Page view record broken
A recent visitor to this blog viewed an incredible 51 pages and spent nearly 4 hours. Anyone who does not believe this had better check my site statistics quickly, as the free Sitemeter service that I use lists only the 100 most recent visits. Just click on the Sitemeter icon at the bottom of the left-hand sidebar on the main (home) page and then click on "By Details" in the left-hand sidebar of the Sitemeter page. The previous record that I am aware of for this blog is 48 page views.
I urge the record holder to step forward and claim the trophy.
Also amazing is the high fraction of visits that have high page view numbers and/or long times -- I find this particularly surprising because I expect that more of the visits would be made just to check for new posts and/or comments or to link to another website. I estimate that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 20 of the visits have 10 or more page views and/or more than 1 hour. I have checked other blogs that have an open Sitemeter and they all look silly in comparison. I thought that maybe a lot of the high page view numbers could be the result of visitors checking my threads for new comments, since my blog service does not list the blog's most recent comments, but the visits with high page counts are usually accompanied by long visit times whereas it does not take long to check for new comments. Also, visitors generally do not spend a lot of time here writing comments because the comments lately have been infrequent and most of them have been short. However, I admit that one area where this blog is mediocre is in the numbers of visits per day.
I just couldn't resist tooting my own horn.
Yes, Voice in the Wilderness, we know -- they all come here just to laugh at what PZ Myers called "a bottomless pit of stupidity."
I urge the record holder to step forward and claim the trophy.
Also amazing is the high fraction of visits that have high page view numbers and/or long times -- I find this particularly surprising because I expect that more of the visits would be made just to check for new posts and/or comments or to link to another website. I estimate that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 20 of the visits have 10 or more page views and/or more than 1 hour. I have checked other blogs that have an open Sitemeter and they all look silly in comparison. I thought that maybe a lot of the high page view numbers could be the result of visitors checking my threads for new comments, since my blog service does not list the blog's most recent comments, but the visits with high page counts are usually accompanied by long visit times whereas it does not take long to check for new comments. Also, visitors generally do not spend a lot of time here writing comments because the comments lately have been infrequent and most of them have been short. However, I admit that one area where this blog is mediocre is in the numbers of visits per day.
I just couldn't resist tooting my own horn.
Yes, Voice in the Wilderness, we know -- they all come here just to laugh at what PZ Myers called "a bottomless pit of stupidity."
posted by Larry Fafarman | 2/28/2007 03:39:00 AM
5 Comments:
The time that someone is logged on is quite meaningless. The fact that he read 51 pages in that time says both that he is a slow reader and that they need some new copies of Readers Digest in his asylum.
Hello Larry, hello Voice in the wilderness. I 'discovered' Larry last night whilst trying to get some information from wikipedia re. banned books - the discussion page is VERY insightful.
I've probably spent more than 4 hours 'trolling' this blog (and others - thankyou Larry for using your real name so often) over the past 2 days. I'm not a slow reader, and I'm not in an asylum.
But now I think I should be. I mean, what's real? I don't know anymore.
Anonymous said...
>>>>>>> Hello Larry, hello Voice in the wilderness. I 'discovered' Larry last night whilst trying to get some information from wikipedia re. banned books - the discussion page is VERY insightful.
I've probably spent more than 4 hours 'trolling' this blog (and others - thankyou Larry for using your real name so often) over the past 2 days. <<<<<<
Thanks for your interest in my blog.
I would use my real name even more often if I were not banned in so many places on the Internet.
It was really something arguing with those stubborn jackasses over at Wikipedia, the American Library Association, and the Questionable Authority blog over whether the book Of Pandas of People should be classified as a "banned book." The clowns over at Wikipedia rewrote the whole article on banned books rather than concede that Pandas is a banned book. This issue is discussed further
here, here, and here.
Using the term "trolling" in the way you did is a bad idea because of the term's negative connotations. A "troll" is someone who writes heckling comments on the Internet. "Surfing" is a better term.
Thanks Larry. I'm not what you'd call a 'bright spark'. Whenever I hear or read the word 'trolling', for some reason I think of 'trawling', like a fishing boat looking for something in particular. I'm not here to heckle.
Anyway, good job with the blog. Don't let them undermine your beliefs, or your confidence.
Anonymous said...
>>>>> Thanks Larry. I'm not what you'd call a 'bright spark'. Whenever I hear or read the word 'trolling', for some reason I think of 'trawling', like a fishing boat looking for something in particular. <<<<<
Actually, both "trolling" and "trawling" are fishing terms. "Trawling" means to fish with a net and "trolling" means to fish with a lure or baited hook pulled by a moving boat. "Troll" also refers to the lure itself. So an Internet "troll" tries to lure responses by means of provocative comments. In Scandinavian folklore, a "troll" is a dwarf or giant believed to live underground or in caves.
Post a Comment
<< Home