Thursday, January 22, 2009

RB: Julia, Jan 22 - 8:07pm

So. Close.


  1. This is off topic but I'm adding it in because I suspect there will be some selective purging on NS very soon. How does this have a place on a "business" blog in the "dating expert" section?

    Jan 22 - 7:39pm
    Mary:Charles Forman was a giant douche to me at the New York Times party.
    Me (Julia): I'm not surprised. He's been a giant douche to me for the last two months.
    Mary: Well I didn't know this! I went up to him all like "Hi, Charles Forman!! Give me a hug!" And he's like, "I don't touch people."
    Mary: And then he grabbed David Karp's boob.

    Julia, please advise your impressionable fan girls that the bitchy tacky trashing of ANY ex on your public "work" blog (not to mention soemone you casually (i.e. non-sexually) dated for 5 minutes 100 years ago) is probably not the best "persona" to put out there in your capacity as a business woman or dating expert.

    I'm only posting "anonymous" because I don't know how to work the other choices.

  2. Those numbers are totally bogus.

  3. @ Jacy:

    This is the link that shows the "illegal" coding:

    And THIS is where you can report this unscrupulous activity to Google:

  4. RE: Fellow Anonymous

    Charles Forman really, truly does NOT like her. He likes Mary even less.

  5. What is with the obsession of pageviews? That number includes all the times that she views it not to mention her handful of fan girls that can't think for themselves. So what's to say what is really driving that?

    As a marketing professional, pageviews mean nothing! I don't sell ads on a website because of this. It all comes down to content, where the viewers are coming from and if it is a good match for the market the advertiser is after. Why oh why is she so hell bent on 1,000,000 pageviews? Congrats! You've just proved you spend a lot of your free time padding those numbers as the ONLY means to market your site to potential sponsors/advertisers. Sure...that will work! No content...just numbers. "I have a site of nothing with 1,000,000 pageviews! Give me $$$!" Don't you think that is a red flag to any potential sponsor/advertiser?

    The most popular sites aren't always the best.'s girls like this that make my job that much harder and puts a mockery on hardworking women everywhere.

  6. Plus, a big passel of pageviewers have gone cold-turkey on NonSensical and are coming here instead. It's hard, bunnies, I know, but keep strong. We must stop the insanity.

  7. She's lying about the statistics. Can someone prove this out? There is no way there are that many unique visitors coming to this craptacular web site.

  8. Well, she's gotten roughly 10,000 hits in the last 24 hours. Don't know how reflective that is of a day, but that gets her to 300,000 a month. Mary and Meghan get a fraction of that. So, combining the three of them she's not at 600,000 a month as an average.
    And that, of course, is not uniques.

  9. I just wonder how many of those page views are people who despise her (like me) and not actual fans.

    The discrepancy between actual fans and haters has got to change the statistics as well for potential advertisers... not that there is really any way to prove that.

  10. Pageviews are never enough, advertisers would rather see click-through/purchase ratios and their success rates. If they're willing to pay to put their images/name on your site they want to be sure they'll get their bucks worth AND that association with your venture won't look bad for them. All the remarks people make about lack of integrity, professionalism and transparency should seriously be taken to heart by the girls of NS. I understand they're trying to be real by putting themselves out there without much of a filter, but they don't understand they can't actually BE real, flawed human beings if they're trying to make money as spokeswomen.

    I'm not sure if it's really about creating a legitimate business or becoming - and therefore receiving the perks associated with being - celebrities.

  11. Unfortunately, there is no way to distinguish between "fans" and people who are just watching the train wreck happen.At this point, I think Julia Allison knows exactly what pushes peoples buttons for the worse (the horrendous photos, the made up reader emails, bragging about bogus stats, etc.) and completely exploits that for page views. Whatever her detractors are complaining about here, she reads (we all know you do, Julia!) and just posts to fan the flames, however negative they may be. If you've been following her for any amount of time, you'll notice a pattern to her posts - she courts negative attention for page views.

    If you don't want her to get more of her precious page views, just don't visit. Period. There's plenty of fun stuff going on here.

  12. The more she posts about page views the less inclined I am to go over there. Not to mentioned when I do I see the same dull pictures and empty content reblogged by the three of them each day.

    They seem to manage something 3 posts per day on many days and those are one liners describing the weather or serving as a caption on a reblogged photo. They basically recycle content each one of them posting and commenting on a picture or post one of the others put up first, but get triple the views because most people probably check each blog when visiting. Another example of their chasing after the almighty page view, content be damned..

  13. someone should send this site to gawker so they can promote visiting here instead of NS. that alone would make those page view numbers drop significantly.