Bloggernacle Survey Results

Rusty - August 10, 2005

The response to this little endeavor was fantastic. The limit for the free survey was 100 responses and I got 109 (?) (I expected around 30-50). I took screen captures of the results and have them posted below with my own speculative commentary. Feel free to jump to your own conclusions.


This was pretty much to be expected.


This I found interesting. A huge range of income among us capitalists. It appears that some of the camels here will have a tough time fitting through eyes of needles :)


No major surprise here. I would have guessed most of us are active and are either orthodox or semi-orthodox. It’s also nice that there are those who struggle with aspects of the Church that still enjoy the ‘nacle as well.


This could spawn a couple interesting posts. It’s one thing to speculate when everyone gains their testimonies, but it’s another to see that over 50% gained one before age 18. The idea of always having a testimony is quite intriguing as well. This also goes to show the importance of the youth program within the Church.



I was a bit surprised by this, I don’t know why, maybe because I expected more teachers. But I love the diversity of this group (The highest number is “no calling” but if you count out those who aren’t active you’re down to about 10% (or so)). I want to think that the one person that skipped this question was a GA :)


No surprise. I probably shouldn’t have included this question, it seems like it’s been on another survey.



Again, I love the diversity. Culture, doctrine, and history are obviously going to be popular. Funny that feminism seems to be a more interesting topic than law… I can’t believe it! And to whoever said they’ll read anything I write: I don’t pay you enough.



On this question you could only give one answer, so it’s interesting to see what people are most sick of. We all have our pet topics and it’s a bit dissappointing so many people dislike mine (R movies) So it’s now a deathmatch, what’s more infuriating: Peters vs. Jacks or those gosh darn lawyers?



I figure this is the one everyone has been most interested in the results (this is also the one that makes me wonder if people took the survey more than once so they could answer this multiple times). I really don’t know how to interpret this one. I’m guessing it’s not necessarily the opinions, but rather the tone in which they are expressed (hence, no danithew, the gentlest of bloggers). What are your interpretations on this one? Is anyone hurt? Is anyone surprised they were on this? Is it difficult to believe that someone would pick YOU out of all those blogging to be the one that drives them the MOST CRAZY?!!! Phew, good thing I didn’t put my name on there…



When the survey reached about 10 responses my blog was clearly in the lead in this category (hmmm, I wonder why, maybe because my siblings were the first to do the survey and my blog is the only one they read…). Since that point, I fell behind the obvious leaders in this category. This category brings no surprises. I appreciate the shout-out to Kulturblog though.

So, this is it. The survey was a scatter-shot of questions, some more interesting than others. Do these responses align with what you thought, or were there some major surprises? I’m looking forward to reading the posts I hope this survey inspires.

72 Comments »

  1. Was the survey data captured in such a way that you can cross tabulate a demographic against a question?

    Comment by Raine — August 10, 2005 @ 3:06 am

  2. I’m also very surprised to see the ages of testimony gained. Apparently, nearly a third of the Bloggernacle already had a testimony by the time they hit 13. That seems rather strange to me. I wonder how we’re interpreting “gained a testimony”.

    I also wonder what “always had a testimony” means. Does that just mean you’ve never doubted? How can one have always had a testimony?

    Comment by Eric Russell — August 10, 2005 @ 4:58 am

  3. Wow, I am stunned that only one person said they were sick of the WofW, I was guessing that would be at the top of the list.

    Eric, as one who ticked the “always had a testimony” box, I checked that one because I have always intuitively known it was true, its difficult to explain, but there has never been any real doubt in my mind that its not true. The only questioning has been my level of personal conviction. To me the question of God’s reality and Jesus’ Atonement isnt the question, it was my apathy through my teenage years and my later convictions. God doesnt need me to believe in Him to exist, and thats all there is to it. His hand is too obvious in my life and experiences and in the universe for me to deny it, the question is, “What am I doing about it?”

    Comment by Kurt — August 10, 2005 @ 8:21 am

  4. Cool, someone actually mentioned my name outside of my blog. This is turning into a great week for fame.

    Now I have to ask whether someone actually finds me more irritating than anyone else in the bloggernacle or if someone felt sorry for me.

    Comment by Kim Siever — August 10, 2005 @ 8:30 am

  5. Hate to disappoint; I was the active member w/o the calling. They can’t seem to get my records from SLC for some reason. 6 sundays latter…I’m still not even on the rolls! Maybe I’m not really Mormon after all? lol

    Comment by lyle stamps — August 10, 2005 @ 8:37 am

  6. p.s.

    1. The youth conversion should be no surprise. in all cultures; youth must make a choice. However, in the Mormon culture, the young men going on missions face a very daunting proposition, and I suspect many seek a testimony while preparing for their mission. I did.

    2. I find it interesting that it is the “conservatives” posters who are the most annoying. Draw from that what you wish; I suspect Kaimi can make it mean something.

    perhaps liberals can unite on criticism; while the conservatives each consider different folks as pet peeves?

    Comment by lyle stamps — August 10, 2005 @ 8:41 am

  7. Lyle, it’s not clear to me that either Steve EM or Jeffrey Gilliam are conservative. Yet they are two of the top four “irritating” bloggers. (For the record, I personally find neither of them irritating.)

    Comment by RoastedTomatoes — August 10, 2005 @ 8:54 am

  8. I just realized what I should have written in for the issue I’m most sick of:
    Fondue!

    Comment by a random John — August 10, 2005 @ 9:28 am

  9. Super interesting. I think it’s so funny that people find Steve Evans and Ryan Bell equally annoying, and that the same amount of people think BCC and M* have the most interesting posts. The universe is in equilibrium.

    Comment by Davis Bell — August 10, 2005 @ 9:31 am

  10. Davis,

    Does this mean that you’re disowning Adam?

    Comment by a random John — August 10, 2005 @ 9:37 am

  11. How about asking on the next survey “favorite blogger” rather than “most irritating?” I’m not sure why Adam is the most irritating — he seems pretty nice to me. But it was interesting to note as Davis did that BCC and M* are liked equally. I’m not surprised by Times and Seasons being the top.

    Comment by Geoff B — August 10, 2005 @ 9:43 am

  12. Raine,
    I’m sorry, the only other way I can dissect this information is look at each (anonymous) person’s choices. So I can see that the person who is a ward missionary is also the one who finds Steve Evans annoying… or whatever. I guess I could go in and figure out the demographics individually, but I’m lazy so I won’t. If you are really interested in doing that I could give you access to the information.

    Kim,
    That would be funny if someone felt SO sorry for you that they put you as the one that drives them the most crazy. Wow, such sympathy! :)

    Lyle,
    I KNEW you weren’t Mormon.

    Comment by Rusty — August 10, 2005 @ 9:44 am

  13. Geoff B,
    There actually wasn’t a “most irritating”. It was “who drives you most crazy”. I think there is a difference, others might not though. Like I said, I’ll bet most people are put off by tone, not necessarily opinion or niceness.

    And the reason I didn’t put “favorite blogger” is because that would be boring.

    Comment by Rusty — August 10, 2005 @ 9:47 am

  14. RT: Come on…this isn’t ordinal data…you know better. Add up the number of votes given to the individuals mentioned. It seems pretty clear.

    Comment by lyle — August 10, 2005 @ 10:05 am

  15. Rusty,

    Where else would s/he put my name? ;)

    Comment by Kim Siever — August 10, 2005 @ 10:15 am

  16. Fun survey! I feel sorry for Adam G., though. He’s annoying, but it’s never fun being the MOST annoying. Believe me, I know the feeling.

    And Adam has written some beautiful posts. I think he could do with a good PR person – maybe Madonna’s agent is available, since she’s the ultimate master of reinvention. :-)

    Comment by Tess — August 10, 2005 @ 10:28 am

  17. Lyle, 26 vs. 18? Not too clear to me. Pretty similar statistics, at least at first glance.

    By the way, I don’t find you irritating (sorry, Rusty, I mean you don’t drive me crazy) either.

    Comment by RoastedTomatoes — August 10, 2005 @ 10:42 am

  18. I thought this survey was a good exercise for the ‘Nacle. I was one of those who didn’t have a calling — but I am new in my ward and they are waiting for things to “settle down” a bit before they issue new callings.

    Having said that, my wife and I already feel actively integrated into ward duties. I’m regularly helping out with the sacrament and my wife has already played piano and acted as chorister in sacrament meeting.

    It seems to me that there are a number of people in the ‘Nacle who have recently moved or will be moving soon. I wonder if that effected that particular percentage at all.

    Comment by danithew — August 10, 2005 @ 10:49 am

  19. So most of the lds bloggers were born in the church? Interesting.

    What blogs make fun of older siblings?

    Comment by Susan M — August 10, 2005 @ 10:51 am

  20. Adam Greenwood may drive some people crazy, but ask yourself what T&S would be without his extremely well written posts, his humor, and his strong personality.

    Comment by C Jones — August 10, 2005 @ 10:58 am

  21. I am also one of the members with out a calling. I was ousted from mine due to scandal about a month ago. They have yet to call me into anything new. Hhhmmm, mayge I’ve discovered the way to stay calling free!

    Comment by kristen j — August 10, 2005 @ 11:46 am

  22. I’m offended that no one (other than me) voted for me as most annoying. I guess I’ll have to try harder.

    Aaron B

    Comment by Aaron Brown — August 10, 2005 @ 12:42 pm

  23. 7 votes for most irritating! I’m not sure whether I should be honored to be so well “known” or offended for being so disliked.

    I can think of more than a couple of reasons for this however:

    1) I strongly emphasize prophetic fallibility
    2) I bring up and defend rather passionately pretty contraversial doctrine such as Adam-God and Multiple Mortal Probations.
    3) I say that anybody who doesn’t accept evolution is simply ignorant, misinformed or stubborn.
    4) My rhetoric can get pretty firey.

    Maybe if I talk about sex more often and more explicitly I could compete with Steve (EM).

    Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — August 10, 2005 @ 12:53 pm

  24. “So most of the lds bloggers were born in the church?”

    How did you determien this?

    Comment by Kim Siever — August 10, 2005 @ 1:00 pm

  25. Sweet success!

    Seriously, looks like there’s gonna be 17 apologies made in the Celestial Kingdom. God will have to tell us in which direction, but I’m stocking up on throat lozenges to be safe.

    Comment by Adam Greenwood — August 10, 2005 @ 1:41 pm

  26. Adam:

    I think you should take Tess’s advice. My current rate is $60 an hour — that’s a downright bargain considering you get the combination of pr flack/master of discourse/elitist snob that is me.

    Comment by William Morris — August 10, 2005 @ 1:46 pm

  27. Yeah! I got a write in as most annoying.

    (BTW – I must confess I wrote in my own blog for most interesting. Don’t hate me)

    Comment by Clark Goble — August 10, 2005 @ 2:36 pm

  28. Well, to live up to expectations, Adam Greenwood beat me cause he looks like an inbred of 100% pioneer stock w/ a stick up his rear to boot. Who could complete against that for irritation? And Jeffery Giliam is way too nice to deserve those seven votes. Those votes should have been split between me and Greenprick. And today I learn from Kurt I accidentally stumbled into a phrase more irritating to the general bloggernacle community than a good old f-bomb. Don’t worry, I took the matter over to Mormon Open Forum, the bleed valve of the bloggernacle.

    Comment by Steve EM — August 10, 2005 @ 2:46 pm

  29. Oh, me thinks Adam confused lozenges w/ suppositories.

    Comment by Steve EM — August 10, 2005 @ 3:07 pm

  30. “Way too nice…”

    Aaawwwwhh… Thanks Steve.

    Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — August 10, 2005 @ 3:18 pm

  31. Kind of funny how Adam Greenwood is viewed as so annoying when he’s one of the few bloggers I’ve read who may not have a special place being prepared for him in the Telestial Shanty-town.

    Why doesnt it surprise me that Steve EM is over here wallowing in his own filth? If I had known about the poll, I would have voted for Steve like 50 times, one for each of his vulgarities.

    Comment by Prudence McPrude — August 10, 2005 @ 3:39 pm

  32. Aaron,

    I meant to vote for you, if that makes you feel any better. I must have accidentally skipped it. ;)

    Oh, and I’m also an active member without a calling.

    August in student wards are always a mess and a half, so no calling until September.

    I think it would have been interesting to find out how many converts/reverts we have in the ‘naccle.

    Comment by Crystal — August 10, 2005 @ 4:48 pm

  33. Well, now I feel horrible about the five surveys I filled out vilifying Adam!

    Comment by Steve Evans — August 10, 2005 @ 5:26 pm

  34. I only voted on the survey once — and on the topic of who drove me the most crazy I entered the words “I’d rather not say.” What a cop-out … but I’m glad in some ways.

    Mr. A. Greenwood holds firm to his conservative beliefs and I think that’s a big reason that he got scorched a bit here.

    Comment by danithew — August 10, 2005 @ 6:24 pm

  35. Danithew,

    I don’t know if it can be attributed to conservatism alone, given that Matt Evans, Max Wilson, and Geoff Biddulph all received much milder responses.

    Comment by Kaimi — August 10, 2005 @ 7:14 pm

  36. In Defense of A. Greenwood|Defending Greenwood

    You may have seen the fun little poll over at Nine Moons in which, among other things, our very own Adam Greenwood was voted The Blogger Who Consistently Drives Me Most Crazy. I offer the following in response to the 17 people who voted that way (or…

    Trackback by Millennial Star — August 10, 2005 @ 7:17 pm

  37. If Adam wants to email me, I’ll tell him privately exactly why he drives me crazy. I will say in public that it isn’t because he is conservative and it isn’t because he is a snappy dresser.

    Comment by a random John — August 10, 2005 @ 8:00 pm

  38. Oooh, I wish I had taken this survey. I’m new to the Bloggernacle but I would have voted for Matt Evans ten times over just for his comments on the “What Not to Wear [to church]” thread over at T&S. That guy drove me NUTS!!!

    Comment by Newbie — August 10, 2005 @ 8:22 pm

  39. I just assumed if the majority of respondents obtained their testimony as teenagers then chances are good they were born in the church.

    Comment by Susan M — August 10, 2005 @ 8:26 pm

  40. Adam Greenwood is a walking public relations disaster because he does not suffer fools gladly. And he thinks pretty much everyone is a fool who doesn’t agree with him.

    Mr. Greenwood just needs some media training on the email equivalent of how to smile benignly and nod at all the inane comments in the bloggernacle.

    And maybe a wardrobe change is in order. I find the waistcoats adorable, but… well, Carrie?

    Comment by Tess — August 10, 2005 @ 10:10 pm

  41. Tess, I wonder if you might lighten up just a little. I don’t think this needs to be a referendum on every little niggling detail of Adam’s world view and grooming and social skills that we disagree with. The poll is a fun idea, but I hope we can not cross the line into just being unChristian.

    By the way, there are billions of examples in the great bloggernacle archive database in the sky of people being harsh with those who disagree with their views. But I doubt the number of entries under Adam’s name are anywhere near the lead.

    Comment by Ryan Bell — August 10, 2005 @ 10:36 pm

  42. I like Adam because he’s a CONSERVATIVE–not like I’m your regular Republican-voting, pop culture-mistrusting, woman-marrying, Dockers-wearing conservative, but real conservative. Like what was once said of JRR Tolkien: he personally felt pain and resentment stemming from the Norman invasion of Britain. That kind of conservative.

    Comment by gst — August 10, 2005 @ 11:14 pm

  43. I think one of the reasons some folks around here are having a hard time with Mr. Greenwood is because he’s living proof that one can be educated and still remain conservative.

    Another reason is that his humor extends beyond the provincial norms of bloggersville cleverness.

    Comment by Adam — August 10, 2005 @ 11:31 pm

  44. Sheesh,

    I’m so fixed on the “Adam Greenwood” subthread that I signed in as “Adam” instead of “Jack”.

    Sorry and Adam

    Comment by Jack — August 10, 2005 @ 11:37 pm

  45. Wow.

    This is living proof that some conservatives are NOT educated. Some how I posted before finishing my comment.

    I meant say:

    Sorry. And, Adam, thanks for letting me have that fleeting whim of glory.

    Comment by Jack — August 10, 2005 @ 11:45 pm

  46. I wasn’t born in the church and I didn’t gain a testimony until I was a teenager. As well, some of my friends joined the church as teenagers.

    Comment by Kim Siever — August 11, 2005 @ 12:04 am

  47. Jack-Adam,
    C’mon man, we’ve covered this. Being an educated conservative is NOT the reason brother Greenwood had so many votes. Like Kaimi pointed out, Matt Evans, J. Max Wilson, and Ryan Bell didn’t get half as many votes as him… combined! It’s all tone, man. I OFTEN disagree with Matt, J. Max and Ryan, but can’t help but enjoy the conversation because they are very careful and courteous.

    A. Greenwood has a different style, which is fine. It just doesn’t jive with some people. There needs to be room for every personality (well, except Steve EM’s relentless self-promotion of his not-shocking ideas) :)

    Comment by Rusty — August 11, 2005 @ 12:57 am

  48. Rusty,

    I’m almost persuaded by your argument except that I have a sneaking suspicion that if Mr. Greenwood were liberal (with the same tone) he wouldn’t have got half the votes he did.

    You are right, though, about JMW, Matt, and Ryan. All are good chaps.

    Comment by Jack — August 11, 2005 @ 1:15 am

  49. Could someone fill me in on what Steve’s clever new acronym stands for? I’m trying to fit a grave sin into “EM,” and am having a hard time.

    Comment by Ryan Bell — August 11, 2005 @ 1:31 am

  50. Ryan,
    Evangelical Mormon

    Comment by Rusty — August 11, 2005 @ 1:38 am

  51. I just want A. Greenwood to know that I did not participate in the survey. I believe it is thanks to him (and others like him) that I avoided even a write-in vote as “most annoying blogger,” a result with which I am very pleased.

    Comment by Dave — August 11, 2005 @ 1:46 am

  52. Excuse me — I notice that the seven blogs of The Mormon Archipelago together received 30 votes for the “most interesting posts” category, eclipsing T&S which received only 29 votes. Congratulations, bloggers of the Archipelago!

    Comment by Dave — August 11, 2005 @ 1:50 am

  53. I don’t know how many of you are still reading this thread but for the record as one of Rusty’s siblings: I definitly read MORE THAN just Nine Moons!!! I just don’t look at that them every 2 hours like it seems so many of you do!
    Having said that I will now jump to the conclusion that the ‘nacle is run by big wig, capitalist members who are the new aspiring leadership of the church (i.e. age 30-45) and that frightens me!

    Comment by Bret — August 11, 2005 @ 3:39 am

  54. Jeffrey,

    I voted for you as most annoying because you think any logical possibility, no matter how improbable, constitutes a logical argument. And you hate to draw conclusions from available evidence, particularly if they run counter to your pre-concieved notions, preferring rather to ask an endless series of regressive questions that lead nowhere in particular.

    Although, the list you present is quite informative as well. Kudos on your self-introspection, but I would label your rhetoric as “tepid”, not “fiery”.

    Comment by Kurt — August 11, 2005 @ 6:51 am

  55. Ryan – I was being lighthearted (lightminded?). In an earlier comment I wrote that I admired Adam’s posts, but that he needed a PR person to interpret his brilliance to the unwashed masses of bloggernacle readers.

    And the reason why Adam is a public relations disaster is because, for whatever reason, he doesn’t make much of an effort to be likeable online. I’m sure he’s a nice person, and I hope to meet him someday.

    Comment by Tess — August 11, 2005 @ 10:37 am

  56. Tess, after posting my comment I did happen to go back and see that you had been complimentary of Adam’s posts and thoughts, so I’m sorry to have come down on you. I just never like to see people gang up on somebody, so I knee-jerked into reprimand mode.

    Comment by Ryan Bell — August 11, 2005 @ 11:25 am

  57. By the way, on another topic. Rusty sees the age distribution in the bloggernacle as exactly what he expected. I admit I was not so savvy. 67 respondents are between 30 and 45, and 33 are between 22 and 29. If you’d asked me, I would have exactly reversed those results. I’d have guessed that blogging was the province of people in their 20s, with some 30-somethings and a very minimal sprinkling of 40 somethings added in. Does no one else think it surprising that the bloggernacle is made up of adults in the very prime of their career and family lives?

    Comment by Ryan Bell — August 11, 2005 @ 11:28 am

  58. I thought that you would have been one of those seven votes, Kurt. Though I naturally disagree with your analysis, it is good to hear how I come off to others. Thanks for the feedback.

    Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — August 11, 2005 @ 11:28 am

  59. Ryan,

    I am always surprised at how many people in the ‘Nacle were born between ’70 and ’75. I suspect that age group is the center of the bell curve of ages around here. The problem with the range of 30-45 is that we can’t verify my suspicion from this data. But I think that 20-something numbers jibe well with my theory.

    (And yes everyone, the proper word is “jibe”, not “jive”)

    Comment by Geoff J — August 11, 2005 @ 12:03 pm

  60. Jeffrey,

    Dont take a burn on it. If there were a checkbox for DKL I would have picked him over you, and half the people on there I dont even know who they are. I’m sure youre a nice upstanding guy and all, its just that you and I are complete opposites when it comes to drawing conclusions.

    Comment by Kurt — August 11, 2005 @ 12:43 pm

  61. Yeah, if there had been checkboxes for DKL/AT and Aaron Cox who knows what would have happened.

    Comment by a random John — August 11, 2005 @ 12:45 pm

  62. I thought Mormon Open Forum was a really neat idea at first, but boy, has it gone downhill. It doesn’t help that they post people’s IP addresses as a last dig to out them since they don’t ban posters.

    Comment by Tatyana — August 11, 2005 @ 1:34 pm

  63. Tatyana,
    Kurt and arj outed Prudence. I was against it.

    Comment by Steve (EM) — August 11, 2005 @ 1:47 pm

  64. Nice threadjack “Tatyana”, are you going to randomly crosspost to every blog in the naccle? When people hide behind deceptive facades, they deserve to be outed.

    Comment by Kurt — August 11, 2005 @ 2:12 pm

  65. A correction: arj didn’t out Prudence. I was confused. Kurt outed and arj and I piled on.

    Kurt,
    Prudence was funny.

    Comment by Steve EM — August 11, 2005 @ 3:28 pm

  66. Geoff J., you’re probably right, the 70 to 75 ers are probably the critical core here. Nice to feel a part of a real generation.

    By the way, look up jibe. I’m pretty sure you’re wrong.

    By the way, who is this Aaron Cox fellow everyone has so much spleen against?

    Comment by Ryan Bell — August 11, 2005 @ 3:30 pm

  67. Regarding “jibe” vs. “jive” –

    This is a weak dictionary link but even it has it…

    jibe(2): To be in accord; agree: Your figures jibe with mine.

    None of the meanings of the word “jive” mean “agree”.

    Re: Birth Year — Yes I agree. And who said we Gen Xers are slackers? Blogging is work!

    -

    Aaron Cox can be found at Banner of Heaven.

    Comment by Geoff J — August 11, 2005 @ 3:56 pm

  68. Aaron Cox is the next Pol Pot, waging a war on learnedness in general unheard of since the Khmer Rouge.

    Comment by Jordan — August 11, 2005 @ 8:11 pm

  69. I always thought Adam was fairly mild. Of course I got one vote, so what does that show? Plus I blog at M* so I suppose that makes me suspect. (grin)

    I was actually surprised I only got one vote as annoying. Of course you should have seen me back in the mid 90′s.

    Comment by Clark Goble — August 11, 2005 @ 9:15 pm

  70. “The Beginning and the End of a Lawyer”

    Refusing to take heed from the results of Rusty’s Bloggernacle survey, I am determined to mark this blog’s return with a post that deals with Mormons and the Law. This past February, Elder Dallin H. Oaks spoke before the J….

    Trackback by A Soft Answer — August 16, 2005 @ 12:24 am

  71. I’d like to formally change my vote for most annoying blogger from Aaron Cox to Kurt. This shouldn’t bother him too much since he voted for me.

    Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — August 23, 2005 @ 6:44 pm

  72. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk! That’s low…

    Comment by Geoff J — August 23, 2005 @ 10:17 pm

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.