Some Stats

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Some Stats

For those who like these things, here are some stats on the audiences for Objectivist sites (both fundy and otherwise):

Who's Actually Getting Read in Objectivism (Online)

Danielle Morrill

blog

Before I go into this, let me preface by saying that OL is not in competition with any other site for traffic. There is no contest going on anywhere I can see, either. Ms. Morrill gives some traffic comparisons, but they do not mean anything except in a general way. For instance, low quality traffic gets the same point ratings as high quality traffic. Also, the purposes of the sites are different. I believe, from the objectivity I saw in Ms. Morrill's post, she would be the first to own up to these limitations (and others) if asked.

Also, she is asking people to supply their own Google Analytics data. Knowing how Objectivists have a habit of skewing poll numbers when they can, this might not be the best idea for reliability. (For instance, I saw one statistic "provided by the author" that was totally unreal, especially in light of the exaggerated variance with the compete.com figure--yes, I looked it up. )

Now on to OL.

Ms. Morrill lists OL for August as having 4,708 unique visitors. She used compete.com for her analysis and this statistic surprised me. When we had a major upgrade in the forum software, it blew all of our analytics codes out of the water. I did not re-install the Compete code (nor Quantcast). so I did not expect it to crawl the site. By my thinking, we should have had a Compete record of zero.

I did re-install Google Analytics, though. Here are some Analytics figures for OL:

For August 1-31, 2010, we have registered 5,047 unique visitors with 14,587 visits and 82,072 pageviews. We were offline from Analytics from Aug 1-3, though, so statistics were not recorded for those days.

From Sept. 11 to Oct. 11, 2010, we have registered 7,116 unique visitors with 20,618 visits and 133,489 pageviews.

We are growing whether we want to or not.

Our bounce rate is consistently about 38%, which is pretty good. What this means is that about 62% of the visitors to OL go on to other pages after arriving at the site. If they only read the page that they come to and then leave, Google says they "bounced." In Google's eyes, OL's figure means that the site is quite relevant to the visitor. Thus, Google rewards us by giving us higher search engine rankings for keywords than it normally would.

Another cool thing is that the average time people stay on the site after arriving is about 10 and a half minutes. This is up from about 9 minutes in August. This figure is also quite good.

Note that I do not do any SEO (search engine optimization) work for OL, neither on page nor off page. I also do not promote the site (Web 2.0, video, podcasting, article marketing, press releases, etc.). OL's stats come from purely raw organic traffic and growth based on content. Also, over 50% of OL's visits come from the search engines.

Frankly, I do not want more traffic right now. It's hard enough to keep up with the forum as it is.

(I do intend to open this sucker up later, though. With what I have learned from my Internet marketing studies and the tools I own and operate, at that time we should go through the roof. )

There is one thing I am proud of, but there are no statistics to prove it--maybe the amount of time people stay on the site is an indication: We have a very high-quality audience.

For that, both Kat and I are grateful. Thank you all very much for being here.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Do you have the numbers from July? Last August?

I added one of those hit tracker maps to Radicals for Happiness. The results are quite interesting.

[Brant Gaede]

Uh, Michael, 15,347 of those page views were me. I keep a record. Sorry.

--Brant

bubble maker, bubble popper

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

I gave August. In July we were offline from Analytics from July 24 to the end of the month. Even so, it showed 4,272 unique visitors.

Your blog is Blogger, so adding Google Analytics is easy. Add Google Webmaster Tools, also. You won't regret it.

The stat counter you have is just for personal satisfaction. You don't get any useful information from it. My advice is to take it off.

Here is some advice the gurus teach. If you need to learn anything technical (like how to install Google Analytics in a Blogger blog--and how to use it), go to YouTube and search for phrases like:

install Google Analytics in Blogger

You will get some duds, but generally you can easily learn just about anything technical on YouTube. Especially beginner stuff like Analytics.

If you need marketing advice and things like that, though, YouTube may have a lot of good stuff, but it is a real mixed bag. So you get a lot of crap and hype to filter through in order to find the good stuff.

But for technical stuff, it's a great resource.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

The stat counter you have is just for personal satisfaction. . . . My advice is to take it off.

The rest of your advice is quite helpful, but the comment above, as stated, makes you sound like a Vulcan, if not a Heaven's Gater advocating testicle surgery.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

If you can find use for it, or it rings your ding-a-ling, keep the darn thing.

Here's the point. You can't use that data to improve your site, improve visitor experience, improve anything, really.

The more stuff like that you put on your site, the longer the loading time. And that affects traffic and Google's rankings.

There is only one use I have ever seen for a visible hit counter: the site owner can look at it periodically and sigh.

Michael

[Mark]

Danielle Morrill neglected to include

ARI Watch

and she rejected my post pointing out the omission.

In September the number of unique visitors to "ARI Watch" was 2,243, which exceeds that of several sites on her list. (There were 3,088 visits and 5,723 pages viewed.) However this number is a little misleading because there are non-Objectivist webpages attached to "ARI Watch". So to be (un)generous, cut that in half. It would still make her list.

Whatever its traffic "ARI Watch" is a significant intellectual force. If you Goggle<br>

Any Rand "most any subject addressed on ARI Watch"

there's a good chance "ARI Watch" will be on the first page. For example here are a few rankings as of today:

Ayn Rand neocon ..... # 1 (same for 'neoconservative')<br>

Ayn Rand wwii .......... # 1 (same for 'world war ii')<br>

Ayn Rand torture ...... # 1

Ayn Rand Israel ........ # 1

Ayn Rand war ........... # 7

Ayn Rand Institute .... # 9

[9thdoctor]

What I don’t understand is how OL has such a higher posting volume than SLOP, but a lower ranking. I suspect that this was compiled by recently unemployed climate scientists.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... she is asking people to supply their own Google Analytics data. Knowing how Objectivists have a habit of skewing poll numbers when they can, this might not be the best idea for reliability. (For instance, I saw one statistic "provided by the author" that was totally unreal, especially in light of the exaggerated variance with the compete.com figure--yes, I looked it up. )

What I don't understand is how OL has such a higher posting volume than SLOP, but a lower ranking. I suspect that this was compiled by recently unemployed climate scientists.

Dennis,

I'll just let that speak for itself.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

What I don't understand is how OL has such a higher posting volume than SLOP, but a lower ranking. I suspect that this was compiled by recently unemployed climate scientists.

SOLO and ROR have larger archives. They are like huge old department stores but with very little new merchandise being stocked.

[Mark]

I said above that Danielle rejected my post pointing out the omission of <a href="http://ARIwatch.com/">ARI Watch</a> from her list. Turns out it was her spam filter that rejected it, not her. She eventually put it up.

[Philip Coates]

Notice that the fact that someone visits the site two, three, or many times does not mean they are favorably impressed when they see a lot of name-calling, putdowns, snarkiness, hijacking of Aristotle discussion for football, etc.

They may be visiting a 'train wreck' to see more clearly what dismays them. They may want to give the site a second chance.

One might turn on the Jerry Springer or other "how low can they go?" reality show several times.

The clear fact is that we don't have too many of the more intelligent, thoughtful, knowledgeable Objectivists posting at Solo at RoR or at OL. (I suspect that is also the case at the ARI-leaning sites Objectivism Online and Forum 4 Ayn Rand Fans, but I've not spent much time on them.)

The proof of all this is the fact that there are only a handful of regulars posting at each site. Not new people joining and participating at the rate of several a day, as is the case with the Atlasphere.

You can't evade it. You can't deny it. Facts are unpleasant things sometimes.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Elsewhere on this site you have announced an intention to start your own site. which will be somehow more proper, superior and whatever.

I have given you information and methods of how to build it and drive targeted traffic to it. You even thanked me somewhere for all that. If you ask, I will show you more.

No cost.

So now it's your turn.

Show us all how it's done and show us your traffic stats if they start getting good.

I'm rooting for you.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

That doesn't address my points.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That doesn't address my points.

Phil,

So what?

In have no intention of addressing your points.

Go do your own thing if you don't like this one.

Michael