metabunk.org vs. pilotsfor911truth.org traffic

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
From one of the 9/11 threads, I followed this link, to find:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22665&st=20
Content from external source
You'll notice one very common theme among the "debunkers", they do not source anything, never use their real names, and expect everyone to believe them. This is perhaps why places like "Metabunk" are a virtual ghost town. It also doesn't help that the owner stifles discussion by banning anyone who challenges their resident idiots. Clearly an amateur.

This is but one example of false claims and assertions that are promulgated by the (so-called) pilots for "truth".

In the overall scope of claims that one may happen to read when surfing the Web, there are certain sites that can be considered as "unreliable" when it comes to facts (or, "truth"). The onus is on the reader/surfer to apply discerning common sense and due diligence to determine what is, and more importantly is not, factual.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I had a look at p4t - it seems to consist of 3 people talking to themselves.

Insofar as Rob's no longer bothered with conversing here, why bother mentioning them any more?
 

NoParty

Senior Member
I had a look at p4t - it seems to consist of 3 people talking to themselves.

Insofar as Rob's no longer bothered with conversing here, why bother mentioning them any more?
I'm generally exceptionally open-minded and eager re. checking out new sites...
but that site hasn't had any traffic from me, to date, because of the Balsamo's tedious posts here:
My background leads me to have very limited patience anymore for unending repetition of discredited claims, etc.
 

Alhazred The Sane

Senior Member
Could someone please explain this more fully? Thanks.
Basically, this chap doesn't seem to understand that robots, in this context, are automated visits from outside sources. Usually googlebots, but also other 'bots from other search engines. If you have a site where content changes on a daily basis, like news sites and forums, then the 'bots will be visiting very regularly indeed in order to index the new content.
 

Alhazred The Sane

Senior Member
I've been looking around on here and an aweful lot of people who have differing views than Mick get banned. There's a ban in nearly every thread come to think of it. A lot of the "resident" fellows seem to post similar content to those who are banned, also violating the guidelines...but don't get banned. So it seems the guidelines are more of an opportunity for selective censorship. I suppose I might get banned for opining this...so I'm taking a screenshot of it to post on that "pilotsfor911truth" blog if I get memory-holed for holding this view :p
Let's pretend that this post isn't trolling for a moment ...

I've been here for years, and it takes quite a bit to get banned permanently. To get a cooling off period you still need to repeatedly engage in behaviour that you have been warned not to do. If you take more than a casual look through some of the longest threads you'll find reams of posts by people who disagree with Mick, and you'll also notice that Mick's replies always deal with the points made and are always polite. How he maintains his politeness sometimes is beyond me, perhaps it's something to do with being English and the innate civility that that usually entails. Personally, I very often have to just leave a thread and go kick a metaphorical cat for a few minutes lest I get a ban myself. I'd say that quite a lot of the regulars on here have gotten warnings about keeping it dignified, whether we agree with Mick or not. The whole point of this forum is to provide a platform for people who have come across bunk, whether it's the claims of homeopaths or those of the 911 truthers, and want to hear a different opinion. Many arrive to prove their side of the argument, so banning people would be a ridiculous thing to do. Metabunk is not a platform for a bunch of people to sit around agreeing with each other, what would be the point? There are many users who have been here for a long time who have yet to agree with Mick on anything, but as long as they keep it dignified and don't continually break the 1st Commandment (Stay On Topic) they'll be here until they choose not to be.
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
Let's pretend that this post isn't trolling for a moment ...

Metabunk is not a platform for a bunch of people to sit around agreeing with each other, what would be the point? There are many users who have been here for a long time who have yet to agree with Mick on anything, but as long as they keep it dignified and don't continually break the 1st Commandment (Stay On Topic) they'll be here until they choose not to be.
I'm going OT now a bit... I think one thing some newbies/CTs have problems comprehending is that bringing up 'broad theory' to them IS on topic. they don't seem to grasp easily the "SPECIFIC" part of 'specific claims of evidence'. Although most do 'get it' eventually, some it seems just never will.

edit (to be on topic ;) ) so the pfft site must have some google bots too?
 

Alhazred The Sane

Senior Member
My last post was, of course, off topic!!

On topic: For over a decade I worked in the vague world of SEO/SEM and good metrics were key to how I could serve my clients best. I used a fair number of tools over those years, but by far the most comprehensive set of tools I came across were those provided, free, by Google Analytics. There's a fair bit of studying them in order to get the best out of what's available, but for anyone who has extensive experience of other metrics tools it's very easy.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
From one of the 9/11 threads, I followed this link, to find:

Now beside the fact that I'm a big fan of sourcing things, and I do use my real name, and only ban people for repeatedly violating the posting guidelines, I was a little bemused by the "virtual ghost town" comment. So I clicked on the link:

My main intent with this post is to simply correct the erroneous description of metabunk.org as a "virtual ghost town", as it's quite clear that description is based upon false data from a no-name site that uses figures that are the opposite of reality. It also seems clear that if there's a ghost town here, it's pilotsfor911truth, with just 15K visitors a month. But it does raise the question of why Rob Balsamo (@SpaceCowboy) would prefer to use the most obscure web site ranker there is. Is this an honest mistake, or an example of cherry picking? I invite Rob to clarify.
Standard operations for 911 truth fantasy pushers to project. Why is pilots for truth forum full of fake names? Why does the person claiming real names mean something not enforcing the real names at his web site filled with fantasy?
Pilots for truth forum changes user names as a weak insult, changing avatars of people who know pilots for truth spread lies to the gullible members. Changing user names, like kids run the forum of woo. Debate is limited to a debate section, no debate allowed in the forum areas where fantasy is spread. Only fantasy in the standard posting areas. Forum members praise idiotic claims, a celebration of ignorance.
Banning is funny. A ban is not forever unless it is defined as such. Here bans are for a period, or forever. It is funny to see someone argue about it, as if they can force the "real" definition. Bet he was upset thinking he was banned forever, and missed coming back to spread more fantasy about 911.
 

Libertarian

Active Member
Banned
Frankly who cares how much traffic each gets? After all, it's not how much you've got but what you do with it that counts. :)
 
Top