Talk:MyDD

Sources?

I removed this bit from the article: MyDD shot to fame during the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election by being the first major news source to break the exit polls. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . The "source" provided under external links just goes to a page on mydd.com. Are there any reliable (third-party) sources for this claim? Friday (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Chris Bowers

Chris Bowers was on Afd, but it was closed with non consensus, but several people mentioned a merge. His only claim to fame was being "a blogger" for MyDD. "A blogger" doesn't sound too significant. Do they have only one blogger, or hundreds of them? If he's the main guy behind the site, his name should be mentioned here, but if not, I don't see much need for it. Friday (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

What does myDD mean?

I'm curious, what does myDD mean? Does DD stand for something?

Doh! Just looked at the title bar: MyDD :: Due Diligence of Politics...

Logo

My DD recently changed their logo - could we get the current version of the logo up on the page?

2006 Midterms

Added a section on 2 campaigns being run out of MyDD which have garnered prominent media attention. CNN even covered the googlebomb one on Wolf Blitzer yesterday. The article needs restructuring too, but I confess I know little of how to go about such things on Wiki. --FNV 18:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Origins in astrology and day trading

It's fairly common knowledge that MyDD started out as an astrology/day trading site, both on the main domain and a subdomain, astroworld.mydd.com. Although Jerome Armstrong deleted all the initial content after it become a pure political site, I don't think he's ever denied it. For some reason people keep deleting this information from the article. Why is that? That fact is at least as noteworthy, and well-documented, as most of the rest of the article. Korny O'Near 18:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You've not cited anything which is one problem. Right now this is original and unverified research. IrnBru001 21:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine - here's a cite at the National Journal blog. And here's an archived page from MyDD. Is either of those good enough? Korny O'Near 03:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah NJ article is a good source, but your edits must reflect the content of that source. It seems Jerome says "Down that line, I dabbled with planets and predictions in the most abstract manner, as one of several different predictive mathematical disciplines ... It has nothing to do with what I consult with in online political strategy." so that would not support the claim that the blog was started as an astrology blog. The neutral pov understanding of this source still does not support your proposed edit, but only a statement of a claim by RWV. That statement I would suggest is not important enough for this article. IrnBru001 19:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not a denial by Armstrong; he's talking about his current consulting, not his past blogging. Korny O'Near 23:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Daily Kos, Most Popular Political Blog?

I honestly thought that they lost that title to "The Huffington Post". I know that HuffPo is rated higher on Technorati than Daily Kos. I could be wrong, though.

2008 Presidential Campaign

I returned the section that I had written that was removed by anonymous first time user without comment. The way I phrased it, the section could be more appropriate for Jerome Armstrong's own page, but I think it's appropriate to cover the fact that My DD has become the progressive blogosphere's leading anti-Obama, pro-Clinton site. I'd be open to this section being reworked or better sourced in a way that's appropriate. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Updates for 2009

I did some syntax fixing (the primaries are over a year behind us now), updated to current events on the site in neutral terms, cleaned up a few sources. Ks64q2 (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing for neutrality

I edited what seemed unduly disparaging. I accept the events per the source cited, but remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we must strive for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in all we do. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attic Sleuth (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverted after change post Attic Sleuth above

The whole section on the Primary Wars, cleared up for impartiality by Attic Sleuth, was removed. Been following some BLPs related to that time in 2008 and its omission weakens this article considerably. Cannot understand why it was removed without explanation. Removed eds signature from within the article too.--Moloch09 (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Edited to remove content not pertinent to the subject of entry

Unnecessarily contentious and far from "neutral"; removed content referring to 'PUMAs' and conspiracy theories. 2008 Democratic Primary and Campaign are over and now part of general history, much like the Presidential primaries of 2004 and the Congressional campaigns of 2006.--Athansorlake (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Still in existence?

Is the blog still in existence...? Because since some time (several weeks) I've noticed that when I try to access it I always get a "Network error" message. -- fdewaele, 11 September 2012, 9:59 (CET).

Officially dead: Archives?

This blog appears to be officially dead. Every attempt I have had to locate any previous posts redirects to a news site called "Daily Dose". Does anyone have archives of the site? I will attempt to look for some.--Somenolife (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I was unable to find any archives of this site at either archive.is or the Internet Archive.--Somenolife (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)