The above is a snapshot (as of Monday, 5/21/07) of how the blogosphere and the net at large are relating (read: linking) to the candidates' websites online.

The Online Mindshare Ranking = the average of a candidate's website Technorati, Alexa and Quantcast rankings, further weighted by the site's Google Page Rank.

Following what appeared to be an unending streak of YouTube-ular exploration announcements last week, thought it worth exploring which of our Presidential hopefuls is currently ruling the blogospheric buzz machine (more on the calculation, here).

This marks the third in the mindshare series. The first dissected the New York media market; the second, reviewed the PR channel. And now this:

notgartner recenty blogged an interesting post exploring the trials and tribulations of building trust and earning mindshare online:

"...it is quite simply impossible to BUY mindshare, and it is certainly impossible to get critical mass in the blogosphere in any predictable way."

An interesting post that I'm still digesting. If you too have a thirst for this knowledge, you can imbibe here.

So, last week we looked at some of the top PR firms, to see how much mindshare they each generated online. Coincidentally, Strumpette just published the Alexa rankings of some top PR sites - a ranking we thought we'd amp up a bit.

Our mindshare calculation includes Alexa, but also includes Technorati and Google Page Rank (which, many would argue, provide even more reliable measurement of relevancy online).

The results have been superimposed on last week's rankings - and the new line-up follows:

David Henderson of Making News expresses this concern in response to the same question I asked him and her: that when a major PR firm decides their client is better off flogging - er, fake blogging - chances are, the state of the firm's media relations is verging on piss poor (my words, not his).

His exact words follow:

I think we need to be cautious of turning meaningful marketing terms, like Mindshare, into the latest PR pop-hype.

So, given that Edelman has such a commanding presence online, I decided to start asking some folks who've written on the Microsoft Vista laptop-gate a simple question: how do you think Edelman's PR stunt with Microsoft affected the quality of Edelman's mindshare online?

First up, Andy Lark, who recently placed blame squarely on Microsoft:

I'm not sure that Edelman had anything to do with the current Microsoft stunt although they've definitely been associated with it. This is a classic case of extending traditional PR tactics into the blogosphere. A very wrong move.

Voila! The second in the online mindshare series (the first, here).

This time, we examined some of the larger PR firms, looking at how they stack up against one another online. Presumably, clients seeking to generate buzz online would first want to know which of these larger firms proved capable of doing the same for themselves.

Not surprisingly, Edelman topped the list. But the firm's latest antics do raise all sorts of questions about the quality of their mindshare - questions I'll be exploring further later.

In the meantime, the results follow:

Put simply: we surf the web - and link to sites - based on the universe of sites occupying our minds at any given point in time. Or conversely, we do not surf from site to site (via rss or otherwise), nor link to sites that are not in our minds. Hence, mindshare.

To calculate this reality, one that accurately portrays what we're surfing and linking, I came up with a simple equation:

Online Mindshare = the combined average of a site's online rankings (vis-a-vis ranking sites Technorati, Alexa and Quantcast) minus (-) the site's Google Page Rank premium.

In an effort to further the scrutiny of our mindshare calculation, thought I'd give some ink to a critic - who recently left a comment responding to this piece I had written in the Huffington Post:

Said Thorn:

"This "Mindshare" calculation doesn't equal real media clout.
Do you see TIME magazine obsessing about the Huffington Post?
That said, TIME's choice of "You" is indeed an embarrassing cop-out."

(my response after the jump)

(as posted on Huffington Post)

Don't mean to rain on your parade, but Time magazine is really not that into YOU - they're into YOUr buying their magazine.

Reality is, YOU're threatening its existence. Or I guess, as Time's editors call it, "beating the pros at their own game...".