Or how about:
* The writer, Arthur Wordsmith, regularly contributes to all of my competititors, and, for a small fee, lets me know about their sites, their competitive niche topics, and anything else he can glean about their operations. What's more is that he doesn't divulge my trade secrets to anyone else...why would he?
Sorry. I'm being sarcastic. And okay, you're right, we're talking about two different things...me: confidential niche markets and you: i dunno, something like an online trade magazine that wants to become famous?
But even if it's the latter, how necessary is it to name an author? You have to think, is that why people are coming to my site? To read the next article by Arthur Wordsmith?
Could be...but probably not. Much more likely they're looking for info on widgets and could frankly care less about who wrote it: they just want answers to their questions, or to learn something. After all, people are searching for widgets, not Wordsmiths.
Even if they're not searching, they're going straight to the source, and still, they're typing in the url--not the author's name.
So if you want to build up a cult following, why not brand your site name--have that be the "definitive source"? Many major online publications (Lonely Planet, Economist) typically don't use bylines.
After all, writers come and go. The site, however, remains.
And then you have to think: how much can a name do for the quality of your content anyway? Yes, I gravitate toward certain writers online because I know, from their name, that I'll get something entertaining--but I also make the sign of the cross whenever I see certain other names.
I'd say; make sure your site is what people gravitate to, and make sure it's good.