I have invented a game. It needs a name. Here’s how you play:
Go to http://www.google.com. Type, in quotes, your name as you ordinarily use it in public life. In my case, “Robert Hayes”.
Of the first ten results (the first page), how many of the links actually point to you, or something tightly associated with you? In my case, 2 of 10. That’s your score. The higher, the better.
The philosophy of scoring is that we’re measuring how tightly Google binds your name’s text to your life’s presence on the internet. So an article about you or by you counts, a site you own counts, etc.
Some random folks from around the blogosphere, and where they stack up. For people with nicknames AND real names, I’ve listed both, and their real score should be the average of the two:
Barry Deutsch – 7 / Ampersand – 0 / Total: 3.5
Amanda Marcotte – 10
Glenn Reynolds – 10 / Instapundit – 10 / Total: 10
Jeff Goldstein – 8
We could handicap this game; if your name is John Smith and you have a score of 5, you’re obviously more tightly bound to your name than if your name is Pheno Q. Cranowitz and you have a score of 5. I don’t know how we’d do such handicapping fairly, of course. Do I get bonus points because there are a couple of well-known Robert Hayes out there who aren’t me? Does Amanda have points taken away because her high score is due to temporary notoriety?
My inclination is to avoid handicapping and let the chips fall. But I know how all you whiny liberals like to cavil about “fairness”, so I leave the option open to future generations.
Also on the agenda for this highly substantive post: there are cats who look like Hitler.