Lady Gaga
Sex
Pink
Organism
Hot mama
Nude ants
Casey Anthony
Obama birth certificate
Katy Perry
Elvis is alive
This is only a test.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A forum for discussing matters of moment, from a curmudgeonly perspective. (The ideas posted here do not necessarily represent those of any organization with which I am a part). Rude and insulting remarks will not be published, but civil disagreement is welcome.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2011
(273)
-
▼
July
(33)
- Defining Charisma Down
- Facts on Taxes
- Groothuis interview on "Christian Apologetics"
- Rapidity
- Marshall McLuhan Evaluated
- Groothuis interview
- It is Here
- John Stott: Dead at 90
- Robert Spencer and the Norway Killings
- From Carl Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, V...
- Searching Inside "Christian Apologetics"
- "Midnight in Paris"
- Electronic Sabbath
- Doug and dogs
- The Empathy Machine: An Unfinished Essay
- Defining Charisma Down
- The Church
- "Calminianism" (clarification added)
- Sacrifice
- Kevin Kelly
- Test
- The slip, the result
- Charles Spurgeon on Reading
- J.P. Moreland on Apologetic Character
- Tatoos
- Review of Tim Challies, The Next Story. First publ...
- Obama and The Muslim Brotherhood
- Charles Colson on the American creed.
- Google Preview of Groothuis Book
- The Truth About Islam
- The Constitution and Slavery (note qualification a...
- No title
- The Lone Tree Declalation
-
▼
July
(33)
Links
About Me
- Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.
- Nothing on this blog represents the position of Denver Seminary. I am a Christian, philosopher, teacher, writer, and preacher, who is Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary. My most recent of my twelve books is Philosophy in Seven Sentences. My magnum opus is Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (InterVarsity Press, 2011). I have published ten others, including Truth Decay and On Jesus. I direct the Christian Apologetics and Ethics MA program at Denver Seminary.
13 comments:
It got me to click on it.
I have your blog on my RSS reader and I'm cracking up at this post. I hope you report the amount of hits you get.
Hardly a day goes by that someone does not click my post “Does the Bible Teach a PoNR Principle”. It gets far more hits than I expected. Since there’s hardly a large number of comments, I suspect the activity is due to the fact that “PoNR,” spelled slightly different, could read like something entirely unintended. Sad. The acronym never crossed my mind that it could mean anything other than what I intended.
By the way, I click on every post on your blog simply because you're my friend.
Nude ants only attracts perverts and Keith Jarrett fans. (For those of you keeping score, I am the latter.)
Nude ants only attracts perverts and Keith Jarrett fans. (For those of you keeping score, I am the latter.)
Nude ants only attracts people with insect fetishes and Keith Jarrett fans. (For the record, I am the latter, and the more appropriate expression is new dance.) Tawdry attempt at hits, Doug. Yet funny. Still, please don't work this into a pilot exercise supporting church growth.
My test failed. There was no increase in hits.
Perhaps if you put them all in the title you would get an increase in hits.
If you want to know what brings people to your blog, have a look at the statistics Google provides. Quite simply put, your blog doesn't rate high enough in any of the topics you mention. Therefore when you do mention them, chances are low that they are relevant. Furthermore you employed a trick that Search Engine Optimisation tricksters have long used and therefore it gets demoted in the search listings too.
All in all if you really want to rise to the top of the listings on Google and other blogs, you have to write articles on a particular topic that enough people find interesting, so that they will link to it. This will teach Google that your blog is worthwhile in that particular topic. Like offline, focus and dedication gets rewarded on the internet.
http://www.economist.com/node/18898389?story_id=18898389
Just curious Dr. G about how you feel about CBE, a group you support so strongly, being associated with such liberal, and unorthodox causes.
It seems CBE is beginning the slippery slope into liberalism.
Mrs. K: I see nothing about CBE in that Economist article. Neither my wife nor I are members of CBE. But to our knowledge, their doctrinal statement is orthodox. So, I don't know the basis of your accusation.
We, of course, do not support all the beliefs or practices of every CBE member.
CBE had a booth at the festival. I just saw the notice on Denny Burk's blog. There was also someone talking about Gnosticism being promoted by CBE.
It surprises me to hear you are not members of CBE as I thought you had been quite involved with them I years past.
Sorry to sidetrack things, but I am intrigued to hear more from you on this.
This was tongue-in-cheek. I am not really trying to increase hits this way. I wrote or post what I think is important and let the stats be what they may.
Post a Comment