I think the "total unique visitors" number (432,884) is wrong. Mathsquatch can probably do better math on this, but I think the Googly People calculated that number by adding up each of the 27 weeks' visitors. And yet most of the visitors from week to week are the same--making them not unique. Bad math. I doubt almost half a million unique visitors have visited this blog. More likely is that 15,000 visit the blog regularly.
Also, last week was probably the worst week of the year for pageviews. The week after Christmas usually is the worst on my blog (which I won't name here).
I don't know much about it, but there's no way there's even 100-200 that view this site regularly. Just go back and look at the comments and posts. It's the same small group. I don't even care about that. But there's no way in the world these numbers are right.
I choose to presume it's faulty counting by Blogger or whatever, and not some vanity by the moderator to make the page seem popular.
Seriously. Does anyone believe these numbers? I think it's a bit of a joke that they are published each week, because unless Strelnikov and Froderick are just sitting at home hitting refresh all day, then the numbers are pure fiction.
Frankly, there are a lot of us out here who don't comment very frequently. I probably do read here every other day or so... but I've only actually commented on anything two times.
Ditto Prof Glabella. I used to read RYS, but practically never posted or commented on anything.
I'd guess the regular number is around 10,000 unique readers each week. The 15,000 are unique IP addresses, but some people read CM from both home and work.
Beyond a critical mass, I don't care how big the number is. It's a good mix of people who are actually in the trenches.
Bubba's reasoning sounds about right to me. In fact, I'd guess that the holiday dips are magnified by the fact that some of us aren't going to the office, and reading there as well. To me, too, it feels like we have enough of a critical mass for variety, both in subject matter and points of view. While the numbers are interesting, I'd be perfectly happy to learn from a few hundred, or even a few dozen, people representing the range of academic fields, positions, kinds of institutions, length and kind of experience, etc., we have here. While undoubtedly not representative of the US professoriat as a whole, it's far more of a cross section than I interact with at my university, or even at a conference.
@Bubba, oh, go on, name your blog! We (by which I mean I) love the shameless self-promotion. Or you could secretly let me know by figuring out my gmail address.
The number of unique visitors does not add up from day to day. It counts how many there are in a day, then counts how many there are the next day, etc. So it is not saying that there have been 400,000 unique visitors, only that number divided by the number of days the blog has been up, or thereabouts.
It is my experience with my own blog that many, many of the hits are in fact just google hits. If I am not mistaken, it works like this: Every time a page on this blog gets listed on a google search, that counts as a hit, even if the person doing the search doesn't click to the blog at all. That can account for a LOT of hits.
Unique visitors are the most meaningful statistics, but the span of time by which they are deemed to be unique is something you must find out or possibly set for yourself in StatCounter. It could be as little as 30 minutes, meaning that anyone who leaves this page open in browser window for several hours will be counted as multiple "unique visitors." A typical approach is to set the "unique" time span to the same as the span for which you are requesting stats. If you are looking at a week of stats, set the span to 7 days. If you generate monthly reports, set the span to 30 days. Or whatever makes sense for your purposes. But if you do not know the span of time for which a visitor is counted as "unique," then the stats are not particularly useful.
Yes, come on Bubba. Don't leave us a'hanging... If you want more visitors, talk it up!
I agree with Cassandra; actual numbers don't really matter to me as long as the site is interesting, keeps giving me good information, is a place to rant and share, and allows me to be a part of a teaching community I don't normally have because I'm adjunct and invisible.
I don't think a pageview is generated just because somebody searches the site on Google or similar. I've done a quick spot check of the last hour and I see IP addresses actually accessing pages on the site that correspond to the number of pageviews we registered in that hour, which was 268.
But I'm not an expert at all on how the counters work. We've recently signed up for Google Analytics, and in the next week we may figure some of this out.
You're thinking of the Firefox Add-on "Pageloader" which automatically prepares all links on any page to load. It wreaks havoc for blogs because it counts as a page load even if no one clicks on it. The reason people get this add-on is because it shaves off a few seconds from each movement from one site to the next.
I am not familiar with that firefox add-on. When I go into the Statcounter stats on my blogs, I see most of the hits are labeled as stemming from google and most of them are "zero seconds" in duration. Now I suppose that could mean that people click to my page and then go back. Since they do not click to another part of my page, their length of stay is registered as "zero." I always figured it just meant I was showing up on a search.
I think the "total unique visitors" number (432,884) is wrong. Mathsquatch can probably do better math on this, but I think the Googly People calculated that number by adding up each of the 27 weeks' visitors. And yet most of the visitors from week to week are the same--making them not unique. Bad math. I doubt almost half a million unique visitors have visited this blog. More likely is that 15,000 visit the blog regularly.
ReplyDeleteAlso, last week was probably the worst week of the year for pageviews. The week after Christmas usually is the worst on my blog (which I won't name here).
I don't know much about it, but there's no way there's even 100-200 that view this site regularly. Just go back and look at the comments and posts. It's the same small group. I don't even care about that. But there's no way in the world these numbers are right.
ReplyDeleteI choose to presume it's faulty counting by Blogger or whatever, and not some vanity by the moderator to make the page seem popular.
Seriously. Does anyone believe these numbers? I think it's a bit of a joke that they are published each week, because unless Strelnikov and Froderick are just sitting at home hitting refresh all day, then the numbers are pure fiction.
But again, that shouldn't matter.
Frankly, there are a lot of us out here who don't comment very frequently. I probably do read here every other day or so... but I've only actually commented on anything two times.
ReplyDeleteDitto Prof Glabella. I used to read RYS, but practically never posted or commented on anything.
ReplyDeleteI'd guess the regular number is around 10,000 unique readers each week. The 15,000 are unique IP addresses, but some people read CM from both home and work.
Beyond a critical mass, I don't care how big the number is. It's a good mix of people who are actually in the trenches.
Bubba's reasoning sounds about right to me. In fact, I'd guess that the holiday dips are magnified by the fact that some of us aren't going to the office, and reading there as well. To me, too, it feels like we have enough of a critical mass for variety, both in subject matter and points of view. While the numbers are interesting, I'd be perfectly happy to learn from a few hundred, or even a few dozen, people representing the range of academic fields, positions, kinds of institutions, length and kind of experience, etc., we have here. While undoubtedly not representative of the US professoriat as a whole, it's far more of a cross section than I interact with at my university, or even at a conference.
ReplyDelete@Bubba, oh, go on, name your blog! We (by which I mean I) love the shameless self-promotion. Or you could secretly let me know by figuring out my gmail address.
ReplyDeleteThe Statcounter numbers look right.
ReplyDeleteThe number of unique visitors does not add up from day to day. It counts how many there are in a day, then counts how many there are the next day, etc. So it is not saying that there have been 400,000 unique visitors, only that number divided by the number of days the blog has been up, or thereabouts.
It is my experience with my own blog that many, many of the hits are in fact just google hits. If I am not mistaken, it works like this: Every time a page on this blog gets listed on a google search, that counts as a hit, even if the person doing the search doesn't click to the blog at all. That can account for a LOT of hits.
Unique visitors are the most meaningful statistics, but the span of time by which they are deemed to be unique is something you must find out or possibly set for yourself in StatCounter. It could be as little as 30 minutes, meaning that anyone who leaves this page open in browser window for several hours will be counted as multiple "unique visitors." A typical approach is to set the "unique" time span to the same as the span for which you are requesting stats. If you are looking at a week of stats, set the span to 7 days. If you generate monthly reports, set the span to 30 days. Or whatever makes sense for your purposes. But if you do not know the span of time for which a visitor is counted as "unique," then the stats are not particularly useful.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I think we've proven two things: the stats are worthless, and they're inflated wildly.
ReplyDelete@WhatLadder: No dice.
ReplyDelete8-)
Yes, come on Bubba. Don't leave us a'hanging... If you want more visitors, talk it up!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cassandra; actual numbers don't really matter to me as long as the site is interesting, keeps giving me good information, is a place to rant and share, and allows me to be a part of a teaching community I don't normally have because I'm adjunct and invisible.
Look forward to the New Year!
@AdjunctSlave
ReplyDeleteI don't think a pageview is generated just because somebody searches the site on Google or similar. I've done a quick spot check of the last hour and I see IP addresses actually accessing pages on the site that correspond to the number of pageviews we registered in that hour, which was 268.
But I'm not an expert at all on how the counters work. We've recently signed up for Google Analytics, and in the next week we may figure some of this out.
- CM Moderator
@Adjunctslave
ReplyDeleteYou're thinking of the Firefox Add-on "Pageloader" which automatically prepares all links on any page to load. It wreaks havoc for blogs because it counts as a page load even if no one clicks on it. The reason people get this add-on is because it shaves off a few seconds from each movement from one site to the next.
Most people don't use it, though.
I love this site, visit every day, but I never comment.
ReplyDelete@ Monkey,
ReplyDeleteI am not familiar with that firefox add-on. When I go into the Statcounter stats on my blogs, I see most of the hits are labeled as stemming from google and most of them are "zero seconds" in duration. Now I suppose that could mean that people click to my page and then go back. Since they do not click to another part of my page, their length of stay is registered as "zero." I always figured it just meant I was showing up on a search.