writer's value in respect to the publisher.
posted by sexymofo at 5:38 AM on April 10, 2010
Clicking on a link can contribute to a rise in something's Google relevance (though not PageRank, which is the big elephant in Google's menagerie of over two hundred things they count as "relevance") if you have gotten to it via a Google search in two cases:
1) Are you logged in to your Google account? Look closely at the URLs, they hit Google first, then the site you wanted. That's data collection right there.
2) Very sporadically, I've seen Google do this when you aren't logged in. I have not seen this in years.
To answer the OPs question, if turning off Javascript is a problem, you might try grabbing some unusual sentences or phrases from this person's column, then searching for them on Google. Get a few chunks from a few different columns. Then search for them in Google like:
You may come across some other site which is copying her content or remixing it in some fashion. Searching like:
might find for you some site which has all of her more recent columns on a single page.
posted by adipocere at 6:14 AM on April 10, 2010
1) Are you logged in to your Google account? Look closely at the URLs, they hit Google first, then the site you wanted. That's data collection right there.
2) Very sporadically, I've seen Google do this when you aren't logged in. I have not seen this in years.
To answer the OPs question, if turning off Javascript is a problem, you might try grabbing some unusual sentences or phrases from this person's column, then searching for them on Google. Get a few chunks from a few different columns. Then search for them in Google like:
"unusual phrase 1"You may come across some other site which is copying her content or remixing it in some fashion. Searching like:
"unusual phrase 1" "unusual phrase 2"might find for you some site which has all of her more recent columns on a single page.
posted by adipocere at 6:14 AM on April 10, 2010
Okay how the google cashe works. This page is too new to be in the cash, but lets take another one Here's the wikipedia article on Miranda Devine. here's the google cache You just search for a URL like this on google, and then on the results page, you can sometimes see a 'cached' link. Just click that.
But it seems like none of the pages on smh.com.au are in google's cache. They must be disallowing it somehow. So that's out.
But there is a way you can read the page without them actually tracking it. A lot of sites use analytics packages, rather then looking at raw log files. The analytics packages work by including an image or some javscript in a link.
If a sites is using something like that simply downloading the page without any images could let you read it without registering as a 'real' hit.
You can get the URLs off Her twitter feed and use Wget or curl or something download the actual page and read it from there.
But honestly I wouldn't worry about it too much. Instead email the newspaper and tell them that you won't click on any ads on the site so long as she's there. If their click-through rates drop, it'll reduce the amount of money they make and increase pressure for them to drop her. It probably won't do anything, but it will more then counteract the extra hit on the article.
posted by delmoi at 6:29 AM on April 10, 2010
But it seems like none of the pages on smh.com.au are in google's cache. They must be disallowing it somehow. So that's out.
But there is a way you can read the page without them actually tracking it. A lot of sites use analytics packages, rather then looking at raw log files. The analytics packages work by including an image or some javscript in a link.
If a sites is using something like that simply downloading the page without any images could let you read it without registering as a 'real' hit.
You can get the URLs off Her twitter feed and use Wget or curl or something download the actual page and read it from there.
But honestly I wouldn't worry about it too much. Instead email the newspaper and tell them that you won't click on any ads on the site so long as she's there. If their click-through rates drop, it'll reduce the amount of money they make and increase pressure for them to drop her. It probably won't do anything, but it will more then counteract the extra hit on the article.
posted by delmoi at 6:29 AM on April 10, 2010
This question feels a lot like someone asking how to download music/ebooks/whatever content for free under the assumption that it's okay because they don't really like it.
One user's pageviews and click-throughs aren't a protest; if you're really serious about it, start a campaign to get the writer removed. Write counter-articles to their points and get them out there on the web. See if you can stir up a little trouble. Use the medium to discredit the writer.
posted by Hiker at 6:50 AM on April 10, 2010 [2 favorites]
One user's pageviews and click-throughs aren't a protest; if you're really serious about it, start a campaign to get the writer removed. Write counter-articles to their points and get them out there on the web. See if you can stir up a little trouble. Use the medium to discredit the writer.
posted by Hiker at 6:50 AM on April 10, 2010 [2 favorites]
Many sites use google analytics or a similar service to count visitors, and they use javascript to do the accounting. So disable JS in your browser (or install Noscript) before viewing the site.
posted by Rhomboid at 7:11 AM on April 10, 2010
posted by Rhomboid at 7:11 AM on April 10, 2010
Best answer: Hi taff —
I work at the Sydney Morning Herald.
I suggest that if you need to read Miranda for whatever reason, you should just click on through. She's purely there to put the cat among the pigeons and her little excursions are good for the economic health of the paper in general (which you may or may not care about).
It's a troll, if you like, as she runs wildly counter politically to the majority of columnists there. Editorial is well aware of this.
posted by Wolof at 7:13 AM on April 10, 2010 [12 favorites]
I work at the Sydney Morning Herald.
I suggest that if you need to read Miranda for whatever reason, you should just click on through. She's purely there to put the cat among the pigeons and her little excursions are good for the economic health of the paper in general (which you may or may not care about).
It's a troll, if you like, as she runs wildly counter politically to the majority of columnists there. Editorial is well aware of this.
posted by Wolof at 7:13 AM on April 10, 2010 [12 favorites]
Take what I call My Old Man's Approach: fret not. You will neither make her or break her so ignore what goes on other than your getting what you want from reading the annoying person's writing. If you must read it. Do it. And in doing so, don't worry about your one click on a counter. There is a reason she has been hired, and sufficient folks "help" keeping her employed by reading her. When the vast majority stop reading her, she will lose her slot at the paper. Since you probably know what she has to say on any matter, can't you simply skip reading her?
posted by Postroad at 7:21 AM on April 10, 2010
posted by Postroad at 7:21 AM on April 10, 2010
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Read her so you know what the opposition is up to. I would want to pay to keep her out in public and not underming privately.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 7:59 AM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by JohnnyGunn at 7:59 AM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
Why would you want to keep reading her if what she writes is so offensive to you? Fill your life with positive thoughts and energy. Plus, this desired strategy of yours sounds terribly passive-aggressive. Just ignore her -- she's hardly Joseph Goebbels.
posted by teedee2000 at 8:28 AM on April 10, 2010
posted by teedee2000 at 8:28 AM on April 10, 2010
You know, Wolof will probably tell other staffers about this thread, and word will get around that Miranda Devine is considered so outrageous that there's this long discussion on the internet about how people really want to read her but feel guilty about contributing to her pageviews. If this has any effect, it will only encourage the paper to keep her on. In fact, she'll probably find this thread (either by hearing about it or by Googling her name) and be delighted by the attention. So, again, this whole endeavor is self-defeating.
posted by Jaltcoh at 9:33 AM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Jaltcoh at 9:33 AM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
I also have this problem. My preferred newspaper (The Globe and Mail in Toronto) has one or two columnists whose typing I find fairly annoying. This used to bother me more, but now I mostly feel resigned to this, as merely an imperfect feature of modern life.
Recommend just live with the problem. The hit-count probably doesn't add up to that much in the scheme of things.
posted by ovvl at 11:32 AM on April 10, 2010
Recommend just live with the problem. The hit-count probably doesn't add up to that much in the scheme of things.
posted by ovvl at 11:32 AM on April 10, 2010
You're one person out of how many thousands? You're self tormenting habit is statistically negligible.
As are the people whom you have just introduced Ms Devine to....
(Mind you, when I did a google search and went here, I got: "Unfortunately we currently do not have any content for Mirandadevine.")
posted by IndigoJones at 12:07 PM on April 10, 2010
As are the people whom you have just introduced Ms Devine to....
(Mind you, when I did a google search and went here, I got: "Unfortunately we currently do not have any content for Mirandadevine.")
posted by IndigoJones at 12:07 PM on April 10, 2010
(Mind you, when I did a google search and went here, I got: "Unfortunately we currently do not have any content for Mirandadevine.")
Here are the columns you're not supposed to read. Nobody click on that link! It's evil and should not receive any pageviews!
See the problem with that?
posted by Jaltcoh at 12:12 PM on April 10, 2010
Here are the columns you're not supposed to read. Nobody click on that link! It's evil and should not receive any pageviews!
See the problem with that?
posted by Jaltcoh at 12:12 PM on April 10, 2010
I've seen her work a long time ago. She is an above-the-line troll. Newspapers keep them because they don't care about the hurt and distress that they cause to people compared to the sales and attention that the trolling columnists generate. A British example was John MacLeod - he came unstuck when he finally went too far in insinuating that the murder of the two little girls at Soham was their families' fault for not keeping 'The Sabbath' in his approved hardline Calvinist way. Basically the newspaper will keep her until she does something like MacLeod so horrible that the negative attention from the entire readership outweighs any possible boost to sales. Whether you individually click or not will make no difference.
There are bound to be blogs which comment on her - google her on http://blogsearch.google.com and you're bound to find out what she's been on about lately.
posted by Flitcraft at 1:51 PM on April 10, 2010
There are bound to be blogs which comment on her - google her on http://blogsearch.google.com and you're bound to find out what she's been on about lately.
posted by Flitcraft at 1:51 PM on April 10, 2010
Response by poster: Hey everyone. Thanks for your thoughts and some solutions. I'm a little disheartened by the folk saying it doesn't matter if I click on her link because my one little click is statistically meaningless. That kind of kicks the guts of my feelings about democracy... that my one little vote does count...that everyone's vote counts.
The way I have avoided it to date, is by not reading her online version and finding out what she has said via other folk/media commentators, or my husband. He thinks it's important to know what the enemy is saying so he does click... from work.
I'm not really worried if she gets a bump in traffic from curious people who read my question... she knows she's a deeply, deliberately divisive person and revels in the attention. I just don't want my one "vote" to be seen by the paper as support for her employment. I kind of felt that if I wrote to the paper, I would be encouraging them to keep her on. All publicity being good publicity and all.
I support the Sydney Morning Herald and happily click all over the site and want it to continue fiscally sustainably.... but would be delighted if Miranda Devine lost so much revenue for the paper that she was summarily sacked (and soundly drubbed). There are other right wing commentators that I will click on... but Miranda Devine is exactly what Wolof said... a troll.
posted by taff at 3:46 PM on April 10, 2010
The way I have avoided it to date, is by not reading her online version and finding out what she has said via other folk/media commentators, or my husband. He thinks it's important to know what the enemy is saying so he does click... from work.
I'm not really worried if she gets a bump in traffic from curious people who read my question... she knows she's a deeply, deliberately divisive person and revels in the attention. I just don't want my one "vote" to be seen by the paper as support for her employment. I kind of felt that if I wrote to the paper, I would be encouraging them to keep her on. All publicity being good publicity and all.
I support the Sydney Morning Herald and happily click all over the site and want it to continue fiscally sustainably.... but would be delighted if Miranda Devine lost so much revenue for the paper that she was summarily sacked (and soundly drubbed). There are other right wing commentators that I will click on... but Miranda Devine is exactly what Wolof said... a troll.
posted by taff at 3:46 PM on April 10, 2010
You know, Wolof will probably tell other staffers about this thread, and word will get around that Miranda Devine is considered so outrageous that there's this long discussion on the internet about how people really want to read her but feel guilty about contributing to her pageviews.
No offence, but I can't see management getting that exercised about a thread with 30 comments on it.
posted by Wolof at 6:54 AM on April 11, 2010
No offence, but I can't see management getting that exercised about a thread with 30 comments on it.
posted by Wolof at 6:54 AM on April 11, 2010
I think it's funny enough to bring up in conversation no matter how many comments there on.
posted by Jaltcoh at 7:58 AM on April 11, 2010
posted by Jaltcoh at 7:58 AM on April 11, 2010
Best answer: That kind of kicks the guts of my feelings about democracy... that my one little vote does count...that everyone's vote counts.
Afraid I really do feel that way, alas. I do vote, but mostly as a ceremonial act rather than with any hope or expectation that it makes a difference. Then, too, government's a different kettle of fish from shock opinion writers.
But if it makes you feel any better, you can take comfort that there are folks on the other side of the spectrum who are agonizing about clicking on links you do agree with, thus skewing those numbers in turn. I expect it pretty much evens out at the end of the day.
posted by IndigoJones at 2:14 PM on April 12, 2010
Afraid I really do feel that way, alas. I do vote, but mostly as a ceremonial act rather than with any hope or expectation that it makes a difference. Then, too, government's a different kettle of fish from shock opinion writers.
But if it makes you feel any better, you can take comfort that there are folks on the other side of the spectrum who are agonizing about clicking on links you do agree with, thus skewing those numbers in turn. I expect it pretty much evens out at the end of the day.
posted by IndigoJones at 2:14 PM on April 12, 2010
« Older What's it like working for the Vatican Television... | Laptop battery I just received is higher voltage... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by HuronBob at 3:48 AM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]