Perverse Incentives

I stopped checking the traffic stats on my independent blog a couple of years ago, and the Prospect looks at Tapped posts more in terms of generating "impact" that can be pitched as important to donors than to traffic as such. Now that I'm working for a genuine for-profit business corporation, however, I'm more aware of traffic spikes and so forth. Yesterday, for example, my post about David Petraeus' dull dissertation got an Instapundit link. It also prompted James Fallows to do a post defending Petraeus from charges of unusual banality. And that post got an Instalink as well.

Advantage: Yglesias, valuable and productive employee. Except, of course, the incentives here seem terrible since the premise of all this traffic is that I was being dumb.

Allow me, however, to engage in some post hoc defense of my dumbness. The point was that I had my hands on a copy of Petraeus' dissertation. It seemed like a document worth checking out. Maybe it would say something staggeringly stupid, and I could write "aha! this is dumb! we shouldn't listen to this guy!" Alternatively, like the COIN Field Manual it might say smart things that, being smart, could be used jujitsu-style as arguments against the surge. In truth, though, the dissertation just turned out to be really, really boring. Given that all that happened, it seems like I might as well report my findings to the world: the dude's dissertation doesn't say anything interesting. I know that traditional journalism doesn't work this way, but maybe it should. We know that publication bias (basically, journals only publishing interesting results, rather than "failed" experiments) is a real problem in academic research and it probably is in journalism as well.

Comments

Allow me, however, to engage in some post hoc defense of my dumbness.

Seems reasonable. Only reason for them to comment on your post is that you've been spending the rest of your time trying to undermine Petraeus, so it seems reasonable to believe that this was just another attempt to undermine him - and if it was, it was a pretty lame attempt.

Next up for Matthew: a post hoc defense of your post yesterday that stated that Yuval Levin was "all for" the Republican farm subsidy bill - a statement for which you've been getting beaten up pretty well this morning in The Corner.

Posted by Al | August 30, 2007 1:40 PM

Of course publication bias exists in journalism. It is embodied in the old cliche, "If it bleeds, it leads."

Posted by justawriter | August 30, 2007 1:40 PM

i personally am not interested in the mechanics of the atlantic and its p+l, but i am depressed that prof instanitwit is still capable of driving traffic.

Posted by howard | August 30, 2007 1:42 PM

Actually the bias in journalism is much worse. There is a tendency to do a bunch of investigation, not find any there there, and then report it anyway.

This is what causes lots of pseudo scandals ... I'm trying to think of a concrete example but having trouble at the moment ...

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | August 30, 2007 1:47 PM

nicholas, the most recent example that comes to mind is the wapo's attempt to find something wrong with a john edwards house sale (or purchase, or something - it was so inconsequential), but the winner and still champion is jeff gerth on whitewater....

Posted by howard | August 30, 2007 1:52 PM

The obvious lesson is that you generate traffic by saying something controversial or offending somebody who can generate more traffic your way.

This post is not interesting and is unlikely to generate further traffic.

Posted by blah | August 30, 2007 1:54 PM

I can't believe you actually read the whole thesis, after seeing how dopey and banal the excerpts on Brian Beutler's site were. You deserve some sort of reward for sheer perseverence in the face of mediocrity.

Posted by Jim W | August 30, 2007 2:03 PM

This is what causes lots of pseudo scandals ... I'm trying to think of a concrete example but having trouble at the moment ...

A lot of Whitewater under the bridge.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 30, 2007 2:10 PM

Except, of course, the incentives here seem terrible since the premise of all this traffic is that I was being dumb.

Two words: Mickey Kaus

Posted by Joe | August 30, 2007 2:17 PM

It's pretty well understood that a blog post that is flawlessly argued and complete generates a lot less commentary and traffic than one that's badly argued and full of holes. You kind of want your opponents to show up to tear into you and your friends to then offer rejoinder. Though I guess getting linked to by a major blogger normally requires a certain minimum standard of competence...

Posted by bbartlog | August 30, 2007 2:23 PM

Dvorak's been making the big bucks for years, mainly for posting flamebait that slashdot can't pass up on. One wonders if that's the revenue model the National Review is heading towards.

Posted by dob | August 30, 2007 3:01 PM

Though I guess getting linked to by a major blogger normally requires a certain minimum standard of competence...

(Insert guffaw here.)

Posted by Sangfroid826 | August 30, 2007 3:02 PM

Dude, maybe you should start offering free MySpace layouts on this blog. I hear it generates hella traffic.

I can't wait to hear that wonderful "Congratulations! You have been selected to receive a free iPod Nano!" every time I come here.

Posted by James Gary | August 30, 2007 3:02 PM

I've been told by philosophers that Rawls' Theory of Justice owes its popular success to its obvious inadequacies: it outlines the issues systematically, but its arguments are often obviously weak, and so invite productive engagement even from neophytes.

I think opinion-writers find themselves in a similar position. They are writing for a general or popular audience about issues that the audience knows little about and doesn't care to think deeply about, in any case.

As an inveterate commenter, I write mostly for myself, but, occasionally, I have experimented with writing things with the deliberate intention of provoking a particular blogger to respond, to get an idea or meme into the internet stream, etc. And, I have, sometimes, succeeded in my little experiments. Sadly, it is not, mostly, my brilliant, definitive comments that reliably attract attention; in fact, the surest tactics involve an embarassing degree of fatuousness.

Not to put too fine a point on it, since it is common knowledge, but Instapundit is a smart man, who stopped thinking more than a decade ago, and the vast majority of his posts are generated "mechanically" from his well-worn prejudices. He couldn't pass a Turing test, he's so predictable.

Some of the most "successful" pundits and commenters are able to generate reams of "provocative" (in a fatuous vein) commentary, by combining a singular talent for writing articulate English with a fundamental confusion of mind or character. This is obviously true of the self-triangulating Joe Klein, the self-hating Mickey Kaus, the Catholic Tory turned Gay Republican Andrew Sullivan, the pickled Christopher Hitchens, as well as David Broder, pre and post-dotage.

There is certainly the possibility for building an audience by telling them simply what they want to "hear" emotionally, confirming their world-view, but, provocation is also a critical element if you want people engaged. Nothing is more provocative than appearing confused, so that your readers want to correct you. But, you have to be confused in a fairly superficial way, because your readers are reading you as a form of entertainment and relaxation. They are not going to thank you for making them work too hard, for seriously challenging their prejudices or their personal sense of being right about the world, nor do they want to think too hard.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | August 30, 2007 3:30 PM

Actually, critizing Petraeus 1987 thesis was VERY
valid to explaining why we are in deep trouble in today's Iraq -- I describe why in a comment up on the next thread "Fresh Talking Points".

So Matthew should look like a brilliant genius --except that he's just spoiled the effect with this mea culpa -- making it clear that his hit on Petraeus' thesis was random chance rather than deep insight.

Democratic crawdadding. Screws you every time.
Just look at John Kerry's 2004 Presidental campaign.

Posted by Don Williams | August 30, 2007 3:51 PM

I know that traditional journalism doesn't work this way, but maybe it should.

Someone's been reading their "Black Swan," I see...

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | August 30, 2007 7:13 PM

Now reverse the point of view, and imagine that you blog at The Corner. Suddenly everything makes sense!

Posted by DonBoy | August 30, 2007 8:31 PM

Getting linked to by Instapundit may bring draw traffic, but I doubt if it attracts the sort of reader who is likely to appreciate Matt's work and bookmark his blog. So I would think that the long term value of that traffic would be pretty negligible.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | August 31, 2007 2:55 AM

Bruce: "...as well as David Broder, pre and post-dotage."

You can't fool me. Broder was *born* already thoroughly dotaged.

Posted by Barry | August 31, 2007 9:22 PM