Tobold's Blog
Thursday, October 22, 2009
What audience do I write for?

Gevlon blogs about me not being harsh enough to comment trolls. His policy is that when on his blog a commenter points out a mistake, the comment gets deleted, and the mistake fixed without any record of the edit. Like the party fixing historical records in 1984, that makes Gevlon look omniscient and always correct, because he leaves no trace of ever having been wrong. And he has an interesting justification for it. Gevlon says:
My most disliked action is "sneak editing", aka fixing an error in the post and delete the referring comment. I'm writing it for the readers. See it from this perspective. He is not interested in old incorrect versions and their incremental fixation, nor the comments that pointed out the errors. He wants to read an error-free post.

Exactly like Blizzard I won't make content for only 1-10% of my subscriber base. While I personally like intelligent commenters more than a random guy who spends 2:15 on the site, my personal feelings does not matter. Business is business, cost effectiveness above all!
Now statistically speaking, Gevlon has a point. There are 3,000 people visiting my blog every day, plus another 3,000 reading the RSS feed, which is a lot compared to the 25 comments the average post gets. But the comparison with Blizzard is dead wrong: Outside Asia, Blizzard is dealing with customers who are all paying about the same monthly fee, thus they have a good reason to try to make content for all of them, and not just some 1-10% subgroup. But what if WoW was Free2Play, and only that 1-10% subgroup was paying, while the other 90-99% were playing for free? It would still make sense to not totally neglect the majority, as they could always decide to move into the paying subgroup. But you'd want to favor the payers over the non-payers, to make paying more attractive. In such a model, not everyone in your audience is equal.

My blog isn't much different. Not everyone in my audience is of equal importance to me. Google Analytics tells me that over the last 30 days I got 68 visitors who found me by typing the search words "Age of Conan sex" into Google. Most of my visitors only stay between 1 and 2 minutes on my site. So why should I value those visitors as much as I value the readers who come here regularly, especially those who leave feedback?

I consider those of my readers who leave comments to be "paying" customers, while the others are Free2Read customers. :) And as my commenters are important to me, I take their feelings into account in my comment moderation policy. I do agree with Gevlon that I should have deleted the troll comments which derailed my "transferring a character is cheaper than buying gold" thread earlier. But even when I finally deleted those comments, I still left a note of why I did that. And whenever somebody points out a mistake I made, I do *not* delete the comment pointing out the mistake, and I *do* leave either a comment or a note in the post that I edited it to fix the mistake.

That is not to say that I allow every comment on my blog. I regularly reject comments (and with the new system you actually never see them), either because they are comment spam, or because they add nothing to the discussion, or because they contain personal attacks. Unfortunately we live in a world where you can't mention the possibility that some game might possibly have some flaw without somebody shooting off a "you are just a WoW fanboi" (or "you are just a WoW hater" in case I'm talking about WoW) one-liner comment. Also I get those stupid "you shouldn't write about this subject" comments Gevlons mentions and delete them. Comments which don't use the word "you" are usually of higher quality. But I think I sufficiently explained my comment moderation rules and reader rights in my Terms of Service.

The point is that I am not afraid to admit that I'm just human. I make mistakes, I get hurt, I get angry, I react, just like everybody else does. And I do have a social relationship with my "community", however you want to define it. There are rules, but there is also respect, and mutual appreciation. My blog is not "business", it is far more personal than that. And the funny thing is that if Gevlon would be honest to himself, he'd realize that writing a not-for-profit blog is an extremely social act, as the only rewards for it are of the social kind.
While I agree wholeheartedly in deleting blatant troll comments - and I do it all the time on Trembling Hand - I don't agree with deleting comments that have pointed out genuine errors in the post, even if the post has since been corrected.

It's about simple transparency and accountability. If you make a mistake, you admit it. More importantly, you don't do anything that could be perceived as you trying to hide it.

Maybe it's because I'm a journalist, and I bring old school journalistic values to blogging (yeah, I know, one wonders why...). But in the magazines that I've edited, even when it would have been trivial to not even publish a letter mentioning an error, I've made a point of publising a correction, and the letter pointing out the error.

That doesn't end up diminishing your reputation as a reliable source, it enhances it.

(As for Google search terms, I'd like to think the people who found Trembling Hand looking for "big +guns +women" would have found at least something to keep them occupied momentarily.)
"Gevlon look omniscient and always correct, because he leaves no trace of ever having been wrong."

The point is that NO ONE cares about me, no one cares about me being wrong or right. They care about an IDEA, a piece of information, a meme if you like. They will forget who told it to them in 10 minutes. But if the idea is good, it stays in their mind. Anything that disturbs this process is decreasing the blog effectivity.
So from a different perspective, you, Tobold, chose to state the obvious; you want to show your readers you make mistakes, get hurt, get angry, react, *just like everybody else does*.
Gevlon simply choses to keep the blog clear from this (imo irrelevant) stuff.
If you think that makes Gevlon look omniscient and always correct, that only tells me that you want to see others fail sometimes (and them admitting it too). It's in contradiction to stating everyone else makes mistakes, because for some reason you still want to see those mistakes being made.
That's all fine and dandy except that it makes it extremely easy for a blogger to delete on-topic comments that he simply *does not like*, effectively turning a blog into an echo chamber.

Gevlon is actually a good example. This post on trolls is not the first post on trolls he ever had. He typically has one right after he loses an argument in a comment thread for another post on a different topic. After Gevlon made his last post on trolls, I made a comment with the content similar to the two lines above. My comment got immediately deleted.

You can judge for yourself how much a troll I am by inspecting the comments I made to other Gevlon's posts, starting with this comment thread:

My nick is 'Ten' and I don't use any other nicks.

My view on comment policies is that you obviously have to protect from spam, but other than that you are either man enough to hear what other people have to say (don't disrespect your readers, they can judge who is who by themselves without your help) or you are not.
By the way, if the intent of deleting comments is to present a reader with a clear (although skewed) view of the discussed topic, why not edit comments as well? Nobody would know.
I find it interesting in a way when, as a community, we debate the idea of policy for commenting on a blog. Stick with me a second. We have to realize that when we write something for the public to freely view that they may or may not agree with us.

Now I am a big fan of freedom of speach and while my own blog is all of one day old, I am not going to moderate my blog. I feel that if I put something out there and John Smith doesn't like it, then he has a right to express his opinion. Even if that opinion is uneducated name calling or "your momma wears combat boots" comments. The trick here is that this is my view. The nice thing about a blog is that we are all entitled to run it how we see it.

So if Gevlin wants to write crazy ideas about society or schemes to making money that his right. If he chooses to restrict the flow of comments and edit his material, then that is his choice. Just like Tobold decides not to reveal his character or realm for his own privacy (which I agree with). The joy of blogging is that it allows us to express ourselves and we can even decide if we want or how we want people to be able to respond.

As for me, if I see something that I felt strongly about, I would link it to my blog and respond from there. After all, that is the joy of blogging. It is like our own little pulpit.
Ten, I certainly agree that censorship is the danger of comment moderation. But as you say, "you can judge for yourself". Does my comment section look like an echo chamber with only "I agree" posts to you?

The problem of allowing every comment is not whether the blogger is "man enough", but the quality of the discussion that follows. How much thoughful and intelligent discussion do you find on the official World of Warcraft forums? Very little, because threads are quickly derailed, and turned into mudfights between trolls. Posts like "First!", "WoW sucks", "No, you suck!" are simply destroying the environment for those who actually want to discuss something in a polite and intelligent manner.

More advanced discussion systems have options where readers or moderators can "vote down" comments, with the average reader only seeing comments above a certain threshold of quality. That would preserve the issue of censorship (the comment is still there and visible to anyone who bothers to look) and preserve the quality of discussion at the same time. Unfortunately Blogger doesn't offer such a system of comment rating yet.
Gevlon has by far the least interesting comments threads of any blogger precisely because he does prune any comment that makes him "look bad".

Just look at the names of the people who comment.

There's rarely the name of another blogger, there's never the name of a designer.

Some of the most interesting blog posts here have been because of the comments. I remember having an excellent discussion here with Dr Bartle amongst others about sandboxes in your comments thread.

To be honest Klepsakovic sums it up perfectly:
Gevlon: You underestimate how strongly some messages get linked to the messenger. I do not regularly read your blog since I don't play WoW, but I do link the whole glyph business to you now.

If message/messenger weren't sometimes tightly intertwined, arguments from authority would not even exist.
Does my comment section look like an echo chamber with only "I agree" posts to you?

Not right now, but it might one day. Deleting comments on a basis as unclear as "not contributing to the discussion" is a slippery slope. The next step is "not contributing enough to the discussion". Then it is "not contributing enough to the discussion in the aspect I care about here". And so on and so forth.

Voting systems are great, I agree. But if you can't use one, I'd venture to say that not moderating comments at all (save for spam) is much better than moderating them. The former builds trust. The latter doesn't, not to mention that it is a constant source of stress.
And, speaking of voting comment systems for Blogger, I got interested and found this:
Comment rating is not an option either, since the majority of people will, or are tempted to, rate according to 'I agree'/'I don't agree' instead of 'Quality post'/'Not a quality post'.

Imo you're the host of the 'talkshow', so you moderate. And the way you moderate determines what audience you get.
I think that if my own blog ever grew to the readership that others have that I would definitely consider setting some boundries. While I want people to express theirselves, I also do not want to see conversations spiral out of control.

I feel very strongly that I write to share my own experiences and insights and while I am always appreciative of feedback, I do not need someone to inform me of misspellings or errors in my grammar. Nor do I want the "you suck" comments. So I can agree with what you are saying. I think that you have to watch your sites once you hit a certain level of notoriety and that it ultimately is the bloggers decision of what they want to appear on their sites.
Unfortunately Blogger doesn't offer such a system of comment rating yet.
Like Ten said, there's third-party comment provides like IntenseDebate, which do have the comment rating feature. Of course, if the trolls outnumber the benevolent commenters, they can vote down any non-troll comment.
"Google Analytics tells me that over the last 30 days I got 68 visitors who found me by typing the search words "Age of Conan sex" into Google."

And after mentioning that factoid, you're now even higher up the Google rankings for Age of Conan sex. Congratulations! :-)
And after mentioning that factoid, you're now even higher up the Google rankings for Age of Conan sex. Congratulations! :-)

If I wanted I could do a lot more in the field of so-called "search engine optimization" to increase my visitor numbers by using more terms people are most likely to search for. But as I said, I'm not really writing for the thousands who just visit my site for a minute and then leave disappointed because they didn't find any AoC sex pictures.

Increasing the amount of intelligent feedback is a lot harder than increasing just visitor numbers.
I've never understood the point of comment rating. This isn't a competition to me and I wouldn't like my comments to be graded somehow. It wouldn't increase my incentive for commenting, rather the opposite. What if some stupid troll will vote down my comment making me look stupid? No thanks.

As a commenter and reader I appreciate if the blogkeeper somehow manages the comments. That he shows that he reads and cares about the backside of the blog as well as about the front. In this I include giving proper responses to comments that need a response (not necessarily every single comment, I don't expect all bloggers to be as crazy as I am.) And I also expect them to deal with the trolls, preferrably by deleting them altogether. Trolls don't just pester the blog keeper - they're polluting the whole atomosphere of a blog.
I've been lucky enough not to have to bother with too much of them. But if I would get a troll invastion, I wouldn't hesitate to pull out my extinguisher.
Very intresting indeed. and clearly raised some opinions.

Personally, I think it depends. Depends on the person, the environment and the topic.

Its only a mistake if you don't learn from it.

I like to read that I'm not the only one who goes through learning curves- or makes mistakes- but at the same time, removing any trace is just being as professional as you can.

I'm not sure what to think to be honest-- As I'm open-minded to peoples ways- but I personally wouldn't delete them-- I'd correct the mistake and give the commenter a thankyou, most likely.
I agree with Gevlon. A commenter that just comments to be a jerk, takes away from the post and the genuine readers. I understand the F2P and paid subscribers idea, but people that pay always get more benifits than the freeloaders. Take Global Agenda for example. Paying month to month gives you access to a larger experiance. Commenting is very important to the experiance of a blog. Stat numbers are cool to look at, but if nobody says a word, the game gets boring. I admit, I don't comment on your blog hardly ever because it is daunting if I miss a post and have to catch up. After 30 cment on your blog I feel like my comment is like a newb in WoW. Nobody is going to listen to the newb of a 5 year old game. I don't even want to comment on this because this post is level 80 and I just reached the Barrens.
It's somewhat difficult to take what Gevlon says seriously, considering he's entire existence is built around being the king of the kiddie pool as it relates to MMO economies. I mean who's got the more impressive resume; someone who reaches the gold cap in WoW, or someone in the top 10 for total ISK? Then you add in the "I'm god here so I'm always right" aspect of the blog, and that defines quite well the type of community you are going to get.

But overall, don't people read blogs continuously because they like the author, not necessarily the topic? You don't post much about DarkFall, yet I'm here daily. TAGN is very heavy on in-game WoW recaps, yet that's another site I visit regularly. A lot of the reads who are interested in the genre as a whole, and not just whatever FOTM game is out today, will stick with a blog and participate almost regardless of what the content is, so long as it's well written and thought provoking.
Essentially it comes down to the blogger. What do you consider trolling? In Gevlon's case, anything that deviates from the main topic at hand is a waste and should be removed. From what I've read (I am pretty new to blogs) both Larisa and Tobold (just examples) tend to be a little more 'lax'. It is not necesarily a bad thing, if that is the enviroment they want. If they feel discussing ethics is worth keeping in the blog, they can keep them. If they don't think it fits with the 'theme' of the blog, feel free to delete it. If Tobold thinks i shouldn't have mentioned the technicality,he can delete it. But where Gevlon for sure would, I'm not sure Tobold will. That i leave up to him (not that i have a choice).

The trolling problem could be largely solved by forcing people to use 1 identity without being able to hide behind an alias (or a lvl 1) or create another account. Forcing people to post on their mains on the wow forums would clear up some (maybe not the QQ threads themselves, but the posts where people complain about something not related to the post) if you could keep track of all of a persons post. Blizzard is already on it's way with this using the new System. At blizzcon, they said that they would like to link a persons different games all to one overarching account/avatar. The only problem then is people creating new or multiple accounts for the purpose of trolling.
I think Gevlon's comment here, "The point is that NO ONE cares about me, no one cares about me being wrong or right. They care about an IDEA, a piece of information, a meme if you like." is a bit extreme.

Essentially, it rests on the idea that the value of a nugget of information lies exclusively in the nugget itself. In reality, when we are surrounded by more information than we could consume in a lifetime, the process of choosing which information to consume is nearly as important as the quality of an isolated nugget of information.

This process of choosing what information to consume can take a variety of forms (stumbleupoon, news aggregators, forwarded emails, etc), but one of the most important ones still is choosing based on author. An author tends to provide a consistent level of quality and a coherent scope of interest, which if it matches your own interests means you will return to the blog. This is the same process that leads me to read the NY Times and not the Kansas City Star. I don't want to waste my time on something I know will be below my standard.

Hence, stealth editing and making oneself artificially above flaw DOES matter, because it obscures the ability to use authorship as a good way of deciding which information to consume.
I have posted on forums that were moderated (not Gevlon's), and had my comments 'stealth' edited without notation that editing had taken place. In that particular case my comments were pruned and distorted. I stopped posting there immediately, and stopped visiting that site, and no longer even remember the name or link of the site.
Your blog has been much better since you made the changes to comment moderation and retooled after your vacation.

I don't take Gevlon seriously and I don't think you should, either. If he was serious about his wishes to destroy the M&S and live in an elitist utopia of uberbeings, he wouldn't be posting a blog that is publicly readable. If he's driven only by profit-margins and superiority, he would not create a blog that deigns to help others join him as amazing kings of online gaming. Every person that asks for a bigger part of the pie is a threat to Gevlon's superiority.

You are much more personable and I think your site benefits from it significantly. You suffer from few pretensions, which is a part of the reason I still read this blog.
I may not comment very often Mr Tobold, but I'm glad to know that my doing so - the courage it may have taken to step up and let you and everyone else know what I think - is appreciated.

Knowing that will make me, and others like me, more likely to comment in the future. And it's a good thing too. Besides... Who really cares about the opinions of those that refuse to give it?
I personally find the example of Tobold tolerating a “troll” on Gevlon’s blog to fail to meet the definition of a troll if you are willing to accept the definition on Wiki and the cited sources. I suppose that one might argue that the post unnecessarily inflammatory, but that is not Gevlon’s point.

But the irony is that Gevlon entirely misses the basis of your initial post about doing it the “legal” way, and he says that the comment about referencing the TOS is “crap”, obviously forgetting that the very definition of “legal” in WoW are the TOS and EULA.

Once Gevlon makes this elementary error, the comment becomes a “troll” in his eyes - but the error is his! Who is to say how many valid Gevlon has culled from comments due to his own errors? There is no way to know...
If a blogger has to lie about the past to protect their ideas, their ideas are clearly on a shaky foundation. Stalin didn't go down as a bad guy because people disagreed with him and he wasn't saved by massive rewriting of history; he went down because he was a heartless man who would have been better off shot during the revolution.

There's a difference between staying on message, not letting pointless details distract the reader; between that and crafting a false visage of perfection. If someone consistently appears perfect, people will naturally be less critical. It's efficient: why waste effort testing and retesting someone who is always right?

Making oneself appear omniscient isn't about smoothing over pointless mistakes, it's about smoothing over all mistakes, even the important ones, such as 99% of what Gevlon says that doesn't directly relate to glyphs and scamming newbies.
The biggest problem with doing that sort of stealth edit is that it does not do what Gevlon is suggesting - provide readers with accurate information.

If I read the original post and I keep checking back for comments as the day passes, I'll see the correction. I don't go back and reread the post every time. If the comments are there, I'll read them and discover any inaccuracies in the version I read. If the comments are deleted and the blog post altered - I will never know.

And the second problem is it just feels inherently dishonest to me. Even when information is changed, it should be done so in an edit, so that people can clearly see what has been changed and why.
Ahhh, the good 'ol Ministry of Truth! A somewhat slippery slope.
Despite all the mentions he gets here, I still haven't bothered to visit Gevlon's site. Probably not going to, either, based on his approach as exemplified by that quote.

I definitely like to be able to see the context of a post, including corrections. It's part of the narrative of the thread. Obviously if you make a grammatical error or mispelling I don't particularly want their corrections annotated. BUt if its a substantive change, then naturally I want to be made aware.
Editing in order to correct some glaring mistake is perfectly fine. Letting readers know you made the edit is icing on the cake, in terms of transparency. Being able to trust the blog author in facts and opinions presented is the most important relationship I can have with the blog. Without that, I wouldn't read the blog, period.

Editing/deleting in order to remove comments that are simply comments designed to derail the conversation, or that do not actually state anything substantive is perfectly fine. Honestly, whenever I see classic troll comments or comments that have nothing to do with the topic, I cringe. Ultimately, it breaks up the conversation. Since comments are a continuation of the blog post and in a way a conversation, a troll who derails the comments/thread is the same as someone who starts yelling and screaming while people are trying to talk. They need to be escorted out and not permitted to return.

Where Tobold and Gevlon stand in editing/deleting comments depends on their individual persona, and what they are trying to do with their blog. While I see Tobold as trying to have a conversation, I see Gevlon as more preachy about who is and isn't worthy of playing a video game.

For my particular preference of conversation, Tobold has the better policy because he will generally delete troll comments, and allow comments that may cause the conversation to shift one way or the other, without being derailed.

If I understand Gevlon's policy, his blog only allows information and conversation that he deems worthwhile, with even the slightest side-topic discussion deleted (even if Gevlon later makes a whole post on the topic). While that may keep the thread "on topic", it also makes the thread less developed and thought out. Sometimes fleshing out side topics can make the original topic more complete, even if on the surface it doesn't appear to be directly related.
If you get that many uniques a day, you should be running some Adsense here. I make a pretty decent amount on a horse forum site that gets 1/6 of your traffic.

FYI. :)

Then you will care about SEO and uniques, evergreen content, and long term performance of your articles/posts.
I think it is worth noting that Gevlon does his censorship after the comment is posted, and Tobold does it before. Of course, there is also the matter of difference of what they deem is "off-topic" or trolling, but that's neither here nor there.

[I do think that anyone who thinks the fact that Tobold used his wife's account was actually important is COMPLETELY missing the point of that post, though.]

But then Gevlon's posts are not just for his day-to-day readers, but for people who come in later and read the older posts on his blog. Of course, admitting and fixing the mistake openly is about the same for any future readers, but Gevlon prefers making the text the post correct entirely.

I think Gevlon wants people to read his blog, not because they like him [as syncaine remarks on his habit of reading Tobold's blog], but because they are interested in his ideas, so for him, the correct presentation of his ideas and posts are important.
I find Gevlons comment editing policy as twisted and dishonest as his writings. Not my cup of tea.
Listening to other's talk about Gevlon's site makes me appreciate Tobold's site all the more. I have posted 2 comments on Gevlon's site that I thought were absolutely valid but were deleted and ignored (as in, no stealth edit to address my point). Interestingly, out of frustration, I opened the question to the other commenters if this is how most non-strawman arguments are handled on Gevlon's site. My answer was swift. Comment deleted.
Hi tobold,
I am going to agree with you with an explanation.

You are like Blizzard in a way. This blog is your "virtual world" and you, playing the part of the developer are responsible for the content. Now if the content isn't suitable then your audience, your "players" have the write to come here or not. So you make sure that there is quality content on your site at all times.

Your errors are kept at a minimum, your context is well thought out and your topics are ORIGINAL. That to me sounds like what Blizzard does with WoW; quality control standards are used in order to deliver pure entertainment to their public.

Your site is none the different. You are responsible for the comments as well as what your write. If you make an error, whether a name or date error. You fix it, but if someone writes "hey tobold! You misspelled meka leka high meka hieney HO! You &%!@ failzore! Die in a fire!!!" That person is endangering the environment you are trying to create.

If I wanted to read people cursing other people out, I would PLAY WoW. I read literature because I want to learn and expand my mental territory. You even have the right to delete my post if your feel fit. I hope you don't, but this is your world and you can do what you want with it.

I believe in free speech, but not at everyone elses expense.

'Nuff said.
"He (The reader)is not interested in old incorrect versions and their incremental fixation, nor the comments that pointed out the errors. He wants to read an error-free post."

Gevlon, you can't be more wrong than that.
I AM interrested in the history of the post, what error was in it the first time and when it was corrected and not just for the sake of it. I find it honest and it gives me confidence. On the other Hand sneaky modifications sound a lot like 1984 or any other "erase-the-guns or erase-the-twins towers from that movies" wich I find very wrong, it's rewrinting history a thing only dictators do, Well I must stop here before I reach Goldwin but I really think it's a matter of principle and honesty to mark edited posts as such.
I can understand using Gevlon as an example around which to talk about blogger integrity, but at what point do people like him simply stop meriting comment? To arbitrarily delete dissenting comments and make silent edits to published pieces goes against a nascent norm of blogger ethics. It is a norm that is still, like much of new media, evolving fast and prominent bloggers like you can help to reify it. However, while posts like this are a step towards that goal, they also in some measure legitimate Gevlon and his practices. Bloggers like Gevlon feed off a constantly churning audience of visitors who would never affirm his ideology or his practices if those visitors realized their true nature. Directly linking one of his posts will funnel off another few people to a blogger who shouldn't be acknowledged by the rest of the gaming blog community, notwithstanding the practices you point to in this post.
I can understand using Gevlon as an example around which to talk about blogger integrity, but at what point do people like him simply stop meriting comment?

Like "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" in the Harry Potter novels? I always found the idea that something bad would go away if we simply stopped talking about it a bit ridiculous.
"Like "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" in the Harry Potter novels? I always found the idea that something bad would go away if we simply stopped talking about it a bit ridiculous."

I find that example disanalogous because Voldemort had a real power quite apart from whatever cult of personality he developed among his true believers or the world at large. Among bloggers there is no suitable distinction between individual power and social power or relevance. To mention someone like Gevlon, and even moreso to link him, is to provide him some additional relevance, which especially for him and the community at large is the primary currency of blogging.

I find boycotting a valid form of protest, and on the internet it seems to be one of the most effective. My point was that it seems self-defeating to slight his practices, if in doing so you direct your own readers to Gevlon and another link that search engines will index for posterity.
Gevlon's comment policies seem frighteningly similar to plagiarism. If I use someone else's work, I credit it, period.
With respect to Gevlon, I understand completely modifying your post if someone points out a valid mistake, but when you begin deleting the posts of those who correct you, well, it just seems silly, disrespectful to your readers, and dishonest in a 1984 kind of way.

I just found Gevlon's blog and have been enjoying reading it (and I have learned a lot), but as a fellow blogger and just someone who values open discussion, the whole deletion thing flat out sucks.
Post a Comment

<< Home
Newer›  ‹Older

  Powered by Blogger   Free Page Rank Tool