The Standard now largest NZ political blog?

Written By: - Date published: 2:47 pm, May 24th, 2009 - 110 comments
Categories: blogs, dpf, humour, interweb - Tags:

No, not because we’ve overtaken Kiwiblog in readership just yet (although ours is growing at a healthy 10% a month) but because I don’t think we can call Kiwiblog a political blog any more.

1) A blog is meant to be writers giving their views on issues; a web-based log of their thoughts, if you will. If you read Kiwiblog, you’ll have noticed there a lot of cut and paste jobs. I did some of my own cutting and pasting – Kiwiblog’s front page into Word – and learned that 74% of the words were quoted from another source. Entire posts have no words from DPF apart from “The Herald reports”. So, rather than a blog, Kiwiblog might be described as a news aggregator.

2) Just 6 of 25 posts on the front page contained any political analysis beyond the level of quoting someone else and saying “indeed”. It’s normal to see the occasional political post in a non-political blog. So if we’re still to consider Kiwiblog a blog, we shouldn’t think of it as a political one.

3) There are 3 posts that are actually just ads for David Farrar’s business interests – one each on Ffunnell, ipredict*, and Powershop. Each of them talks about the companies but fails to mention that Farrar has a financial interest in them. So, rather than being a blog, it’s more an exercise in embedded advertising.

Thus, we can now consider The Standard to be New Zealand’s most-read political blog. With our growth rate we were going to get there soon enough anyway, so it’s a little bit of a shame to take the crown by default. Still a win’s a win and they all look the same in the book.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Gentle ribbing aside, did you see the fast one DPF pulled last week?

He put up a post noting that the ipredict stock on Jim Anderton announcing his retirement this year had been increasing and strongly suggesting that someone was buying with inside knowledge (which is all well and good). The stock rose further on that news. A couple of hours later DPF put up an update purporting to be an email from Jim Anderton saying he was not retiring. The stock crashed but, as he wrote, DPF had been able to get out first.

Deciding how to realise information to the market and when allowed DPF to make a tidy sum of money in a couple of hours. It seems that goes beyond the mere use of insider information, which is good in a predictions market, to actively manipulating the market, which is at least unethical.

You have to wonder too, who had pushed the stock up in the first place to lay the grounds for the bait and switch if there was no underlying truth to it. It could be that DPF pulled a pump and dump.

ipredict is DPF’s company If DPF wants to use his power as an information distributor to rip people off that’s his business but I’ve closed my ipredict account.
– Marty G

110 comments on “The Standard now largest NZ political blog? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Lew 1
    24 May 2009 at 3:05 pm

    Furious rejoinder and call for apology from DPF in 5 … 4 … 3 ….

    It would seem he has good grounds this time, as well. As far as I know, iPredict is not “his company” – according to his Disclosure Statement, he writes a weekly analysis for them, although he does mention the 2008 election, so perhaps it’s outdated. If you have any evidence to the contrary, then let me preempt David and ask you to put it up or publicly recant.

    Honestly, it’s one thing to legitimately criticise of DPF – there’s plenty to criticise – but there’s no class in just making shit up.

    L

    • Marty G 1.1
      24 May 2009 at 3:12 pm

      Lew, just let me be sure. Is the only “shit” I’m making up that DPF owns ipredict?

      I’m pretty sure he does have an ownership stake but that’s irrelevant to the issue anyway and if it turns out he doesn’t I can remove that from the last sentence without losing the substance.

      It’s about someone using their role as a distributor of information to a market to make money off how and when the market gets that information.

      • Anita 1.1.1
        24 May 2009 at 3:15 pm

        DPF does not have an ownership stake, and it was trivial to check.

      • Anita 1.1.2
        24 May 2009 at 3:19 pm

        You want to alter your point 3 as well as the alteration you’ve done to the final one.

        P.S. I think Powershop is owned by Meridian, but how about I take 30 secs and check?

        Edit: Yep, Powershop is a wholly owned subsidiary of Meridian

        P.P.S. Ffunnell is also not owned by DPF, but there do seem to be business ties.

        • Marty G 1.1.2.1
          24 May 2009 at 3:27 pm

          He has a financial interest in both ipredict (as an investor in the markets and presumably paid for his analysis) and Powershop (gets paid for running their ads on his site). Do you know the difference between financial interest and ownership? One’s a subset of the other.

          • Anita 1.1.2.1.1
            24 May 2009 at 3:45 pm

            Hm… that’s fair assuming that he is paid by iPredict as an analyst. Although I doubt being a user of their service gives him a financial interest.

            If you’re going to arguing he has a financial interest in Powershop surely it’s for being in their ads? 🙂

      • Lew 1.1.3
        24 May 2009 at 3:22 pm

        Anita,

        Yeah 🙂

        Marty,

        I’m pretty sure he does have an ownership stake but that’s irrelevant to the issue anyway

        No, it’s not irrelevant. DPF is using his knowledge of the political sphere as a means to make more accurate predictions. That’s the point of prediction markets – give people who know about something an incentive to use their knowledge and everyone gets a better idea of what is likely to happen. Are you saying anyone with the ability to receive an email from Jim Anderton shouldn’t (ethically) buy his iPredict stocks?

        Honestly, mate, since arriving in this blogosphere you’ve been responsible for a few pretty serious n00b cock-ups. Perhaps you could try harder to get your facts straight before assuming your ideology can substitute?

        L

        • Marty G 1.1.3.1
          24 May 2009 at 3:31 pm

          Lew. I’m saying that if you’re going to be distributing information to the market that influences prices you shouldn’t be using that power to get ahead of the market. It’s unethical.

          You don’t need to get personal and you were wrong on your criticism of my first post as well.

          I don’t know if there have been other criticism because, like everyone else, I don’t bother reading KiwiPolitico. There’s nothing on it except some self-indulgent leftwingers attacking the left.

          • Anita 1.1.3.1.1
            24 May 2009 at 3:48 pm

            I don’t understand the ethics of markets (and have great optimism BK Drinkwater is about to help out 🙂 ) but wasn’t there recently quite a lot of discussion about NZX buying a media outlet because of exactly that ethical line?

          • BK Drinkwater 1.1.3.1.2
            24 May 2009 at 4:44 pm

            Anita: Glad to help 🙂

            Marty G:

            I’m saying that if you’re going to be distributing information to the market that influences prices you shouldn’t be using that power to get ahead of the market. It’s unethical.

            You’re confused.

            Insider trading, in the case of prediction markets, is the practice of trading on stuff in the time between coming across a piece of information and that information becoming common knowledge.

            How the information becomes common knowledge is irrelevant.

            The “unethical” behaviour you’re accusing dpf of was, at worst, nothing more than good old-fashioned, vanilla insider trading (which you acknowledge “is good in a predictions market”).

          • Anita 1.1.3.1.3
            24 May 2009 at 4:58 pm

            BK Drinkwater,

            Can I try three scenarios for a read on insiderness and ethics?

            1) DPF goes to a closed National Party meeting for insiders, at the meeting there is discussion of a policy announcement which Key will make at 5pm to hit the 6pm news cycle. DPF goes back and buys/sells on iPredict before 5pm.

            2) DPF receives an email off a public National Party mailing list with a press release attached. He buys/sells in the 10 mins before the MSM start to run the story.

            3) DPF is riding in a lift with a bunch of Nats, they recognise him so are unguarded in there conversation (but don’t include him). He races of and buys/sells based on what he heard.

            Are they different?

          • BK Drinkwater 1.1.3.1.4
            24 May 2009 at 4:58 pm

            Anita:

            It’s dodgier in equities markets than it is in predictions markets, because the stakes are far higher. In equities markets, insider trading can easily bring even profitable companies down: people lose their jobs and homes.

            The exchanges themselves have all sorts of opportunity to do insider trading—in particular, front-running—which is why their behaviour relating to information flows is tightly controlled. The NZX analogy to DPF’s actions would only hold if, as Marty G tried suggesting, DPF owned iPredict.

          • The Baron 1.1.3.1.5
            24 May 2009 at 5:06 pm

            While I am by no means the expert that BK is on these things, I am rather certain that such markets are designed to “flush out” such hidden knowledge, for the benefit of the market as a whole.

            So all of those things are good, as they increase the amount of information available to inform a prediction.

            Also, from the iPredict website – https://www.ipredict.co.nz/Main.php?do=help#what_about_manipulation (christ you are useless, Marty – took me two seconds):

            What about manipulation?
            From time to time, prediction markets are the target of manipulators. Without exception, manipulation is short lived and by definition presents opportunities for non-manipulators to make profits. the academic literature shows that manipulation actually increases the accuracy of the prediction market by raising its liquidity: traders are attracted into the market by the opportunity for profits that manipulation provides. When the manipulation ends, prices immediately return to a level that reflect fundamentals. The additional traders attracted into the market by the opportunity for profit increases the likelihood that the post-manipulation price correctly reflects market fundamentals.

            In any case we don’t anticipate any major problems with manipulation because users are only allowed to trade relatively small amounts of money.

            Is insider trading illegal or against the rules?
            No. In fact we welcome anyone and everyone who has (or thinks they have) information that can move the market price in the right direction.

          • BK Drinkwater 1.1.3.1.6
            24 May 2009 at 5:24 pm

            Sorry Anita, I didn’t see your more recent comment. (Also, The Baron: excellent points.)

            Your question: On an equities market, number 1 would be unethical & almost certainly illegal; number 2 is kosher since he’d be trading off public information; number 3 is seriously grey (the fault lies with the Nats having the unguarded conversation).

            This is assuming he trades on an equities market; on iPredict, all of them are fine (unless in number 1 he signed an NDA stipulating he wouldn’t go on iPredict just after the meeting).

            Manipulation on prediction markets is fine. The manipulator isn’t forcing anyone to buy or sell anything, so she/he is asking the other traders a question: how confident are you of your position. If your answer is “very”, and you happen to be correct in your position, you’ll make quite a bit of money off the manipulator. If you chicken out, then you’re indicating you’re not so confident: the market price then shifts in such a way as to de-weight your prediction. Either way, the manipulator increases the accuracy of the market’s prediction.

            For more details, see Hanson & Oprea, http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/Workshops/Markets/hanson.pdf

          • BK Drinkwater 1.1.3.1.7
            24 May 2009 at 5:49 pm

            Sorry Anita, I didn’t see your more recent comment. (See also The Baron’s excellent points.)

            Your question: On an equities market, number 1 would be unethical & almost certainly illegal; number 2 is kosher since he’d be trading off public information; number 3 is seriously grey (the fault lies with the Nats having the unguarded conversation).

            This is assuming he trades on an equities market; on iPredict, all of them are fine (unless in number 1 he signed an NDA stipulating he wouldn’t go on iPredict just after the meeting). See my exchange with felix further down the page for a quick explanation of why.

          • felix 1.1.3.1.8
            24 May 2009 at 6:03 pm

            This is all well and good as far as increasing the accuracy of the market goes, but the point raised in the post was about ripping people off which is quite another matter.

            Baron, BK, try to focus on the issue at hand. It’s not about the accuracy of prediction markets.

          • BK Drinkwater 1.1.3.1.9
            24 May 2009 at 6:12 pm

            felix, point noted, and my response is identical: the manipulator is not forcing anyone to buy or sell anything.

            If you’re confident your holding is sound, then don’t trade your stock any further. If you’re not confident, then the manipulator gives you a good chance to bail out (typically at a better price than information-based traders, to boot).

            Either way, you’re not being ripped off.

            I won’t comment on this post again: I’m busy, and I’m not confident people are understanding what I’m saying.

          • The Baron 1.1.3.1.10
            24 May 2009 at 6:13 pm

            What is it then, Felix? A blundered character assasination?

          • felix 1.1.3.1.11
            24 May 2009 at 6:48 pm

            Fair enough BK, I agree no-one is forced to take part but I think that’s beside the point.

            To be clear, it’s not that he’s misusing iPredict, more that he’s misusing his position of influence at Kiwiblog.

            Baron, it’s called ethics. I don’t expect you’d be interested.

          • Pascal's bookie 1.1.3.1.12
            24 May 2009 at 8:04 pm

            Bloody hell, what a shambles.

            I agree with Felix here:

            “To be clear, it’s not that he’s misusing iPredict, more that he’s misusing his position of influence at Kiwiblog.”

            It’s not that he’s being accused of insider trading so much as boosting stocks that he was holding.

            Let’s say some clown has a column in the WSJ read by day traders. He writes a column saying that ACME stock has had some small rises lately suggesting that those in the know are buying in advance of ACME’s rumoured contract to supply portable holes to the pentagon.

            Day traders pile on, ACME has a wee bounce, columnist ditches his stock, and ACME announces that portable holes don’t exist and even if they did they wouldn’t sell them to the pentagon. Columnist then writes that he made a wee profit.

            Is that insider trading? Nope, it’s plain old bullshitting. May or may not be legal WRT stocks, don’t care. Also don’t know or care if iPredict would care, but it does suggest that the columnist’s readers are geeky little dribbles playing at being players, and that the columnist is a tosser with no respect for his readers.

            None of which changes the fact that KB is boring and seems to function mostly as a focus group for various kite flying exercises, and that The Baron is an ass.

  2. Pengu 2
    24 May 2009 at 3:07 pm

    Kiwiblog isn’t a blog at all, but a usenet group with a graphical interface.

  3. Anita 3
    24 May 2009 at 3:08 pm

    Marty G writes,

    ipredict is DPF’s company

    Which is not what ipredict says:

    iPredict is owned by Victoria Link Ltd, itself wholly owned by Victoria University of Wellington, and the Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation (ISCR), also in Wellington. Our primary purpose is academic research.

    or, in fact, what the Companies Office says, strangely enough they agree with iPredict about its ownership:

    Share Parcels

    Total Number of shares 540,000

    Number of Shares 405,000
    Shareholder(s) 540366 – VICTORIA LINK LIMITED 18 Kelburn Parade, Wellington

    Number of Shares 135,000
    Shareholder(s) NZ INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF COMPETITION AND REGULATION Room 319, Old Kirk Building, Victoria University Of Wellington, Kelburn Parade, Wellington

    Edit: Lew, snap! 🙂

    • Marty G 3.1
      24 May 2009 at 3:18 pm

      I’m not sure what the big deal is there. A minor mistake on my part, incidental to the post and now corrected, but one that people have instantly grabbed because its easier to nitpick than engage in the substance.

      • Anita 3.1.1
        24 May 2009 at 3:26 pm

        If your primary point was that DPF was using posts on Kiwiblog to alter market behaviour and consequently make money on iPredict then

        a) It wasn’t clear from your post that was the point of the post (at least to me).

        b) I don’t much care and am not interested in engaging in the substance.

        c) It was badly let down by poor fact checking, the response was predictable, particularly given how simple it was to fact check.

        • Marty G 3.1.1.1
          24 May 2009 at 3:43 pm

          The primary point of the post was to draw attention to how Kiwiblog has become little more than a cut and paste job and invite comment on that. Personally, I think it’s only partly a result of National being in government. DPF’s also a lot more temperamental in posts these days than I remember he used to be… more ranty, less analysis.

          Then I thought I would mention the ipredict issue, which had been bugging me. Then I made a slight mistake in one sentence in that half of the post. Then you pounced because as you say you’re not interested in engaging in the substance but if ever there’s a petty attack that can make you feel cleverer than the rest of us going…

          • Anita 3.1.1.1.1
            24 May 2009 at 3:57 pm

            The primary point of the post was to draw attention to how Kiwiblog has become little more than a cut and paste job and invite comment on that.

            I seriously didn’t get that from the post. But if that’s the topic 🙂

            Personally, I think it’s only partly a result of National being in government. DPF’s also a lot more temperamental in posts these days than I remember he used to be more ranty, less analysis.

            I think he’s also just running low on good ideas and is too focussed on quantity at the expense of quality. Take his abortion law post today, given that he comes out in favour of a law change to abortion on demand it would have been a great piece to put some real work into and provoke discussion, instead it’s just quotes glued together and analysis free.

            The old DPF would’ve done the numbers for change, talked about the caucus politics on both sides and named a couple of possible candidates to run the change. This one? meh!

          • Zaphod Beeblebrox 3.1.1.1.2
            24 May 2009 at 4:02 pm

            What can he talk about? Supercity? Rankin? Lee? Cycleways?

          • Anita 3.1.1.1.3
            24 May 2009 at 4:33 pm

            Zaphod Beeblebrox,

            You’re so right.

            These are not the issues you are looking for! 🙂

          • Lew 3.1.1.1.4
            25 May 2009 at 12:05 am

            Marty, if all you’d done was what you’d set out to do, then what you’d done would have quite adequately made the point you were trying to make.

            By trying to do more than what you set out to do you failed to even do that (though it’s a good point) and also failed to do something else (not so good).

            L

  4. BK Drinkwater 4
    24 May 2009 at 3:08 pm

    Swing and a miss.

    From iPredict’s about page:

    iPredict is owned by Victoria Link Ltd, itself wholly owned by Victoria University of Wellington, and the Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation (ISCR), also in Wellington. Our primary purpose is academic research.

    Also, apropos of the “insider trading” thing:

    Is insider trading illegal or against the rules?
    No. In fact we welcome anyone and everyone who has (or thinks they have) information that can move the market price in the right direction.

    Robin Hanson has published various papers demonstrating that manipulation is a also a good thing in these markets: they increase liquidity, which implicitly drive prices towards “true” predictions (in the medium and long run).

    • felix 4.1
      24 May 2009 at 3:13 pm

      “It seems that goes beyond the mere use of insider information, which is good in a predictions market, to actively manipulating the market, which is at least unethical.”

      • BK Drinkwater 4.1.1
        24 May 2009 at 3:18 pm

        Basically, if investors hold their nerve, and don’t change their market position in response to rumours on kiwiblog, they don’t lose anything due to the manipulation.

        Also, see a paper titled Manipulators Increase Information Market Accuracy.

      • BK Drinkwater 4.1.2
        24 May 2009 at 3:23 pm

        @felix:

        See the paper by Hanson and Oprea here.

        Actively manipulating prediction markets increases liquidity & therefore incentive to shift price back to “correct” predictions.

      • BK Drinkwater 4.1.3
        24 May 2009 at 3:26 pm

        http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/Workshops/Markets/hanson.pdf

        There’s nothing unethical about manipulation: you’re not forcing people to buy or sell stock: you’re asking them “how certain are you about your position?” If someone holds firm—and is also right—, then they can make a _lot_ of money off the manipulator.

      • BK Drinkwater 4.1.4
        24 May 2009 at 3:38 pm

        Here’s a paper by Hanson and Oprea about manipulators in these markets: http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/Workshops/Markets/hanson.pdf

        The gist of it is that manipulators neither force anyone to buy, nor for them to sell. They ask: “are you certain about your positions?”. If your answer is “yes”, and you are correct, you can make a _lot_ of money off the manipulator. (If done skilfully, and you realize what’s happening, it’s actually possible to grab damn near every dollar the manipulator puts in.)

      • BK Drinkwater 4.1.5
        24 May 2009 at 4:18 pm

        Just what do you and Marty G think insider trading is?

        • felix 4.1.5.1
          24 May 2009 at 5:24 pm

          In this context the distinction is obviously between:

          a) using inside information to place more accurate bets (endorsed by iPredict in your quote)

          and

          b) using a position of influence to mislead others to bet in a way which results in gains for yourself.

          I don’t think you can realistically equate those two very different approaches.

          • BK Drinkwater 4.1.5.1.1
            24 May 2009 at 5:45 pm

            The spam filter’s killing me here, but I’ll try once more:

            Manipulation on prediction markets is fine. The manipulator isn’t forcing anyone to buy or sell anything, so she/he is asking the other traders a question: how confident are you of your position?. If your answer is “very”, and you happen to be correct in your position, you’ll make quite a bit of money off the manipulator. If you chicken out, then you’re indicating you’re not so confident: the market price then shifts in such a way as to de-weight your prediction. Either way, the manipulator increases the accuracy of the market’s prediction, even if that’s not the intent.

          • felix 4.1.5.1.2
            24 May 2009 at 6:00 pm

            Try reading my comment above again. I’m not typing it again just for you.

    • the sprout 4.2
      24 May 2009 at 6:05 pm

      DPF doesn’t have to own it to have a financial interest in iPredict. he gambles on it, and own the county’s largest political blog, which unquestionably influences perceptions about possibilities, which influences the odds on the bets he makes.

  5. infused 5
    24 May 2009 at 3:08 pm

    urgh. Do a bit of research would you?

    Directors
    Name Date Appointed:
    COSSILL, Bruce Stanley 15-APR-2008
    7 Grove Road, Kelburn, Wellington
    EVANS, Lewis Tudor 18-DEC-2008
    Puketea, Belmont Rd RD1, Porirua 5381
    MCINTOSH, Ian Stuart 08-JAN-2008
    113 Arcus Road, RD1, Otaki
    QUIGLEY, Neil Clayton 08-JAN-2008
    20 Messines Road, Karori, Wellington

  6. dave 6
    24 May 2009 at 3:21 pm

    The Standard now largest NZ political blog?

    I did notice the word ” accurate” was not there. Just as well. In addition, most political blogs don’t put quote marks around their own comments in posts. They quote others. Also single digit numbers are usually written in words. Also ipredict has a capital P. Also… well, I’ll stop there.

    Perhaps it’s time to get the basics right before you rib others. Thankfully, The Standard is not the standard.

  7. simon 7
    24 May 2009 at 3:23 pm

    Putting ipredict stuff to one side…

    I have found myself less and less interested in kiwiblog since it became a defender of government policy versus a voice of an alternative government, which is unfortunate, because whether you agreed with the material, it was a lot more interesting.

    Really the problem is kiwiblog is boring now, it’s subject matter is now more human interest than political debate and yeah the cut and past thing is quite tedious.

    It still has its place but it isn’t at the top of its game anymore.

    (I suspect DPF is too busy advising the NACT Government ((as a contractor off course, which means he doesn’t get counted as part of the public service, like all the other ones)) and his blog is suffering from lack of quality attention.

  8. gobsmacked 8
    24 May 2009 at 3:26 pm

    *sigh*

    This happens all too often on the Standard, unfortunately.

    1) make a valid point

    2) overdo it

    3) thereby negating value of original point.

    Less is more. Take the time to get it right. Scalpel not sledgehammer.

    It’s very frustrating for those of us who want an effective forum for the left.

    (*sigh* again)

  9. Lew 9
    24 May 2009 at 3:30 pm

    My fellow detail National Socialists, we have been played.

    Marty G has figured out that in order to make his title statement true, all he has to do is post a bunch of outrageous bullshit from time to time, the sort of stuff a reasonably smart twelve year-old could rebut, and wait for the comments to roll in and boost The Standard’s Tumeke! rankings. And we’re all falling for it.

    So this will be my last comment on the matter. Oh, how I long for the days of good old Steve Pierson and Tane.

    L

  10. Marty G 10
    24 May 2009 at 3:37 pm

    Yeah. You’re right gobsmacked. Maybe if we try to be more like KiwiPolitico 🙂
    But seriously, I concede your point. There’s always people who would rather seize on one little issue than the main one. I should try not to give them ammunition.

    dave, In my opinion, writing the word looks ugly when you’re going to use numerals in the same sentence but if you want to make it your role to correct people’s writing on the internet you’ll find there’s plenty of work for you.

  11. The Baron 11
    24 May 2009 at 3:45 pm

    Hahaha what a trainwreck. I haven’t had so much fun reading comments in a long time. What a jealous little prick you are.

    I think this can be all summed up as an EPIC FAIL.

    Edit: no, there is more that I want to say – for all his “failings” that you document, isn’t it great that he is so transperant about his interests and associations? You can easily fact check and understand his motivations behind his postings due to this disclosure.

    Which is in stark contrast to pretty much every poster on this site, including you. Who are you? Who do you back? What interests do you have? We don’t know, because all of you hide behind your pseudonyms and scream bloody murder whenever anyone dares to join the dots.

    So, Marty – why don’t you get off your high horse (which seems to have more than a few broken legs anyway) and tell us a bit more about you?

    Not holding my breath.

    • Marty G 11.1
      24 May 2009 at 4:06 pm

      I don’t get the obsession some people seem to have with people’s identities. Surely arguments stand or fall on their own merit, not because of who is saying them?

      Who is The Baron, who is Felix, who is infused, who is Marty G? Who cares. One of the reasons I support The Standard’s long-running practice of using pseudonyms is that I think political debate should be about facts and ideas, not about me.

      I’m just a person with some ideas that I want to write about and a place to write them.

      • The Baron 11.1.1
        24 May 2009 at 4:16 pm

        Oooh how convenient – great when others provide a sensible level of disclosure so that you can shit all over every possible association they have, but don’t like it when the eyesights are on you eh.

        How noble of you to claim that the arguments are what matter, then go on this little personality fuelled triade. Funny how quicky facts and ideas went out the window for your cheap, poorly researched, jealousy ridden post.

        What a fucking hypocrite – once again, FAIL.

        Captcha – incalculable bogeys – must be with reference to the number of basic errors made in your postings, Marty.

        • Wayne 11.1.1.1
          24 May 2009 at 5:02 pm

          You’ve got real angry lately Baron.

          • the sprout 11.1.1.1.1
            24 May 2009 at 6:10 pm

            I’d say he’s worried that before long the Standard will have the highest readership, with its 10% monthly build while The Bog becomes ever more moribund and reliant on manipulating its readership stats by the day.

          • The Baron 11.1.1.1.2
            24 May 2009 at 6:15 pm

            Why on earth would I be worried about that?

      • infused 11.1.2
        24 May 2009 at 4:51 pm

        I’ve actually already disclosed who I was around 4-5 months ago. Somewhere on this site.

  12. felix 12
    24 May 2009 at 3:57 pm

    Now that the pedants from KP have had their little group mastie over next to nothing…

    How about that Kiwiblog, eh?

  13. Zetetic 13
    24 May 2009 at 4:10 pm

    All the biffo has gone out of Kiwiblog. Those threads used to be crazy. So much fun.

    Now it’s yawn central.

    I blame the Standard and the other leftwing upstarts. Now left-wing people don’t have to resort to Kiwiblog threads they don’t. Leaves an echo chamber.

  14. Lew 14
    24 May 2009 at 4:21 pm

    Heh. Immoderate moderation.

    Since nobody deemed fit to release my tongue-in-cheek 15:30 comment from moderation, here it is without the banned key words:

    “My fellow detail [redacted, rhymes with yahtzees], we have been played.

    Marty G has figured out that in order to make his title statement true, all he has to do is post a bunch of outrageous bull[redacted – rhymes with flit] from time to time, the sort of stuff a reasonably smart twelve year-old could rebut, and wait for the comments to roll in and boost The Standard’s Tumeke! rankings. And we’re all falling for it.

    So this will be my last comment on the matter. Oh, how I long for the days of good old Steve Pierson and Tane.”

    L

    (Not my last comment on the site, of course – just this absurd thread.)

    • Marty G 14.1
      24 May 2009 at 4:37 pm

      My post on the student loan bonus wasn’t rebutted. There was a slight error in the original table but the argument wasn’t undermined by the correction.

      Was my post on unemployment and crime rebutted? No…

      So what then is this tally of bull that has been so easily rebutted? No mistakes of consequence just two minor errors I happily fixed.

    • felix 14.2
      24 May 2009 at 5:33 pm

      And with that, self-appointed internet policeman Lew took his toys and went home.

      To play with himself.

  15. Paul Walker 15
    24 May 2009 at 4:24 pm

    “A blog is meant to be writers giving their views on issues; a web-based log of their thoughts, if you will.”

    And when did God decide this? A blog is whatever the writer of it wants it to be. There is no “a blog is meant to be”, whoever writes the bog gets to determine what that blog is, not you. People are free to do what they like with their blog and don’t have to follow dictates from the so-called Standard.

    • Zetetic 15.1
      24 May 2009 at 4:32 pm

      Do you need a little hug Paul?

      Cause you sound like you’re in tears.

      ‘web-based blog of their thoughts’ – ‘web-log’ -‘blog’

  16. Anonymouse 16
    24 May 2009 at 4:34 pm

    Where is Penguin *cough* David Farrar?

  17. infused 17
    24 May 2009 at 4:49 pm

    We’re not nit picking. i think people made a big deal about ipredict because it took roughly 30 seconds to find out dpf had nothing to do with it.

  18. jarbury 18
    24 May 2009 at 4:54 pm

    I have also noticed that DPF has ignored a lot of issues lately. Sure he lives in Wellington but he’s hardly mentioned anything on the Auckland Super-City issue. I guess when there’s a story in which the Nats don’t come out looking great from he just ignores it.

    Which is perhaps fair game.

    The blogrankings haven’t been updated for a while actually….. I wonder if anything has changed.

  19. ropata 19
    24 May 2009 at 5:18 pm

    Well done Standardistas! Farrar has become predictable. He was much more fun when he was moaning about Labour, Clark, Cullen, Greens, Winston.

    Kiwiblog’s RSS feed in Bloglines is broken, but I don’t care anymore… 😛

  20. toad 20
    24 May 2009 at 5:21 pm

    I found this interesting yesterday. When Farrar’s “Melissa concedes” thread on Kiwiblog was running rampant and Natty types were suggesting Mt Albert voters should vote for Russel Norman, Farrar starts a thread about abortion.

    Great distraction from a politically embarrassing thread, so I suppose Kiwiblog still does count as a political blog.

  21. Chris G 21
    24 May 2009 at 5:33 pm

    I also noticed there has yet to be a post on the ‘Child Face Puncher’ previously known affectionately as the ‘ear flicker’ from David.

    Not to mention recently there have been 2 or 3 blatant ads embedded as a ‘post’ – fail for subtlety. .. win for $$ from mates.

    I will concede however that running a blog does cost and making some money from it makes sense. And before some asshole says ‘its his blog he can do what he wants’ – I dont care.

    • lprent 21.1
      25 May 2009 at 12:23 am

      This one costs just under $200 per year + a lot of volunteered time. It just isn’t expensive any more, apart from learning how to write in english rather than c++, stl, qt, and boost.

      • Daniel J Miles 21.1.1
        25 May 2009 at 9:25 am

        I think that is my favourite quote in this thread. That’s quite an expense really!

  22. jarbury 22
    24 May 2009 at 5:37 pm

    I reckon Toad, starting an abortion thread is – of course – like a red rag to a bull and completely distracts people from other threads. It is interesting how many National supporters were buying into the “abandon Lee, vote Russel” argument we were putting forwards.

  23. BK Drinkwater 23
    24 May 2009 at 6:22 pm

    I apologize to readers for my many duplicate comments: the spam filter was blocking me, so I tried re-posting, then a bunch came through all at once. I’m mortified. Apologies.

    Once they were blocked, I assumed the comments at 3:18, 3:23, 3:26, 3:38, & 5:24 were all gone for good. I was wrong.

    [lprent: It holds stuff that it thinks may be spam (zaps the stuff it knows is spam). You just have to wait until one of us is online to free them. We usually let them through unless they hit our spam criteria. Normally it gets cleared frequently. Today I was off doing sector systems for Mt Albert and avoiding reading the site. Eventually another moderator cleared the backlog. ]

    • DougL 23.1
      25 May 2009 at 9:39 am

      I had the same problem trying to post a comment on the ‘spamdexing’ that DPF is utilising on his site. Thanks to Pengu for providing a possible innocent explanation (see a few comments below).

      I did a quick count and there are nearly 400 spam hyperlinks hidden in the home page of Kiwiblog. It may be a quite recent addition as I only noticed it when viewing the site on my Treo. The links are in full view at the top of the page using that platform.

  24. gingercrush 24
    24 May 2009 at 7:02 pm

    This really is the most bewildering thread. It actually wouldn’t matter if Kiwiblog was number one or not. It is still one of the very few blogs that can impact media and actually change political discourse in this country. The Standard however good it is (and frankly it seems to be dropping its quality) doesn’t have that impact. In regards to its actual contents. That in itself is meaningless.When what you say actually has media impact and what you say actually matters in politics. It is therefore political.

    .

    • Chris G 24.1
      24 May 2009 at 7:39 pm

      ‘discourse’ Jeepers, dont throw that term around to the wrong people GC, they’ll flame you for socialist academic talk!

    • Quoth the Raven 24.2
      24 May 2009 at 7:51 pm

      GC – When political discourse in this country is so far to the conservative right it’s not hard for someone like Farrar to have an impact. I don’t think it actually changes anything rather it just adds another voice to the echo chamber that the mainstream media appears to be. The quality at the standard maybe dropping, but unlike KB it actually had somewhere to drop from.

    • SPC 24.3
      24 May 2009 at 9:01 pm

      Kiwblog itself does not impact media and change political discourse – one often gets soiled just reading into the comments section.

      DPF merely uses his “Kiwiblog” connection to develop his wider commentator role in the media – its impact is related to recognition of his dogwhistling for the National cause (as a former insider now at large).

  25. DougL 25
    24 May 2009 at 9:14 pm

    Is DPF also getting an income stream from Viagra/Cialis sales or has somebody hacked his site?

    Have a look at the source code for the main page and search for Viagra or Cialis. There are hundreds of hidden links in the header code in the left column. Maybe they are just there to attract more traffic through the site.

    The links all go to a site connected to the Cardinal Stritch University in Wisconsin.

    Here’s an example: Order Viagra Without Prescription

    Very bizzare.

  26. Danyl Mclauchlan 26
    24 May 2009 at 9:28 pm

    FYI, according to Tumeke DPF’s average daily unique visits are ~ 9000/day, The Standards are ~ 1800/day. If you go back through the recorded stats at NZBlogosphere it seems David Farrar has been increasing his audience by substantially more than 10%/month.

  27. DougL 27
    24 May 2009 at 9:35 pm

    Is DPF also getting an income stream from the sale of Viagra and similar drugs or has somebody hacked his site?

    View the source code on his home page and search for Viagra. You will find hundreds of links embedded in the left column of the page which go to a site connected to the Cardinal Stritch University in Wisconsin.

    Maybe they are just there to attract more traffic through his site.

    Anyway, it’s very bizarre.

    • Pengu 27.1
      24 May 2009 at 10:06 pm

      It’s called ‘spamdexing’. The aim is to give another site more authority in Google Searches, or to acquire traffic for your own sites from irrelevant search requests.

      It is considered a ‘black hat’ SEO technique, which, if Google finds out about, put the offending site on their shit-list.

      The reason Kiwiblog features these links in the code is probably because they based their design from a generic, free-to-download wordpress template without proofing the source.

      • DougL 27.1.1
        25 May 2009 at 10:48 am

        Thanks for the explanation. DPF has removed the spam links from his homepage now. It was probably just sloppy checking of the design template rather than anything devious or sinister.

    • Luke H 27.2
      25 May 2009 at 10:33 am

      Making more stuff up are we guys? I don’t see anything of the sort in Kiwiblog’s source code.

      You’re becoming less and less credible.

      • felix 27.2.1
        25 May 2009 at 10:43 am

        Or – and I’m really going out on a limb here – at some time in the last 12 hours since it was brought up, David has cleaned up his code like any normal human would do having been alerted to such an issue.

        I looked last night when Pengu commented on it and it was definitely there. It wasn’t just Viagra either, but also Cialis and other pills. I bet David got quite a shock when he saw it too.

        • DougL 27.2.1.1
          25 May 2009 at 6:27 pm

          Yes he cleaned it up. I downloaded the page as it was then and there were nearly 400 hidden spam links in the code. If you think I was making it up, go ask DPF and I am sure he will be honest enough to admit his cock-up (forgive the smutty double entendre).

          • lprent 27.2.1.1.1
            25 May 2009 at 7:05 pm

            It has happened here several times. Each time I have to find the hole that they got in under and plug it…

  28. funwithstats 28
    24 May 2009 at 9:38 pm

    Such bile from such idiots. DPF must be smiling more than Key.

  29. Spoonfeeding Campbell Live 29
    24 May 2009 at 10:31 pm

    So, is Jeremy Wells Pengos nephew or not?

    Anita would you or someone take 2.5 seconds and check?

    I’m too bust eating biscuits.

  30. Redbaiter 30
    24 May 2009 at 11:23 pm

    What a joke. The day Mr. Farrar puts up a post so inaccurate and so distorted in fact as this one is the day you might start gaining on him. For now, your level of credibility has gone out of the gutter and down the damn sewer. You’re light years behind Kiwiblog as any source of credible information after this amazing balls up.

    Doesn’t anyone with any intelligence and maturity check the rantings of ignorant little pimply faced left wing adolescents like Marty G??

  31. outofbed 31
    24 May 2009 at 11:49 pm

    oh no he’s found us

  32. NX 32
    25 May 2009 at 12:13 am

    “You?re light years behind Kiwiblog as any source of credible information “.

    ^ hit the nail on the head Rebaiter.

    Here’s a political analysis of The Standard:
    Most of the contributors are hard-left Greenies who oppose National rather than support the Goff lead Labour party. You don’t like the direction Goff is taking the Labour party.
    Goff after all supported Roger Douglas & in some respects is only a stones through away from a National Party MP.

    So in other words.. you’re damned if you do.. and damned if you don’t. Sucks to be a leftie at the mo.

  33. dad4justice 33
    25 May 2009 at 8:43 am

    This thread clearly shows us the standard is a second rate blog behind kiwiblog.

  34. randal 34
    25 May 2009 at 12:29 pm

    has he started flogging shares in the bank being set up to let local bodies do their
    funding direct yet.
    local bodies say they can do it themselves but the round table gang want a cut off every transaction

    • Anita 34.1
      25 May 2009 at 12:32 pm

      Isn’t it going to be some kind of JV with Kiwibank? Tho I’m a couple of months out of date so perhaps things have shifted.

  35. randal 35
    25 May 2009 at 12:32 pm

    kiwiblog is the epitome of somebody hiding a abd reason behind a good one.
    in the end dpf cant keep it up because he is so shallow and his real agenda of personal aggrandisement and enrichment stands revealed.

  36. 101 36
    25 May 2009 at 5:40 pm

    100 and 1 comments on this thread

    And I then gain the joy of the capcha: drench Frank

  37. 101 + 1 37
    25 May 2009 at 5:42 pm

    Capcha: cabinet cudgeled

  38. SHG 38
    25 May 2009 at 11:45 pm

    “A blog is meant to be writers giving their views on issues; a web-based log of their thoughts, if you will. If you read Kiwiblog, you’ll have noticed there a lot of cut and paste jobs.”

    Right now on the Standard:

    First article: no text at all, simply a photo taken by an unknown photographer (and, of course, displayed with no credit)

    Second article: links to posts at four other political commentators’ sites, over half the word count of the article is verbatim quotes.

    Third article: photos taken by an unknown photographer (and, of course, displayed with no credit)

    Fourth article: links to videos and photos at other media sites.

    Fifth article: commentary by Eddie on the Auckland protests.

    So, only one out of the first five articles on the Standard right now is original work.

    You were saying?

    • Wayne 38.1
      26 May 2009 at 12:00 am

      It’s probably not my place to wade in here but dude, there’s no use defending Farrar. This is a day of heavy coverage of the hikoi, whereas Farrar does his recycled hackery thing every day.

      First article is credited, it’s linked through to the tv3 story with original source material. It’s also clearly a humour piece.

      Second article is explicitly a “hey, go look at these links” article and is the only one in probably the last week. Here it’s an exception, for Farrar it’s the rule.

      Third article is credited to a reader. One would imagine they sent the photos in after the standard requested them in the previous post.

      Fourth article is hikoi coverage, an exceptional circumstance as mentioned above.

      Fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth articles today are all original commentary or analysis. For some reason you decided to stop at the fifth. There’s more analysis in these five than you’d find in a month of Farrar’s work.

      In fact, you look at the previous week at the standard, and the one before, and you’ll find 80-90% of the posts are commentary or analysis. Farrar is day in, day out, 75% recycled hackery punctuated with the occasional “indeed”.

      Epic FAIL, SHG.

    • lprent 38.2
      26 May 2009 at 7:47 am

      I see that you are being very selective. Try looking over the whole of yesterday. There were 9 posts yesterday. So you carefully selected 5. I wonder why. Of course the hikoi was visual, so posts on that tended to focus on the video and photos. Many from people sending them in, and not wanting credit. Others related to articles in the same post.

      I’d say you were just a spinner of selective bullshit. In PR are you?

      • SHG 38.2.1
        26 May 2009 at 12:08 pm

        So you carefully selected 5. I wonder why.

        Just started at the top of the front page and kept going until I hit original work. Turns out that was the fifth article.

  39. Danyl Mclauchlan 39
    26 May 2009 at 8:55 am

    If you look at Kiwiblog via google cache you can easily see hundreds of links to viagra and cialis sites hidden in the source code. This is a lot more embarrasing for DPF than any of the feeble, mostly false accusations in the parent post.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.