Who wrote about RateTheGod? The press archive

eKAI: psychology, religion and audience claims

19 June 2009 — “Internauci wystawiają Bogu cenzurkę.” The eKAI article discussed motivations for participation and quoted differing expert interpretations. It also reported roughly 65,000 Polish users and roughly 700,000 worldwide, with wording about daily voting.

Read the eKAI article. The story is valuable evidence of public discussion, but those audience claims have no underlying analytics attached. They are not our current reach, and should not be silently combined with the earlier report’s totals.

Gadżetomania: two different readings

19 June 2009 — Grzesiek Powalski, “Internauci: Bóg jest niekompetentny.” This short piece presented the rating idea and repeated audience claims, naming Dziennik.pl as its source. That attribution is not evidence that we have independently recovered the underlying Dziennik article.

Read the June article.

27 July 2009 — Sabina Stodolak, “RatetheGod ? oceń Boga?” This commentary argued that the site’s own framing could influence responses. It offers a critical interpretation, not a controlled demonstration of manipulation.

Read the July commentary. The difference between those two pieces makes the archive useful for studying how media framing shaped the conversation around the project.

Radio Maryja: a theological critique

28 June 2009 — “Bóg i sondaże.” This opinion piece criticised the premise of rating god and mentioned a reported audience above 700,000 visitors. Its theological objection belongs in an honest history alongside more playful or psychological readings.

Read the original commentary. The visitor wording differs from the daily-user wording found elsewhere; these are not interchangeable metrics.

How to handle the numbers

Different dates can legitimately produce different totals. The harder problem here is that the articles use different terms without a common measurement definition. Registered users, visitors, participants and votes count different things. Repeating one claim in several outlets does not create several independent measurements.

For citations, retain the outlet, date and original wording of the metric, then state that the figure is a historical report rather than audited data. The first project report offers a separate set of defined-period claims.

For journalists and archive contributors

Our source-linked historical collection is a starting point for checking displayed index values. It includes explicit gaps and a downloadable transcription. Please do not call it a continuous daily dataset or evidence of current voting.

This bibliography is a verified selection, not an exhaustive backlink inventory. If you have another original article, send its URL, publication date and author where available to info@ratethegod.com. We also welcome corrections to attribution and dates.