The Standard’s ten most commented on posts in 2014

Written By: - Date published: 9:42 am, December 30th, 2014 - 61 comments
Categories: The Standard - Tags:

It is that time of year again when people become reflective and review what has happened during the year. One of the ways to measure what important events happened this year according to Standarnistas is to measure the popularity of posts, both from comments made and page views.  The page view post of the ten most popular posts this year will be made tomorrow. The most commented on posts gives an indication on what Standarnistas wanted to discuss most. So here is the list (excluding Open Mike) …

Tenth with 384 comments was the guest post submitted by Fleur, a supporter of Grant Robertson, on reasons why he should become the next Labour leader.  The post was well written and sparked an intense debate about who should be leader and what went wrong in the 2014 election campaign.

Ninth with 399 comments was the notice and feature post comprising of tweets announcing the police raid on Nicky Hager’s property seeking information concerning Rawshark.  The sense of anger was palpable and the timing of the raid, to occur just after the election, was noted.  And the point was made repeatedly, why would the police act against Hager but not Cameron Slater who also had allegations of receiving and blogging information that had been “stolen” (Matt Blomfield’s) and of hacking a computer (the Labour Party’s).

Eighth with 404 comments was Karol’s post on Mana Internet Party relations following the Mana Party’s AGM in April when it formally decided to pursue a partnership with the Internet Party.  She rightfully reserved judgment on the coalition’s prospects and expressed concern that the Internet Party’s relationship with Mana may destroy its flaxroot support and most of the comments did the same.

The seventh with 425 comments was my post on what David Cunliffe should say in his state of the nation post.  Participative online democracy is alive and well!

The sixth with 482 comments was Anthony R0bins’ thoughts on lessons to be learned from the 2014 election loss for the left.  The post and comments should be compulsory reading for the Labour and Green caucuses and for senior members in both parties.

The fifth with 486 comments was the announcement of Andrew Little’s election as Labour leader.  The initial response of Standarnistas to the announcement of his candidacy was mixed but as time has gone by and with some assured performances his standing dramatically improved.

The fourth most commented post with 507 comments was Karol’s post on Shane Jones’ resignation as a Member of Parliament.  The use of public money to persuade an opposition MP to resign is normally something that would attract adverse comment if not investigation by the authorities.  The comments focussed on the implications for a future Labour Green Government and also the techniques used by National to persuade 15 of its MPs to stand down.

The third most commented on post with 509 comments was my post on the Mein Kampf distraction.  This was published pre dirty politics yet the incident showed all the hallmarks of dirty politics as Slater used a smear and distract post to try and undermine Kim Dotcom and Mana.  TV3 had a somewhat breathless release on how Dotcom owned a copy of Mein Kampf using information it appears was supplied by Slater.  His post on the matter immediately followed the TV3 expose and the attack appeared to be coordinated and planned to disrupt the Internet Party launch occurring the day after.

The second most commented on post with 527 comments was the post of David Cunliffe’s speech A Nation of Opportunity published at the beginning of the year.  The discussion and subsequent events set the tone for the year as the speech was put under the most intense media scrutiny.  If only National’s offerings received the same treatment.

And the most commented post was Notices and Features Election Night Watch with 694 comments.  It was not a good night …

61 comments on “The Standard’s ten most commented on posts in 2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. phillip ure 1
    30 December 2014 at 9:49 am

    the biggest general debate threads cd also be interesting..

  2. Stephanie Rodgers 2
    30 December 2014 at 9:50 am

    I am picky enough to note that it’s Mein Kampf with a P, micky 😀

  3. batweka 3
    30 December 2014 at 10:20 am

    Eighth with 404 comments was Karol’s post on Mana Internet Party relations following the Mana Party’s AGM in April when it formally decided to pursue a partnership with the Internet Party. She rightfully reserved judgment on the coalition’s prospects and expressed concern that the Internet Party’s relationship with Mana may destroy its flaxroot support and most of the comments did the same.

    Mana 2011 24,168 1.08%

    InternetMana 2014 34,094 1.42%

    Hone Harawira 2011 8,121

    Hone Harawira 2014 8,969

    If anyone wants to a more indepth analysis of the results and where votes went, here are the election result pages for both elections.

    http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2011/partystatus.html

    http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/partystatus.html

    http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2011/electorate-68.html

    http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/electorate-69.html

    • ghostwhowalksnz 3.1
      30 December 2014 at 11:44 am

      So increasing the vote by 41% was a triumph for Hone and Laila, how did we miss that .

      • karol 3.1.1
        30 December 2014 at 12:04 pm

        You mean 0.41% ?

        • batweka 3.1.1.1
          30 December 2014 at 12:31 pm

          The party vote increased by 10,000 votes. That’s the 41% increase.

          • karol 3.1.1.1.1
            30 December 2014 at 12:35 pm

            OK. Thanks.

            BTW, the question of the impact on Mana’s grassroots, was, in my view, always about the long term, not the more immediate result in the 2014 election.

            I am hopeful that Mana can gain impetus over the next term, without an MP int he House. It always was intended as a movement, not just a party.

        • aerobubble 3.1.1.2
          30 December 2014 at 3:24 pm

          National tally went up with the redistribution of Conservative and Mana Internet votes flowing onto them and lesser Labour. Would Key have a majority, no, would Little have been back, no.

          • weka 3.1.1.2.1
            30 December 2014 at 7:20 pm

            Interesting. So Mana losing saved Labour. Heh.

            • Francis G 3.1.1.2.1.1
              30 December 2014 at 8:07 pm

              But then, if Hone kept Te Tai Tokerau, Kelvin Davis wouldn’t have got in and Andrew Little would take his place.

              • weka …
                30 December 2014 at 8:27 pm

                ah, ok, I haven’t been following the Labour party list stuff.

              • aerobubble …
                5 January 2015 at 4:21 pm

                All thing being equal. A maori seat has less voters, and so it does not follow that withput a couple of thousand Little would have taken a list place. True had it been a general seat.

                Sure had the Conservatives won five percent, but that extra vote would have come from National, and so Nats are better off if Colin chokes on his script towards the final day.

          • nadis 3.1.1.2.2
            30 December 2014 at 11:55 pm

            Probably being a bit picky but the votes are not redistributed. This would make the numerator larger. What happens is that they just aren’t included in any of the seat allocation calculations, affecting the denominator.

            But it does have the effect of inflating the margin of the largest party.
            If Party A gets 45% of all votes, but 10% of all votes are discounted because they dont make the threshold, then you get :

            Under redistribution (which doesnt happen) Party A gets 49.5/100 = 49.5%

            Under actual system Party A gets 45/90 = 50%

            Wasted votes are good news for the larger parties – it makes their percentage seat allocation higher than the actual percentage of votes they got. In fact the National Party actually got a better outcome with Colin Craig not getting into parliament than if he had.

      • weka 3.1.2
        30 December 2014 at 12:47 pm

        “So increasing the vote by 41% was a triumph for Hone and Laila, how did we miss that .”

        I think there have been some thought out criticisms of the IMP experiemtn, but also lots of outright ideological negativity. Both obscured the result post-election.

        The fact that the IP were so public about how well they thought they would do was also a reason. The post-election discussion focussed on that disappointment rather than the gains actually made

        Better to aim low and do better than the other way round. The GP got sucked into that this time too with the 15% poll that should have been ignored (they’ve done this before). I guess the idea is that if you hype something as being good more people will vote for it? Doesn’t seem to work for the smaller parties though.

        • karol 3.1.2.1
          30 December 2014 at 12:50 pm

          I always agree to not over-hyping expectations – also for bigger political parties.

        • Naturesong 3.1.2.2
          30 December 2014 at 5:52 pm

          Given their performance during the 3 years previous, the Greens aiming for 15% in the election seemed very realistic at the time.

          Personally, I though we (I’m a Green Party member) would hit 13.5% ish.
          The final result of 10.70% really was a surprise to those of us who were talking to people on the streets and knocking on doors.

          Pretty sure that National and the Herald trying to persuade NZ a few days before the election that a MOU between the Greens and National would result in the Greens selling their soul did them no favors.

          • weka 3.1.2.2.1
            30 December 2014 at 7:18 pm

            Russel Norman going on national television the week before the election and saying, twice, that the GP would deal with National, without explaining that clearly, probably didn’t help either. That’s as big a fuck up as anything IMP did.

            Both the situations described by you and I should have been forseen.

            • phillip ure 3.1.2.2.1.1
              31 December 2014 at 6:23 am

              at that time..norman also said:..when asked who was the politician he most admired..

              ..’bill english’..

              ..that jaw-dropper wouldn’t have helped waverers…

              (it had me going:..w.t.f..!..)

              (and brings the obvious follow-up question:..(that wasn’t asked..)..

              ..’um..!..why.?’..)

          • Sacha 3.1.2.2.2
            30 December 2014 at 7:53 pm

            “The final result of 10.70% really was a surprise to those of us who were talking to people on the streets and knocking on doors.”

            And the 17+ in the poll after the election must have been confusing/infuriating.

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.2.3
          30 December 2014 at 6:54 pm

          Simply put, 800 more Te Tai Tokerau votes and both Hone and Laila would have been in Parliament and InternetMana would have been a major win for the left.

          • phillip ure 3.1.2.3.1
            31 December 2014 at 6:39 am

            gee..!..if hone had given his support to the cannabis law reforms of the internet party..

            ..and had that planned ‘clever’ publicity-campaign to reform the pot-laws gone ahead…

            ..i don’t think it is ridiculous to posit that 800 pot-smokers from an area from cape reinga to west ak..

            ..wd have given him/them their vote..

            ..(plus there are the 10,000 votes that went to the aotearoa cannabis party..that were up for grabs..following that ‘clever’-campaign..int/mana wd have got some of them..

            ..instead they had nowhere to go..pot wasn’t on normans’ ‘to-do’-list)

            ..and instead harawira went ballistic..on pot..(!)..

            ..and got that campaign pulled..and painted himself/mana as reactionaries on pot..

            ..and thus guaranteed himself no votes from that constituency..

            ..and in fact the argument cd be made ..

            ..that his pot-intransigence drove away votes that were already headed int/manas’ way..

            ..and in fact harawira must be up for the wrong-footed-action-that-caused-defeat award…from this election..(the other contender for the award is collins..)

            ..his defeat was in some ways ..(this one esp..)..all his own work..

            ..and i really hope mana/harawira get their shit together on this issue..

            ..before 2017…eh..?

      • Murray Rawshark 3.1.3
        30 December 2014 at 7:20 pm

        “So increasing the vote by 41% was a triumph for Hone and Laila, how did we miss that .”

        Looking solely at the party vote, it was actually quite impressive. However, we should remember that IM was actually two party votes added together, so we don’t know just from that figure how the Mana support behaved. In terms of an attempted coat tailing, it was a massive failure, but that may turn out to be a good thing.

        In any case, I think Mana is better off without IP. I saw people like Laila Harré as opportunist carpetbaggers. In Harré’s case, she had a much more obvious connection to Mana than to the Internet Party, which was a weird mix of libertarian net nerds and young people who wanted to party. (Slight tongue in cheek there)

    • marty mars 3.2
      1 January 2015 at 5:48 pm

      Thanks for posting that. Kia kaha.

  4. ropata 4
    30 December 2014 at 10:57 am

    Were these also the most viewed posts? I’m just curious about the number of lurkers here who rarely comment

    • mickysavage 4.1
      30 December 2014 at 11:00 am

      Separate post for tomorrow Ropata. Interestingly only three of the ten posts were also amongst the most popular posts.

    • karol 4.2
      30 December 2014 at 11:02 am

      Not necessarily the same.

      I also see that the posts by me that are included, probably got a lot of comments because of the topic. They are not the posts I put most time and effort into researching and writing.

    • Rosie 4.3
      30 December 2014 at 1:00 pm

      ” I’m just curious about the number of lurkers here who rarely comment”

      I lurk frequently, without commenting.

  5. ropata 5
    30 December 2014 at 10:59 am

    Did we set a new comment record this year?? 527 is a pretty healthy debate 🙂

    • karol 5.1
      30 December 2014 at 11:05 am

      My recollection is that in the past there were some posts that got over a thousand comments. But that can also depend on such things as how long a post was at the top of the page, how many other posts there were on the same topic, etc.

    • Anne 5.2
      30 December 2014 at 11:14 am

      That TS is alive and well and fighting fit is now beyond question. It is no wonder opponents – including some in the MSM – spend so much time trying to discredit it.

  6. ghostwhowalksnz 6
    30 December 2014 at 11:55 am

    Whos the busiest poster in the comments ? Another case of 1% ???

    • Bill 6.1
      30 December 2014 at 6:42 pm

      Pareto’s Rule would suggest that of those making comments, very roughly, 80% of comments are generated by, very roughly, 20% of the people making comments.

      When the rule is run over the 80% of comments and then again over the result of that, we arrive at a very rough and ready 1:50 ratio – ie, 50% of comments come from 1% of those making comments.

      Obviously there’s a lot of give and take being a very rough rule of thumb and all, but it would be interesting to see how closely the comments section of ‘the standard’ correlates to the basic principle.

  7. Sacha 7
    30 December 2014 at 1:11 pm

    “… Anthony R0bins’ thoughts on lessons to be learned from the 2014 election loss for the left. The post and comments should be compulsory reading for the Labour and Green caucuses and for senior members in both parties.”

    Nice try. That post consists of lessons purely for Labour, not the Greens (who you will recall proposed working together and were rebuffed). Only one party needs to change its spots for the left to be a viable force.

    • mickysavage 7.1
      30 December 2014 at 1:14 pm

      Sorry Sacha I did not intend to suggest that the Greens and Labour made the same mistakes. Clearly they did not. The Greens were way more focussed and united than Labour. I still believe that the post has analysis and comments that both parties will find helpful to review.

      • Sacha 7.1.1
        30 December 2014 at 1:32 pm

        True the points about media and voters are broad – but each one about ‘the Left” needing to do something actually requires action from only a single party. Yours. Hope that’s being addressed seriously over the summer so we can all look forward to a productive and cooperative year.

  8. greywarshark 8
    30 December 2014 at 5:23 pm

    I’m interested in the posts relating to business the economy and climate change. Are they getting good number of views, apart from comments? Everyone is prepared to put a bet on the politicians and discuss their finer and grosser points. What about the background to the politicos, take down the cardboard facade and do we have a viable NZ left?

    Or has it all been carted away in those complimentary take-home bags that rich people have thought up as a way of getting themselves more of what’s available to them.
    These bags are called swag bags or gift bags. And while googling I found interesting things. These could explain why pollies don’t always have their mind on the job when they could be somewhere getting a gift bag worth up to $48,000. At the Oscars all the non-winning nominees get one.

    On the basis that many people will be more interested in celebrity gossip than in reading about and informing themselves, about our symbolic economy (the Claytons one we endure at the moment) I give you an insight into the gift bags that have a sting in their tail.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2013/02/22/oscar-night-gift-bags-are-taxable-cast-of-twilight-franchise-relieved-to-dodge-bullet/

    Not only do the ‘losers’ get a consolation prize of possibly unwanted items, on which they may have to pay $20,000 tax, the receipt of the bags marks them as objects of disrespect, according to the USA tax department, the IRS.

    Q: If these are gifts, why do they have to be treated as income?
    A: These gift bags are not gifts for federal income tax purposes because the organizations and merchants who participate in giving the gifts bags do not do so solely out of affection, respect, or similar impulses for the recipients of the gift bags.
    What a poke in the eye with a burnt stick, as we say!

    In one bag there is a gift certificate and service discount from Dr. Ted Eisenberg, author of The Scoop on Breasts: A Plastic Surgeon Busts Myths;. That might not be just for women as I understand men can try to boost their chest boobs with surgery.
    Huff Post have a photo of the goodies from one year:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tanja-m-laden/and-now-for-the-grammy-sw_b_2663874.html

    • karol 8.1
      30 December 2014 at 6:10 pm

      It’ll be interesting to compare the most viewed posts tomorrow, with the most commented ones here.

      I do think people are more likely to comment about politicians, and on topics that trigger strong emotions – often the negative critical ones.

      But that is understandable. It is far harder to make large numbers of comments critiquing society and its structures, and maybe even harder to produce numbers of positive comments and/or comments proposing positive solutions.

      I also think there can be more comments when people strongly disagree on something.

      • Sacha 8.1.1
        30 December 2014 at 8:23 pm

        “here can be more comments when people strongly disagree on something”

        Yes.

        “It is far harder to make large numbers of comments critiquing society and its structures, and maybe even harder to produce numbers of positive comments and/or comments proposing positive solutions.”

        Do say more?

        • karol 8.1.1.1
          30 December 2014 at 8:26 pm

          Take a look a Fairy godmother’s guest post – I’m pretty sure people the majority of people here agree that it should be easier for young unemployed people – but not a lot of solutions offered – too hard.

          • Sacha 8.1.1.1.1
            30 December 2014 at 8:41 pm

            Without reading that post, don’t you reckon there might be structural reasons that people only offer affirmations of problems rather than answers?

          • Pete George 8.1.1.1.2
            31 December 2014 at 8:29 am

            The reality is that it’s easy to argue and disagree, it’s a lot harder to come up with potential solutions that have any chance of being tried. More so when supporting parties in opposition.

            Are efforts best put into trying to influence what might be done in the current term, or preparing for taking over power when much more can be tried?

            One thing is more certain – the more negativity and attacks the less the chance of any success, both in the current term and of getting into a position of power next term.

            • Naturesong 8.1.1.1.2.1
              2 January 2015 at 3:07 am

              Why, negative politics has worked like gang busters for National for the last 8 years (while at the same time the relentless drumbeat from National is that it is the opposition is negative!!).

              That said, I will not support any party that uses negative politics.

              And FFS, do not conflate negative politics with the opposition’s duty in Parliament to keep the govt of the day honest.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                2 January 2015 at 8:47 am

                What could be more negative than the vain and empty works of Petty George?

              • Pete George …
                2 January 2015 at 9:24 am

                Sure, it’s an important duty of the opposition to “keep the govt of the day honest”.

                But if the opposition wants improve it’s chances of being the next government it has to avoid looking too negative. Voters don’t like negative, destructive politics.

                So opposition parties (and activists) need to know the difference between valid holding to account and repetitive petty attacks (OAB is ignorant of that). They have to pick their fights wisely and look like they can be a positive alternative.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  2 January 2015 at 9:28 am

                  …and private citizens can say what they damn well please about bland mendacious fact checking website editors airbags.

                  • Pete George …
                    2 January 2015 at 9:44 am

                    …and their associated politics judged accordingly. Have you given up on 2017 already?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      2 January 2015 at 9:52 am

                      The policies suggested by bland mendacious failures can be similarly discounted. There’s a reason it sounds like yawns.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      2 January 2015 at 9:56 am

                      Speaking of yawns, haven’t you got ten or fifteen posts to write, or do you need more expressions of contempt first? I may have to start charging you for content.

                • vto …
                  2 January 2015 at 9:32 am

                  I really don’t know how you manage to sit on the fence all your bloglife and not end up with numerous barbed wire gashes interrupting your thought processes on a daily, hourly, minutely basis ……………….

                  That last comment really was a nothing – like saying ‘yes but tomorrow the sun will rise again’ …… bland nothing

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    2 January 2015 at 9:42 am

                    Oh, it wasn’t quite nothing. Spot the attempt to link my comments to the actions of “the opposition”, while simultaneously implying that Petty George is somehow connected to “the government of the day”.

                    Is Petty George really incapable of distinguishing between familiarity and fact? Or does he repeat his lying narrative to exploit this all-too-human trait?

                    George Hendry’s analysis of his methods suggest the latter.

  9. A VOTER 9
    31 December 2014 at 11:14 am

    This election was The Jeb Bush factor rehashed for NZ conditions

  10. rhinocrates 10
    2 January 2015 at 10:54 am

    Astrophysicists have announced the discovery of a new class of object, the Beige Hole. Like a Black Hole, it is infinitely dense, but has no singularity as it is utterly pointless. It spins very rapidly and approaching it, one risks being caught in its Irkosphere and whipped around in circles before being dragged across the Non-event Horizon.