According to my web site stats over 11,000 people are visiting bowblog.com every month. That sounds quite good doesn’t it? In fact, if I look back at how much I’d have paid in the past (at another.com, for instance) for 11,000 uniques per month it begins to look quite sickening. I’m clueless, though, as to how many of those are real human beings and how many robots or RSS aggregators (or dead people or extra-terrestrials). The numbers are interesting: for instance, apparently, 13,767 out of my 32,373 monthly pages are ‘not viewed’ (what’s going on there then?) and 80% of my search engine referrals come from Google Images (I’m number one result for ‘badges‘). I’m sure at least half a dozen of those 11,000 ‘uniques’ are web stats experts so, do me a favour, tell me how many real people are actually seeing this site every month!
If you switch your feeds to feedburner.com (and turn your old ones off) suddenlly your stats will not be contaminted with newsreader traffic AND you’ll know exactly how many subscribers you have.
Which will be a step forward at least…
There is actually no one visiting your site. The 11,000 readers you think you saw were actually caused by a glitch in the matrix, it will be fixed promptly.
Well, count yourself chuffed. I get a measly 168 a week which I am personally rather pleased with seeing as a month ago it was only 14! BUT – I am on sitemeter.com and from what I can glean – only around 25-30% actually read anything and if they do it’s mainly the what I consider to be more boring posts which is fairly frustrating. But at least some people are reading and more recently I have noticed people are coming back – which is nice…..
You get way more readers than you think: I always leave my crumpled copy of Bowblog on the tube for others to enjoy.
Darling, it’s just me and the kids, Billie got a bit of jam stuck under the mouse and we kept ending up at your site. Sorry. Actually not as sorry as we were, WHAT ON EARTH are you going on about?
Don’t you wish now that you’d gone for that front-page blog on another.com that some bright chap suggested as far back as 2001?
;o)