According to Alexa, these are the top ten websites in their Liverpool (FC) category.
1. Liverpool Football Club
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv2. BBC Sport: Liverpool
news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/3. Red and White Kop
http://www.redandwhitekop.com4. IcLiverpool: Liverpool FC
icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0500liverpoolfc5. NewsNow: Liverpool
http://www.newsnow.co.uk/newsfeed/?name=Liverpool6. YNWA – For fans, by fans
http://www.ynwa.tv7. Kop Talk
www.8. ShanklyGates.co.uk
liverpool.rivals.net9. This Is Anfield
http://www.thisisanfield.com10. Anfield Online
http://www.anfield-online.co.ukSource: http://www.alexa.com/browse?&CategoryID=30735 July 24th 2006.
We thought we’d point this out seeing as Duncan Oldham keeps trying to say it’s the most popular fan site for Liverpool football club. It’s not doing badly, but it’s third out of the independant sites. And they don’t claim it costs them £900 per month to host their more popular sites.
Official Koptalk Exposed Site 
July 24, 2006 at 3:16 am
Any chance of getting stats?
Notice that News Now is 5th. But one of the reasons for that is that all its early stories about LFC are then copied by KT, and then the KT links are featured very prominently on News Now. So they get two clicks for the price of one.
Toby has suggested that Oldham has his “staff” clickng the links on News Now so that KT gets higher in the News Now pecking order – even though the KT links were taken from earlier News Now links from other sites.
His manipulation of News Now is one of the unfair ways he competes. There are others.
July 24, 2006 at 8:28 am
RupertInsider
“Toby has suggested…” and “His manipulation of NewsNow…” So Toby suggests this may be the case, and with no real proof you are now stating that Oldham is without doubt unfairly influencing NewsNow?
Stick to definate facts, and not malicious gossip mongering, and you might get more repsect from the doubters. There’s no point being dramatic to pander to those you’ve already converted, it’s those that you haven’t converted that you need to convince, and baseless statements like the one above are not the way to do it.
July 24, 2006 at 9:00 am
Scratch
Even if he is not clicking his own Newsnow links, he manipulates it by intentionally creating misleading headlines in order to create extra traffic.
There was a previous blog about it with specific examples, look through the archives.
July 24, 2006 at 9:36 am
Scratch- if you ever looked at newsnow, you would see stories that had already been released by other sites first, Koptalk’s version of the story was always in the top stories.
Articles that have nothing to do with LFC go in top stories, if you watched it for one day you would see. You’re either Dunk yourself or someone else who is getting bummed by him and wont have a bad word said about him .
July 24, 2006 at 9:40 am
yes…i agree with silentbutdeadly, most of the headlines in koptalk news section are highly misleading….
July 24, 2006 at 9:46 am
ok lets put this theory to the test and see if we can get a different articel to no.1. how about this one:
On this day in Liverpool history – 24th July YNWA 09:07
here’s the direct link to the news now redirect url:
http://www.newsnow.co.uk/cgi/NGoto/152496944?-11194
if we all blast it 20-30 times each we’ll see how well it does.
July 24, 2006 at 10:12 am
Alan:
I love the fact that you think childish insults will convert me to your way of thinking. I have already stated elsewhere that I am happy using Koptalk, but I don’t take everything that i read on there as gospel. Bullshit sells, we all know that.
And FYI, i do use NewsNow, filter searched for Liverpool, and I see no mention of top stories, just the latest stories (ie when they were released, not by order of priority) so where do i find this section on top stories that you refer to? I read ’em as I see ’em, and if I’ve already read a story on another site that then gets put up by Koptalk News, i don’t bother to read the Koptalk news one.
I’m quite happy to pay Dunk £15 quid for access to his Silver site (won’t join the Gold Club, don’t honestly see the point) as it gives me a great place to chill at work, without having to deal with numerous twats and childish souls (except for “_V_”, can’t seem to get rid of him and his anti-semetic view point) that seem to frequent other sites. But I don’t go on their expecting top quality news all the time, and only look out for certain posters on that front.
And re: Misleading headlines? Some examples would be nice, cos I’ve never really had a problem on that score.
July 24, 2006 at 10:43 am
Scratch
If you’re using Newsnow correctly, the Top stories are on the right of the page.
As for misleading headlines – as I said there was a blog about them – have a look through the archives of this site. To be fair though, there are ample examples from Koptalk most days.
Perhaps you’re only seeing what you want to see?
July 24, 2006 at 10:52 am
He couldnt be arsed to find out
July 24, 2006 at 10:52 am
RE Misleading headlines – surely some kind of joke? I clearly remember “reds reject 52 million Owen bid” when the story was about a poll of koptalk readers being asked “Would you sell Owen for 52 million?”
July 24, 2006 at 11:03 am
TOOTIS, surely you jest???
July 24, 2006 at 11:27 am
An alternative to Newsnow (but it still carries Koptalk) is http://www.walkon.com/
There’s a contact address at the bottom of the page on that site.
July 24, 2006 at 11:35 am
Re NewsNow: Right, i’ve found the top stories links on the right (cos I’m at work I’ve got the screen as small as possible, so I’d cut of the right side of the screen and left the latest news only). Can’t see the point of it tho, cos I’ve already read the stories anyway earlier in the day. I spose it’s useful for them that only check once a day.
I shall keep an eye out for the rise of the YNWA news story.
July 24, 2006 at 11:47 am
scratch – I admit that I don’t know how the KT links dominate the News Now listing for LFC, but they do, almost every day. I have written to News Now to find out and never received a reply. I think Toby has written them for a number of years and I remember he has had some correspondence with them. If he suspects that KT gets preference because KT staff click the links, thereby driving them up the pecking order on News Now, then I think the suspicion is worth noting.
But to stick to the facts, as you suggest, KT gets prominence on the News Now links set out on the right of the page, often crowding out other sites and the media outlets which first featured the story.
So how do you explain it?
Why does News Now continue with that practice and the practice of featuring KT doctored and misleading versions of News Now earlier stories and KT “editorial” comments – which are not newsworthy?
One possible explanation is that both parties – KT and News Now – benefit. KT gets many visitors to a “news” section. Under every “news” item and “comment” is a large red banner that claims that KT offers “exclusive news and whispers from inside anfield, melwood and the academy”.
News Now gets all the KT clicks in addition to the clicks on the original stories that KT has copied and doctored.
You have been a staunch defender of KT on this blog and you are right to point out that a fact is better than a suspicion. Most of us would like the facts about KT but they are very hard to get. So when two and two make five we are entitled to ask why?
As for his other unfair practices,we have discussed them on here. Some of those must be classified as suspicions, too, because he never publishes accounts or reports that can be verified nor does he explain his contradicitions. By referring to a reasonable suspicion we can draw out explanations which remove or confirm it. It would be very nice for Oldham if everyoen was like you and never questioned his manipulation of stories that he has taken from other sites and other media without acknowledgement.
July 24, 2006 at 12:17 pm
http://www.koptalk.com/detail_subtitle_listing.php?link_id=3564
How about this one that was on newsnow earlier.
“Striker rumoured to be discussing Liverpool move”
Its a story Koptalk have pilferred from RAWK I think about a young Greek Striker we are apparently after. The headline is intentionally disengenuos in that the assumption would be that Koptalk has some great news about Kuyt or whoever – i.e. a major transfer target. The headline isn’t wrong – just intentionally misleading. Better would be something like “Liverpool interested in Young Greek striker” or something.
But that wouldn’t get enough clicks.
And obviously its another example of him nicking stories. It started on RAWK and I believe made its way to YNWA/TLW (was credited).
July 24, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Followed by
STOLEN AND FABRICATED LFC TRANSFER NEWS AND WHISPERS FROM WALLSEND AND ON TOP OF A VAN OUTSIDE MELWOOD >>
July 24, 2006 at 12:32 pm
He does what “sbd” mentions all the time. sbd’s example –
“Striker rumoured to be discussing Liverpool move”
also appears on the “insider” site, where the headline doesn’t have any impact on News Now. Here it appears as –
“Hrjstodoylopoyloy rumoured to be discussing Liverpool move” (11.02am)
He’d also put it on another part of the insider site earlier –
“Striker on Merseyside to discuss Reds move” #1566153 – Mon Jul 24 2006 10:44 AM
Striker Lazaros Hristodoulopoulos (19) from Greek side PAOK is rumoured to be in the city discussing a move to Anfield. News item coming up shortly.
Edited by KopTalkInsider.com (Mon Jul 24 2006 10:55 AM)
July 24, 2006 at 12:33 pm
No – it definatly happened!
on another note do you remember when Houllier tried to sign Bowyer – most reds were disgusted that a known racist was going to wear the sacred shirt – except koptalk who led a PR campaign on loveable Lee’s behalf – I remember editorials from the fat controller saying things like “Some fans are taking the PC route and opposing this transfer” Still, Dunk got his wish in the end..
The man is a blight on LFC
July 24, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Talk of his previous stuff about the Bowyer deal had me doing a quick search. Some of his articles are still available on “footy mad” from when he was ripping them off.
Look at this one –
http://www.liverpool-mad.co.uk/news/loadnews.asp?cid=TMNW&id=53610
Remember – Dunk doesn’t have rivals.
Here’s his Bowyer editorial – Bowyer welcome at Anfield.
July 24, 2006 at 1:24 pm
The article on “Bowyer Welcome at Anfield” might not work properly – the archive.org site keeps saying it’s having technical difficulties. It will work if you keep trying, but if you can’t be bovvered, here it is in all its glory:
Bowyer welcome at Anfield
Story by Dunk, The Editor
4 July 2002
It’s time to stick a size ten boot up Smicer’s arse and bring in a real man like Lee Bowyer!
Ouch! I bet that got you going.
Lee Bowyer
Seriously though, the Kop Talk forums have been flooded with debates about the rights and wrongs of signing Lee Bowyer recently. It’s quite clear that we are trying to recruit him in a deal that suits Gerard Houllier and not Leeds. There doesn’t appear to be any desperation to sign him so that suggests to me that Ged is sniffing around several other options so it may not even happen!
I personally would like to see Lee Bowyer brought in because I feel he is a great player, probably one of the best players that Ridsdale has at his club.
But what about Harry Kewell….something tells me Leeds would cash in on him also. In my job I hear plenty of whispers, 90% come of nothing but I was recently told that Kewell had told a national journo that he’d jump at a chance to play for Liverpool if given the chance. Last season his agent put out positive vibes along the same lines and this is when Roma started to show some interest in him. I don’t know if Kewell would be a good signing or not, nor do I know if Gerard Houllier will make firm attempts to land either of them but that’s what makes football so interesting – I mean, what else would we talk and argue about!
If I had to pick one of them I wouldn’t hesitate to choose Lee Bowyer. I’d love to see him in the same midfield as Steven Gerrard and just because I rate him highly as a footballer doesn’t mean that I have to wear a white hood over my head or that my kitchen is full of old empty jam jars with Gollywog labels down the side of them for sentimental reasons.
A lot of people seem to be basing their judgement on Lee Bowyer’s controversial court case in which he was found not guilty of affray and grievous bodily harm on Asian student Sarfraz Najeib. I have my own opinions about this incident based on what the media have fed me but supporting the signing of Lee Bowyer shouldn’t mean you are a deemed a racist – I’ve read some shit over the years on the internet, and have been responsible for 50% of it myself I guess [ Ed: I thought I’d insert that there for the fan club – ha ha 😉 ] but some of the silly comments surrounding this speculation are indeed laughable.
As far as I am concerned, my opinion of Lee Bowyer is that he’d offer us something that we are missing and it would be unfair of me to base my opinion of him only on information that is rumoured about him or fed to me by the British media. The lad deserves a chance wherever he ends up at next and until I have concrete proof in front of me that he really is a racist thug, which is what some supporters are labelling him, he get’s my backing, especially if he ends up with us because Gerard Houllier has my trust and that’s all that matters to me.
He’ll probably end up at Arsenal or Man City anyway so just calm down, calm down.
July 24, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Also, with the striker rumoured to be discussing liverpool move, has he just made up the surname? its totally different on other sites.
Scratch- KT copy other people’s articles, and they always get into the top stories? every time? even if they are a few days older than everyone elses?
Its funny how that happens, and stories that are a few hours old go right into the top spots?
July 24, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Let’s not overook the main point of Insider’s post – KT is not the No.1 “independent” LFC site, as Oldham claims.
I’d like to see someone write a piece on what the various strengths and weaknesses of the various web sites – inlcuding KT – and why RAWK and YNWA are in the top two places. KT has some qualities – what are they and how could other sites learn from KT marketing?
July 24, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Quite ironic that YNWA, a site set up by disgruntled ex Kop Talk members, should prove to be more popular than Kop Talk itself.
And without charging a bean. Or pop ups and advertising.
They also have probably the most accurate “insider” of any of the web sites. A poster with undoubted connections to Liverpool players. Something Oldham can only dream of.
July 24, 2006 at 2:50 pm
“YNWA, a site set up by disgruntled ex Kop Talk members”
is that so? hahahahahaha. didn’t know that….
July 24, 2006 at 2:55 pm
so koptalk is the third most popular given ‘alexa’ is correct…
than how does duncan justify having a subscription service ‘simply to cover the costs’?
koptalk already makes enough money through all their porn, google & gambling adverts btw…is his subscription service really there to cover the costs?, or is it another one of his bullshit lies to attract new members?
i am hoping that mr SCATCH can answer this one for me…
July 24, 2006 at 3:03 pm
One reason may be that the other site owners don’t live off their sites – anyone know?
I know RAWK does invite donations to cover the running costs – but no special status is given to the donors, no insider or gold club, for example. Nobody has to pay for information. RAWK also actively supports related campaigns like Hillsborough and Michael Shields. It also puts a lot of time (and presumably money) into archiving LFC history and encouraging an interest in it. The site is focussed on LFC and not the owner or editor.
July 24, 2006 at 3:08 pm
As far as I know, neither RAWK or YNWA owners live off income from their sites. In mosts cases sites don’t make money and are something of a “labour of love”.
TLW is the nearest comparison , in that the fanzine is the site owners living. Having said that he’s selling something quantifiable and interesting for a decent price. I also think he doesn’t make money from the website. There’s a little bit of unobtrusive advertising and the site also asks for donations, but I think its just to cover running costs.
July 24, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Just to clarify a few things about YNWA. It was primarily a group of Ex koptalk members (and mostly mods from about 2001/2) that set up YNWA as our view on how to run a LFC website different from Duncan Oldhams.
YNWA Owners do not make any money out of YNWA. It is supported by a combination of owner funds and money from members who in return become “sponsors”. The benefit of being a sponsor is that you can have an avatar with your username – that’s it. There are no private forums for sponsors and we do not take credit card details to continually charge on a yearly basis. We have had questions about people offering to pay a set amount per month but have not taken anyone up on that.
The only private forums on YNWA relate to the mods and owners for the purpose of running the site. There are no elevated tiers of members forums.
There are a couple of people who are considered to be “insiders” but we would never consider using their sources or info to generate membership or funds for the site.
We are not planning to buy any houses in Melwood.
The only people who have been banned have gone for trying to disrupt the forum – a policies that we have no intention of changing. Even Duncan Oldham has an account there – set up for him by us in order that he could see that we do not slag off other sites.
We are more than happy to help out and support other sites and have a good relationship with most of them – many of our members are also members on other sites – why would we wish to antagonize any of them? It benefits nobody.
A few of my posts about Koptalk and the Hillsborough forum were highlighted in this blog a while back. For that I – using my main ID on Koptalk – was banned. I then had 2 further names banned for highlighting the same issues. My main name was later reinstated but when the koptalk software changed my password was lost. Not a loss to me though. Other owners of YNWA do still have access to Koptalk. I have never paid money to Duncan Oldham for any services on Koptalk – even when I was made a Mod. Duncan Oldham owes me no money – or anything else for that matter. I intend to keep it that way.
I hope this clears up any questions that people may have had about YNWA and how it started.
NHE
July 24, 2006 at 3:46 pm
For all you “posh intelligentia” here is my EXCLUSIVE cut and paste from a great story today in the Times about why LFC is the No. 1 club. Interesting footnote that the Times sub-editor is the author of a book on LFC.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,27-2283132,00.html
July 24, 2006 at 3:58 pm
On the question of different sites – I was looking for reports of the Crewe game late on Saturday night – I even went to KT where there was a very poor offering. Finally I found TLW which had far more posts then KT, lots of factual information and first-hand reports from people who had been to the game.
July 24, 2006 at 4:35 pm
according to alexa, traffic at koptalkinsider.com has dropped from 30-40 visits per million to 15-20 visits in the space of few weeks.
July 24, 2006 at 4:52 pm
That’s what this blog offers – 50% off.
July 24, 2006 at 5:48 pm
“according to alexa, traffic at koptalkinsider.com has dropped from 30-40 visits per million to 15-20 visits in the space of few weeks.”
great news. we’re literally cutting him in half. Just hold that image in your head a minute…
July 24, 2006 at 6:11 pm
thanks new hampshire exile
some very interesting points…
i think exile’s post is strong evidence that dunk had lied about the need for a subscription service to “cover the costs”; it was all an excuse to make more money for himself and himself ONLY. just follow this logic:
1) ynwa.tv attracts more visitors than koptalk FACT
2) given that 1) is true, the operating cost of running ynwa.tv should be HIGHER than koptalk. but for argument’s sake, lets say that the operating cost of koptalk is higher than ynwa.tv. even if this is the case, any difference would be marginal and the extra costs would be adequately covered by koptalk’s plethora of porn and betting adverts.
so koptalk does NOT need a subscription service to survive. its absolute bollocks.
July 24, 2006 at 6:12 pm
tom:
that huge dip in koptalk insider visitors coincided with YOUR manifesto.
July 24, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Not sure my post is proof that Koptalk is cheaper to run than YNWA – couldn’t actually prove that without seeing how much he pays – and I’m not sure that he’d really want to reveal that.
Of course it just could be that Koptalk offers more in the way of content than YNWA or RAWK.
Could be that Koptalk is worth more due to the quality of the information they provide from inside sources.
It could be that Koptalk provides a platform for LFC fans to say what they like in a friendly environment that encourages controversy without fear of anyone censoring them and their accounts.
It could be a pig that just flew past my window.
July 24, 2006 at 6:41 pm
He won’t reveal how much he actually pays, but he’ll gladly make something up for you –
“21/07/06: Because of the intermittent connection problems we are upgrading to a more professional solution. The annual hosting cost just for these forums will then increase to £8000 from £2160. We hope this shows how much we value your participation. The work should be complete by the end of July.”
This was a bit less than his earlier made up figure – it was going to £900 per month.
July 24, 2006 at 7:03 pm
New Hampshire Exile:
Your interesting post touched on something I was thinking about – how to “institutionalise” or otherwise takeover some of the work of this blog.
One idea that occurred to me is if all LFC site owners or editors were to cooperate (a) to agree on some basic standards and practices and (b) to speak with a unified or a majority voice on issues which affected their vital interests.
Now I can well imagine that they may not want to get involved in “constitutions ” or “codes of conduct” or “charters” and “meetings” or other complex arrangements with other sites. But I wonder if they would be interested in starting with one or two clear, practical, non-complicated issues, where there is a self-evident common interest.
My first example would be the dominance of Koptalk feeds on the News Now summary to the exclusion of feeds to other sites and especially to sites from which Koptalk has lifted the story.
I know from experience that Koptalk breaches the News Now charter virtually every day. (The charter has been published in this blog but can be found on the News Now site).
Yet complaints to News Now through its standard feedback mechanism go unanswered and nothing is done. It occurs to me that a formal representation to the senior person at News Now, from all, or most, of the LFC sites would be more effective.
Coming from a group it could not be dismissed as a complaint by a rival. And working as a group, the sites could share the burden of logging how Koptalk copies stories, changing some of them, failing to acknowledge, stealing copyright – all of which are breaches of the News Now charter. As a group the site owners could also point out that Koptalk breaches one of News Now main prohibitions – againt feeds intended to sell goods or services.
I can think of other substantive issues where this approach may be productive.
July 24, 2006 at 7:07 pm
good suggestions.
July 24, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Wow, so he charges for his site as still doesn’t provide his paying customers (who are entitled to his geographical address by law) with a professional service upto the end of this month.
July 24, 2006 at 7:19 pm
the main guy at newsnow is barry i believe.
Barry de la Rosa
barry @ newsnow.co.uk
July 24, 2006 at 7:26 pm
in a similar scenario regarding misleading footy news headlines Barry said this.
———-
Barry de la Rosa Says:
October 31st, 2005 at 9:41 am
We have talked in the past about adding some sort of voting system to NewsNow, so that readers could vote these sites down to “warn” other users. However, our Top Stories merely help to send hits to these sites, as the headlines are either provocative or downright lies.
It’s very hard for us to decide which sites to include or not based on these criteria. Often sites are sent in that seem great, well-written and original. Over time however they degenerate into click-traps. Also, I don’t see myself as a censor whose job it is to decide what our readers want to see. Therefore a voting system seems to me the ideal way for readers to regulate the sites.
Maybe a few well-worded, polite feedback emails would send word to the Powers That Be here at NewsNow that a voting system should be a top priority? (Hint, hint)
—————-
http://www.blogfc.com/theblog/?p=356
July 24, 2006 at 7:41 pm
JJ: Thanks for that. But if the voting system was to include anonymous clicks then an unscrupulous site owner 24 x 7 servants (or even family members or paid employees) would be able to ensure that his site was always top.
I’m not sure what a workable solution is – that’s why I suggested a combined aproach from all the sites. The topic “LFC” on News Now is fairly discrete. Sources include blogs and newspapers as well as supporter sites. But an “association” of supporter sites should have a large say on the criteria used.
Frankly, I think its a lot simpler than it looks. News Now say that the link must not be to a site that is using the introducton mainly to sell goods and services. I think that alone disqualifes Koptalk without all the other breaches.
I’m not saying it should be eliminated but it should be forced to comply with agreed criteria.
(I’m lying – I think it should be eliminated unless it removes its subscription forums).
December 5, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Anyone reading this in December 2006 should scroll down on the blog. Koptalk is now 12th or lower.
July 17, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Most Popular In Liverpool
The most visited sites in all ‘Liverpool’ categories.
1. Liverpool Football Club
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv – Site info
2. BBC Sport: Liverpool
news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/def… – Site info
3. Red and White Kop
http://www.redandwhitekop.com – Site info
4. IcLiverpool: Liverpool FC
icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0500liverpoolfc – Site info
5. This Is Anfield
http://www.thisisanfield.com – Site info
6. Est1892
http://www.est1892.co.uk – Site info
7. NewsNow: Liverpool
http://www.newsnow.co.uk/newsfeed/?name=Liverpool – Site info
8. Talklfc.com – Liverpool FC News
http://www.talklfc.com – Site info
9. The Liverpool Way Fanzine and Forums
http://www.liverpoolway.co.uk – Site info
10. Anfield Online
http://www.anfield-online.co.uk – Site info
I see that koptalk isn’t there anymore 🙂
July 17, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Most Popular In Liverpool
The most visited sites in all ‘Liverpool’ categories.
1. Liverpool Football Club
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv – Site info
2. BBC Sport: Liverpool
news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/def… – Site info
3. Red and White Kop
http://www.redandwhitekop.com – Site info
4. IcLiverpool: Liverpool FC
icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0500liverpoolfc – Site info
5. This Is Anfield
http://www.thisisanfield.com – Site info
6. Est1892
http://www.est1892.co.uk – Site info
7. NewsNow: Liverpool
http://www.newsnow.co.uk/newsfeed/?name=Liverpool – Site info
8. Talklfc.com – Liverpool FC News
http://www.talklfc.com – Site info
9. The Liverpool Way Fanzine and Forums
http://www.liverpoolway.co.uk – Site info
10. Anfield Online
http://www.anfield-online.co.uk – Site info
***17th July 2007 stats***
April 10, 2008 at 5:14 pm
http://www.liverpoolfc.ir
July 26, 2008 at 3:12 pm
http://www.liverpoolfc.ir