Yes, I took another of my unannounced blog breaks. This break was due to a succession of Holy Week, Spring Break, and the sad news of my grandfather's death. But I'm now ready to face the music, so to speak. First up, I hear that my rankings have (more) competition. I'm fine with that, though I feel that ACD should have paid the courtesy of linking to one of my previous rankings, or at least mentioning the prior art of my rankings. It certainly would be fitting, since he clearly critiques my methodology in his own description of his criteria. A link at that point would allow his readers to judge for themselves the differences in rankings between his system and my two systems.
I'm curious why he omits group blogs or institutional blogs. I can understand keeping out the "index blogs" since they don't contribute new content to discussions of classical music. I also understand omitting e-zines, since I do the same. E-zines are an electronic form of MSM, thus different from the gate-crashing blogs. But ionarts is a major player in classical music blogging, as is Sequenza21. [Edit: I now see that ionarts is included, even though it is clearly a group blog. Same with Dial 'M'. So what is a group blog, in ACD's definition?] They both generate and influence discussions throughout the blogosphere, which is presumably what ACD's counting of backlinks is measuring. So why cut out influential blogs, merely because they have more than one author?
Anywho, back to my taxes. I'll post my semi-annual top 50-ish in June, so start earning those links!