I agree with you.  You're a very educated writer, and you don't deserve to be trolled.  Unfortunately, people who write a lot about politics tend to rub people with opposing views the wrong way.  Even though you respect other bloggers' opinions enough to not troll them, they're not all as honourable as you are.

we all know that this is more than likely not going to happen.  The mere fact that you took the time to write this article tells me that you care about the points, at least on some level.  Are you not happy with your rating?

Replies & comments are what make the blogging world go 'round.  If someone wants to comment on anything and everything, then I say "let 'em"... Are all comments constructive and informative, worthy of stimulating discussion?  umm... no.  But in a pinch I would rather have 3 silly off handed replies than none at all.  Who cares if someone leaves as a response and nothing else?  at least you know that they checked out your article. 

so what you're saying is that if you write a lot of articles, you should automatically have a high rating?  c'mon now.  "Shadystopchic" has 108 articles, and she's ranked #75.  Is that not fair either?  If points are earned by posting articles & getting replies, and by replying to other people's articles, then you're gonna have to do both in order to be in the top ten.  There are always going to be bloggers who are going to do both. 

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: May 24, 2004.  <--- what does this mean at the end of some of your articles?  are they published somewhere else?  are you reprinting articles written by Richard Kennedy?  just curious...

I think you're a great writer, and you're obviously very intellectual.  I don't read a lot of your stuff, because I just don't like getting into discussions about politics.  There are just so many facets to every political argument that it's tough to determine who's 'right' and who's 'wrong'... Most of it just ends up being meaningless, because people rarely change their minds, and the lawmakers just end up doing what the hell they want anyway... (i.e. driving drunk, hiring prostitutes, etc... j/k)

I have a couple things in mind that I would suggest to enhance your blogging experience, but you don't appear to be asking for advice, so I'll just end my response here.

The user point system is based mainly on the comments that you make.  It's activity based, not based on your blog.  A good example is me.  I am in the top 10 users because I comment a lot.  However, a lot of my articles are private and I don't write one a day, so my blog is somewhere around 50 (not totally sure where it is.  I didn't even realize I was in the top 10 bloggers until this article was written and I looked at it).

People can not excessively troll you (you can only troll somebody once per reply and only like 4 times a day.....there would have to be a lot of trolling going on for you to lose that many points).  Why do you say the 1,000 points are from trolling, anyway?  Somebody had an article on this just recently when we explained how the points are based on a timeframe.  If you aren't as active, then you will lose points.

A lot of people will troll if you make a comment about the blogger instead of the article, or if your response is basically just one line and doesn't really add anything to the article. 

Trolling really isn't used that much.  It's not used any more than the Insightful ratings, so it is doubtful that all those points were simply from trolling.

Why are so many people paranoid about the points?  Does the point system really effect people that much?  Do you guys only read the top 10 bloggers/sites or something?  I'm still not sure what the big deal is about the point system and why people keep claiming that it is "unfair". 

Kingbee's intuition is correct--stevendedalus is richard r kennedy; thanks, Karma, I really thought trolling was more based on the article than the comment; I did not know that user points were subject to timeframe;  imaginit, no, I don't care what the rank is; I'm concerned over the trolling factor as a vindictive tool, which does not reflect the spirit of a healthful site; I know perfectly well how to juice up my points--I won't go there--suffice to say, deliberated controversy and junking up articles with google hit keywords are not my cookies; I missed the fact that Jamie is #2 as an overall blog site--I'm happy for him.

The number of articles are not the wherewithal--I realize they are relatively useless if not read--still, that doesn't stop me from writing; after all, there's always the chance some will stop by and hopefully find it enlightening regardless of the slants.    

P.S. Sorry, I missed your comment, Saiyan; if by "complain" you mean "defend", then its ironic; but if you think I'm high on the list, that is funny. 

Wise Fawn, thank you. I think, judging from the comments, points are here to stay and inviolate for those never trolled.

I believe user points ARE subject to the last 30 days because part of your user points is based on your blog score which ages.

It is interesting when I am held up as an example.

Let me say something in defense of myself.  I was #8 in Joe's top ten before "American Idol" started.  Writing about a television show has resulted in me getting bumped up six places,  It isn't like I "came out of nowhere."

You're trying to say that my "low" rank has to do with the fact that I don't comment much?  I think that's what you meant, but it wasn't clear to me the first couple of times that I read it.  JeremyG pretty much explained it in his response.  Lots of write + Few comments = My blog.

Let me end with a question:

How do you know that you've been trolled? 

Muggaz, couldn't it be because the first two articles in the thirty day cycle were 400 points stronger?  Once they were "out of the rotation," your points may have gone down.