Notice this: There are 94 blogs, by links, in the top 1000 - there are a TOTAL of 94 ranked at all, by traffic. That is what you call “bootstrapping”.
Now, there’s two problems: 1 is technology - not enough people have sitemeter installed, and TTLB’s traffic tracking is not half as good as it’s link tracking. So, there’s part
2 is influence. The “top guns” have influence - but the “tail” is made up of virtually everyone else, past the first 15-20. There is a huge cliff, after that first 15-20 - and there is virtually no effect, and no influence past that point.
There is a long “tail” with any network like this - but that tail should be bumped up some. There is a veritable CLIFF at several points. Why is that? How can we fix it? How can we strengthen our tail? We’ve fixed the “ecosystem” placement - but.. now, we have to look at traffic.
< -----------> Some of the below will have higher traffic than is listed - but, TTLB uses Sitemeter - and, it is messed up sometimes. Like, tonight. Bolded should, and likely do, have far, far more traffic than shown.
I think influence isn’t necessarily mapped well by traffic. If I have a post used by some one else and then that sees a ton of traffic then I have more influence than my traffic would denote. In other words the link is the influence. That was actually a big part of my original point in mobilizing many strong links as opposed to just having a lot of traffic. For example, I am vey blessed by certain intellectual realtionships I have made through blogging with people who have influence beyond blogging like college professors who might e-mail me or link a post….So influence is very hard to judge. Also, someone who links a ton of other peoples stuff is a conduit and an echo not really a voice. That person has a different role than someone who mainly speaks original ideas.
brad
Sure, it’s not THE only thing - but the links are just the infrastructure FOR the influence.
I’m not talking about within Christian blogging. THAT is the ghetto, if we never leave it. Getting OUT of the ghetto requires two things:
1. Infrastructure for a community, and sub communities
2. Reach outside of that community.
We’ve got #1 - now.. where’s #2?
Let me rephrase the question for you: Who, outside of other Christian bloggers, reads your blog?
Now, I know that not everyone’s gifts are going to cater to “outside the community” - but there should be a LOT more outside influence from us. The majority of our traffic (save for some of the top bloggers, and political bloggers) is from within the godblog community.
Thanks for this, it must have been a LOT of work!!! I do find the traffic listings puzzling though, as for example on my site I have a referrers list and that constantly has me having had around 2000 referals just from google per 24 hours, and yet sitemeter gives me around 400 hits per day- the descrepancy between those two figures is massive- anyone have any idea which I should believe!!!
Sitemeter will not track robots (or automated programs) that come to your site. That is because Site Meter needs the “visitor” to your site to run the javascript for Site Meter in your web page or at least load the image that is on your web page (the Site Meter counter). Many of the search engine hits are robots.
Also, Sitemeter does not track hits; it tracks visits. hen someone comes to a site they generate a hit for every piece of content that is downloaded from a site. If you have a web page that has four pictures on it, when someone visits that page, it would generate 5 hits. One hit would be for the page itself and one hit for each of the pictures. If you were comparing the count of Site Meter “visits” to server log “hits” (in that case), the number of hits reported would be 5 times higher for the server logs than the number of page views by Site Meter. Site Meter tracks “visits” and its definition of that is “a series of page views by one person with no more than 30 minutes in between page views”. 30 minutes is the “session” length timeout.
Thanks - but it’s as clear as mud. I cannot see anything except the links - no text at all. I’m not sure why that is. So I have no idea what you are saying - I just see a pile of links on each side of the page. Any ideas why the text isn’t visible? I can read your other posts ok.
“Let me rephrase the question for you: Who, outside of other Christian bloggers, reads your blog?”
Most of my readers are secular. Part of that is due to the Orange Revolution, but it’s generally been that way. One thing that’s helped, I think, is that I’m often writing primarily with unbelievers in mind. I write from a Christian perspective, but I consciously do it in a way that unbelievers won’t filter out as “white noise.” Also, my topics are often things that they’ll find accesible — Nietzsche, world lit, neo-paganism, politics and cult movies. I’ve gotten flack from some in the rabbinical wing of the Christian blogosphere because my site isn’t a straight-up “Godblog.” Well, it isn’t ghettoized either. I’ve had several remarks lately in my comments section from people saying that they’re unbelievers, but that they’re interested in what I have to say about religion.
I hope this doesn’t sound self-congratulatory. I’m just annoyed by the carping of critics sometimes.
Quick clarification — I’m writing about neo-paganism and the like from a CHRISTIAN, critical perspective. Didn’t want anyone taking up stones and dragging me to the edge of the village. . .
Many of my readers are not Christians as well. In fact, a good many of blogs linking to me are just other philosophers, and I know they read because they comment. Some of them show up regularly to comment. I would guess that half of my commenters are not Christians.
I also get quite a few links from conservatives who don’t seem to me to be religious in any way. Some people in Blogs for Bush link to everyone else in Blogs for Bush, for instance, and then they regularly check through the list to see what people are up to.
As Discoshaman does, I tend to write with a view to the fact that nonbelievers will be reading my blog, and in many cases they’re people I know in real life.
Most of my hits, on the other hand, are from search engines. I have no idea how many of those people stick around and how many don’t. I imagine most of the people who keep reading came from a link from another blog and not from a search engine, but there’s no way to keep track of that sort of thing.
One factor in the cliffs in traffic is pretty much set by how Google works, I think. Those with the most traffic are getting lots and lots of Google hits a day. I probably get 200 a day out 300-400 visits. Google determines page rank by how many websites link to you but also by who links to you. An Instapundit link is worth far more than a link from me as far as Google is concerned, and if you have lots of top bloggers linking to you, you’ll be higher in Google and thus get lots more traffic. The effect is exponential.
Another factor is that some blogs seem to have lots of short posts with bloggers who don’t challenge the comments on their sites. I get fewer commenters, I’m sure, because I challenge commenters I disagree with. When you have lots more readers, that’s harder to do, so sites like Crooked Timber, WorldMag, Blogs for Bush, Kevin Drum, Joe Carter, etc. who are highly ranked with virtually open comments will draw trollish types more easily, and that seems to drive traffic as well.
Hi RK,
Yes it must be my browser. If you could email it to me or put it up on your main site I’d appreciate it. Just wondering if others might have the same problem as me. God bless,
Catez
There has to be ballance — you can’t just look at links, or just at traffic. My own blog is a perfect example. #810 in links — but 3362 in traffic. You can raise your link numbers by participating in every blogroll and aggregator known to man, but if you don’t have the hits what is it doing for you?
I used to monitor my climb up the ecosystem closely. Now I care more about getting my hit total up a bit. Maybe I’d feel differently if my links total was due to people linking to posts, rather than being in two blogrolls.
I was thinking about an experiment. Just to see what would happen.
I’m not even included in the Blogdom right now, I don’t think. Or the reformed aggregator.
I wonder what # I’d hit, if I joined both? I bet I could rocket up pretty far that way. Care to try an experiment anyone? (I’d quit them both afterwards - but just to make the point.)
I agree that it’s a balance. I agree with several of the commenters - it’s readership, and quality that will matter.
Razor - You had a little (Wrong?) beside my site stats. They are, indeed, wrong. I presume this has something to do with the fact that my SiteMeter stats are password protected. I guess I’m weird about such things, but I’ve never had any real desire to make my stats public.
Wow…this makes me look really good, but truth be told, I had a major surge in traffic when this was taken because Hewitt linked me in a post. Normally I average about 200 hits a day.
[-]
[-]
[-]
queertardo
I think influence isn’t necessarily mapped well by traffic. If I have a post used by some one else and then that sees a ton of traffic then I have more influence than my traffic would denote. In other words the link is the influence. That was actually a big part of my original point in mobilizing many strong links as opposed to just having a lot of traffic. For example, I am vey blessed by certain intellectual realtionships I have made through blogging with people who have influence beyond blogging like college professors who might e-mail me or link a post….So influence is very hard to judge. Also, someone who links a ton of other peoples stuff is a conduit and an echo not really a voice. That person has a different role than someone who mainly speaks original ideas.
brad
Comment by brad — 1/29/2005 @ 11:07 pm | Quote
Sure, it’s not THE only thing - but the links are just the infrastructure FOR the influence.
I’m not talking about within Christian blogging. THAT is the ghetto, if we never leave it. Getting OUT of the ghetto requires two things:
1. Infrastructure for a community, and sub communities
2. Reach outside of that community.
We’ve got #1 - now.. where’s #2?
Let me rephrase the question for you: Who, outside of other Christian bloggers, reads your blog?
Now, I know that not everyone’s gifts are going to cater to “outside the community” - but there should be a LOT more outside influence from us. The majority of our traffic (save for some of the top bloggers, and political bloggers) is from within the godblog community.
How do we get out of that cycle?
Comment by RazorsKiss — 1/29/2005 @ 11:18 pm | Quote
Thanks for this, it must have been a LOT of work!!! I do find the traffic listings puzzling though, as for example on my site I have a referrers list and that constantly has me having had around 2000 referals just from google per 24 hours, and yet sitemeter gives me around 400 hits per day- the descrepancy between those two figures is massive- anyone have any idea which I should believe!!!
Comment by Adrian — 1/30/2005 @ 1:59 am | Quote
Hi RK,
I’m confused. What is the column on the left and what is the column on the right? Could you explain? Thanks.
Comment by Catez — 1/30/2005 @ 6:11 am | Quote
Left is sorted by traffic - unique visitors per day. Right is the “ecosystem” rank, and links into you.
Bottom group is traffic again, but arranged differently.
Hope that helps
Comment by RazorsKiss — 1/30/2005 @ 7:22 am | Quote
Adrian,
Sitemeter will not track robots (or automated programs) that come to your site. That is because Site Meter needs the “visitor” to your site to run the javascript for Site Meter in your web page or at least load the image that is on your web page (the Site Meter counter). Many of the search engine hits are robots.
Also, Sitemeter does not track hits; it tracks visits. hen someone comes to a site they generate a hit for every piece of content that is downloaded from a site. If you have a web page that has four pictures on it, when someone visits that page, it would generate 5 hits. One hit would be for the page itself and one hit for each of the pictures. If you were comparing the count of Site Meter “visits” to server log “hits” (in that case), the number of hits reported would be 5 times higher for the server logs than the number of page views by Site Meter. Site Meter tracks “visits” and its definition of that is “a series of page views by one person with no more than 30 minutes in between page views”. 30 minutes is the “session” length timeout.
Comment by Joshua Claybourn — 1/30/2005 @ 9:21 am | Quote
Thanks - but it’s as clear as mud. I cannot see anything except the links - no text at all. I’m not sure why that is. So I have no idea what you are saying - I just see a pile of links on each side of the page. Any ideas why the text isn’t visible? I can read your other posts ok.
Comment by Catez — 1/30/2005 @ 11:12 am | Quote
What browser are you using?
I’m using tables inside the posts, so it may be your browser displaying it weird, for some reason. What resolution are you on, also?
I can put up an alternate display of the above on my main site, if you want.
Comment by RazorsKiss — 1/30/2005 @ 11:43 am | Quote
“Let me rephrase the question for you: Who, outside of other Christian bloggers, reads your blog?”
Most of my readers are secular. Part of that is due to the Orange Revolution, but it’s generally been that way. One thing that’s helped, I think, is that I’m often writing primarily with unbelievers in mind. I write from a Christian perspective, but I consciously do it in a way that unbelievers won’t filter out as “white noise.” Also, my topics are often things that they’ll find accesible — Nietzsche, world lit, neo-paganism, politics and cult movies. I’ve gotten flack from some in the rabbinical wing of the Christian blogosphere because my site isn’t a straight-up “Godblog.” Well, it isn’t ghettoized either.
I’ve had several remarks lately in my comments section from people saying that they’re unbelievers, but that they’re interested in what I have to say about religion.
I hope this doesn’t sound self-congratulatory. I’m just annoyed by the carping of critics sometimes.
Comment by Discoshaman — 1/30/2005 @ 1:20 pm | Quote
Quick clarification — I’m writing about neo-paganism and the like from a CHRISTIAN, critical perspective. Didn’t want anyone taking up stones and dragging me to the edge of the village. . .
Comment by Discshaman — 1/30/2005 @ 1:23 pm | Quote
Stone him!
Nah, just kidding.
That’s good. I’ve enjoyed reading your stuff, actually.
Comment by RazorsKiss — 1/30/2005 @ 2:13 pm | Quote
Many of my readers are not Christians as well. In fact, a good many of blogs linking to me are just other philosophers, and I know they read because they comment. Some of them show up regularly to comment. I would guess that half of my commenters are not Christians.
I also get quite a few links from conservatives who don’t seem to me to be religious in any way. Some people in Blogs for Bush link to everyone else in Blogs for Bush, for instance, and then they regularly check through the list to see what people are up to.
As Discoshaman does, I tend to write with a view to the fact that nonbelievers will be reading my blog, and in many cases they’re people I know in real life.
Most of my hits, on the other hand, are from search engines. I have no idea how many of those people stick around and how many don’t. I imagine most of the people who keep reading came from a link from another blog and not from a search engine, but there’s no way to keep track of that sort of thing.
One factor in the cliffs in traffic is pretty much set by how Google works, I think. Those with the most traffic are getting lots and lots of Google hits a day. I probably get 200 a day out 300-400 visits. Google determines page rank by how many websites link to you but also by who links to you. An Instapundit link is worth far more than a link from me as far as Google is concerned, and if you have lots of top bloggers linking to you, you’ll be higher in Google and thus get lots more traffic. The effect is exponential.
Another factor is that some blogs seem to have lots of short posts with bloggers who don’t challenge the comments on their sites. I get fewer commenters, I’m sure, because I challenge commenters I disagree with. When you have lots more readers, that’s harder to do, so sites like Crooked Timber, WorldMag, Blogs for Bush, Kevin Drum, Joe Carter, etc. who are highly ranked with virtually open comments will draw trollish types more easily, and that seems to drive traffic as well.
Comment by Jeremy Pierce — 1/30/2005 @ 4:22 pm | Quote
Hi RK,
Yes it must be my browser. If you could email it to me or put it up on your main site I’d appreciate it. Just wondering if others might have the same problem as me. God bless,
Catez
Comment by Catez — 1/30/2005 @ 5:36 pm | Quote
You can now find it at: My main site.
Hope it’s useful!
Comment by RazorsKiss — 1/30/2005 @ 9:07 pm | Quote
There has to be ballance — you can’t just look at links, or just at traffic. My own blog is a perfect example. #810 in links — but 3362 in traffic. You can raise your link numbers by participating in every blogroll and aggregator known to man, but if you don’t have the hits what is it doing for you?
I used to monitor my climb up the ecosystem closely. Now I care more about getting my hit total up a bit. Maybe I’d feel differently if my links total was due to people linking to posts, rather than being in two blogrolls.
Comment by Warren — 1/30/2005 @ 10:31 pm | Quote
I hear you there.
I was thinking about an experiment. Just to see what would happen.
I’m not even included in the Blogdom right now, I don’t think. Or the reformed aggregator.
I wonder what # I’d hit, if I joined both? I bet I could rocket up pretty far that way. Care to try an experiment anyone?
(I’d quit them both afterwards - but just to make the point.)
I agree that it’s a balance. I agree with several of the commenters - it’s readership, and quality that will matter.
Comment by RazorsKiss — 1/30/2005 @ 10:35 pm | Quote
Thanks for putting it on your main site RK. I could see it. Not really sure what it all indicates but thanks for making it accessible.
Comment by Catez — 2/1/2005 @ 3:08 am | Quote
Dude, this is incredible! Excelsior on your time, patience and research.
Comment by Rey — 2/1/2005 @ 9:55 pm | Quote
Razor - You had a little (Wrong?) beside my site stats. They are, indeed, wrong. I presume this has something to do with the fact that my SiteMeter stats are password protected. I guess I’m weird about such things, but I’ve never had any real desire to make my stats public.
Comment by Tim — 2/2/2005 @ 11:47 am | Quote
Wow…this makes me look really good, but truth be told, I had a major surge in traffic when this was taken because Hewitt linked me in a post. Normally I average about 200 hits a day.
Comment by Marla — 3/5/2005 @ 11:14 pm | Quote