Just one quick thing: please refrain from getting grumpy if you thought your post should've been included, but wasn't. The people who've been kind enough to volunteer lately really don't deserve for their feedback to be "well, why wasn't I included?!" Please remember that there is no reward for doing the DD; people volunteer to do so out of the goodness of their hearts. Crapping on that doesn't really seem fair. If it were happening to me (if I had written a DD in the last month, in other words), I wouldn't care, but I'm not in any way ok with other DD authors getting hit with this feedback.

To reiterate for some of the newer GTers: there are no hard and fast overarching rules about which articles will be included in them; this is by design, as each edition of the Dump is unique to the author that signs up for it. The individuality this lends to the DD is probably the single-best thing about it. You are, as always, more than welcome to comment with a link to the article you thought should've been there on the Dump, and the author can choose to include it if they wish to do so, but they have no obligation to include it just because you hit a certain comment/recommend threshold.

It isn't a competition — it's a fun thing Couchplanted and I started for all of us. If it can't remain that fun thing, then we should just not do it at all (or at least, it should be organized by someone other than me, because I will play no part in turning it into a competition).

ETA: The point has been raised multiple times that certain people are featured and linked to more often than others in the DD. When I read this, I got curious, so I went and checked the last week. Here's my compilation of whose articles were featured in the DD for that time period, along with how many for each author:

FlossieLou - I
HermioneStranger - II
BRIMSG - IIII
VivaciousVicious - I
Wax-Tadpole - IIII
OmarGone - II
Chritter - I
KillerMartinis - I
AcidMartini - II
JennyApples - II
Katy Del Moxie - II
ElJay42 - I
BlueJeans - I
FluterDale - I
Nonstopera - I
Genghis Khan't - II
Medusa Asudem - I
TheWL - I
Baking_Bees - I
sugarhill - I
Freesamplethief - I
MyPrettyFloralBonnet - II
Klewless - II
AshRonin - I
SorciaMacNasty - I
PrincessFluffybutt - I
IndigoMontoya - I
P_S_F - I
Shiny Red Robot - I
TyrannosaurusBataar - II
NinjaCate - II
KCunning - I
Barleychew - II
Umgeek - I
Cassiebearrawr - II
Iron Mam - I
ihatepickingnames - I
NYCyclist - II
LittleMsSnShn - I
BoxMeowBox - I
Babyotters - I
FridayFriday - I
Kirov - I
Kyosuke - I
Penabler - I
Kaiserisawesome - I
AdamAntoinette - I
Penny - I
AfroWithAChanceofMeatballs - I
Korra - I
MrsManzana - I
Ubertrout - I
whosits - II
Violetwhatsherface - I
Thank You, Agador Spartacus - I
Quashitlikeitshot - I
FishnetsFriday - I
cricketthecat - I
There-Was-A-Star-Danced - I

So here's what I'm forced to conclude from this: the idea that the same authors are always featured in the DD is not based in statistical fact. Now, admittedly, this data would be a whole lot more complete if I were to go back and check the last month (something I fully intend to do), but I expect it to bear out the similar trend: with some minor variations and infrequent exceptions, authors are not particularly featured any more than any other authors. The highest number of any author in the past week was 4, while a whopping SIXTY different people were featured just this week alone. There's also quite a lot of new GTers on that list, a fact that I was very, very happy to see.

I was actually surprised by this: I went in expecting the hypothesis of "some people are featured more than others" to be pretty accurate. Surprisingly, that is clearly not the case, as only Burt and Wax-Tadpole (which is the outlier I REALLY wasn't expecting here) even had four links — they were actually the only people with more than two. It's possible that this week is itself a statistical outlier, which is why I'm going to do more research when I get the chance, but I'm doubting that at this point.

So how do we explain the perception that such is the case, if the numbers don't bear that out? Honestly, I'm not 100% sure, but the only thing I can identify is that the same people generally DO author the dump — if you check the names for the past several months, you see a lot of the same ones. But again, I can personally attest that this is because these are the people who sign up for them.

You might get more biased results if you were looking at something like "% of articles written featured in the Daily Dump," but then again, you might not — Burt has definitely written more than 4 articles this week (and I've written more than one). I suspect that such a statistic would do little to indicate bias, but do a lot to indicate quality of writing (as I would theorize that writers like NinjaCate and LaComtesse would crush this category). As it is, we're left with data that pretty conclusively shoots holes in the theory that the DD is little more than a cool kids' club.

ETA II: Electric Boogaloo: So fine commenter Sucaji actually compiled the data for all of September:

"19. Burt
8. NYCyclist
7. WaxTadpole
6. Kirov, Medusa Asudem
5. Tyrannosaurusbataar, Ubertrout, Acidmartini, JennyApples
4. Barleychew, Kyousuke, BlueAlaskan, SugarHill, Whosits, MyPrettyFloralBonnet, NinjaCate
3. Irviniel, ThankYou, Agador Sparticus, Hello My Lover, Chritter, Ashronin, Fluterdale, Eljay, FreeSampleThief, Cumberbuttcheeks, Bingo,Carlos, Ph.Dad, RemediosVaro
2. Penabler, Katy del Moxie, FightingFishnets, PrincessFluffybutt, Rawrglicious, GoodtimesGirl, Jinxie Jade, Sorciamacnasty, VivaciousVicious, Natface, Fuckfox, Mrs Manzana, HermioneStranger, Renodakota, Babyotters, Bumblecat, ZapRowsdower, Omargone, Korra, immalittleburner, There Was a Star Danced, GhengisKhan't, Penny
1. AdamAntoinette, NotAgain, Pyrax, LittleMisSnShn, BoxMeowBox, FridayFriday, Cheerful_Exgirlfriend, TychoTronic, ThroughofLuxury, KCunning, KillerMartins, ScienceGal, KaiserisAwesome, Cassiebearawr, MiracleWhips19, OregonBeast, Aurora F, Imamonster, Ph. Dad, Ihatepickingnames, Quashitlikeitshot, Esodigoyo, OpeningUp, TornadosFirstCat, Napsauce, Follow Falafel, Lizzook, Lizzhaa, Iroqdemic, ISpeakJive, Klewless, KittyIntheCity, Mr. Gawn, Cricketthecat, Alter_ego, Anitasironing, Mrs Gideon, Disgruntled Piglet, GirlwithGrayWings, ImaginaryFriend, Nonstopera, BlueJeans, Greenheart, Little Danni, Mimi, Mitsubishe, Wockawockawocka, Ravenzmane, TheWL, Baking_Bees, Labeled: Crazy Aunt Kanye, BagelAndLocksley, Iron Mam, Etienne Charles, Kemperboyd, CandySummers, Jane, You Ignorant Slut, LizTaylorsEarrings, SingYourSong, SarahMascara, LaComptesse, Packed Lunch, Violet Baudelaire, IndigoMontoya, P_S_F, Shiny Red Robot, Flossielou, DAISYCHAINLINKFENCE, LaurensJam, SeaAnemone, PopeAlexander, JinxieJade, Nohayculpa21""

I love this, because it bears out further what I've been saying. With the exception of Burt (an outlier that I think will surprise no one), nobody has an outrageous number of mentions. NYCyclist and Wax-Tadpole make sense because they tend to post A LOT, as does basically everyone with more than four mentions. The names in bold are the ones I regard as "new" GT members, btw — which makes me glad to see that about half of the most-mentioned names are in that group (I only did more than two for this).