I started Sandwalk six months ago. The goal was to give it six months to see how things worked out. I was told that you have to reach 1000 visits a day to be "successful" as a blogger and, as you can see, I didn't make it. But it's close—the average number of visits per day is a bit over 900.It will take me a few days to evaluate the experiment.
27 comments :
Hell Larry, I get 600 visits a day. If I took your measure seriously I'd have given up months ago. And probably done some Real Work too...
I use your RSS feed to determine whether I want to read the whole post -- but that means I get a preview that tells me whether the subject is something of interest for me. So I read the first few lines of each article, without fail.
I doubt your hit count accounts for that...
What is "successful"? Who defines it?
I read you every day. And comment on it in "real life". That makes it successful, in my books.
Besides, you hang out in Tim Horton's!
Congratulations! Personally, I thought I had an unexpected success when I hit 200 visits -- and who those readers are makes a lot more difference than how many there are!
I wish you many more!
It took me more than two years to hit 1000/day. Cute Overload and that Chinese chick get many, many more hits - who cares. You provide quality and you have daily readers so just keep doing what you're doing.
As for me, I just found it two weeks ago, but have read it everyday since. It has provided me with valuable links I hadn't otherwise found, as I'm new to blogging.
Please don't quit.
Congrats on the success, Larry. As a new blogger, I mainly look to you and PZ as indicators. 1000/day to make it? Says who?
Congratulations on the first 6 months! I stop by at least a couple of times a day to see what's new. Love your blog Larry, hope you keep it up.
900 visitors/day is not bad in my book. If you published full feeds you'd probably have more readers (but less site visitors).
Larry-
Averaging 900 hits a day after only six months is a remarkable achievment. Congratulations! You should definitely stick with it.
Larry, your blog is both very entertaining, but more importantly very educational.
I know I can count on learning something new and interesting by coming to your blog.
I hope you keep on blogin' !
Yeah, don't use traffic as a metric for success (I know, that's easy for me to say.)
I should warn you that we academic types usually get a little bit of a slump over the summer months, but it'll rebound in September. If you get too hung up on traffic, the ups-and-downs will drive you nuts.
I am not sure if it is a coincidence, but I notice that the biggest jump occurred when I added you to my blogroll at Tangled Up in Blue Guy.
After 3 years, I am lucky to average about 200 per day, and that only after I post a comment at Pharyngula which is one of the 1st ten.
Not that you need me to brown nose any more. ;) But I remember that I was so intimidated by you when you first commented at Genetics and Health. Then, when I found your blog, I was pleased to learn that you're a cool person who's really passionate about genetics. I know I'll continue linking to you many times in the coming months!
Here's to another 6 months of science blogging fun. You ARE communicating science effectively and that's the truth.
Thanks for all the comments and compliments. Now I'm really confused about the number of visits per day. Is it really true that some of the established SEED blogs have less than 1000 per day?
Scienceblogs doesn't want me and I thought that was because I was a newcomer and my blog wasn't popular enough for them.
I don't know what are the criteria for selection at Scienceblogs, but from what I've been reading over the last couple of months, I'd say that you should apply once again :)
BTW, I read your blog more than any other science blog these days. :)
I read your blog regularly and find it interesting and informative, hope you keep blogging.
I also agree with rick, you should reapply to Scienceblogs. Did they tell you why they don't want your blog?
See, you hang around with me for a week and you get an inflated view of what a popular blog is. A few hundred a day is good. Some of us are just like a giant malignant tumor.
I lobbied to get you signed up on sb; your traffic isn't a consideration at all. The only reason I can think of for why you aren't on there already is that maybe they think the glowering, uncompromising atheistical evilutionist niche is already filled. Or maybe my recommendation is more of a dissuasion than an inducement -- I'm not the most popular beast in the stable with the other horses.
But is it fun? It seems to me that if you are having fun with it, then continue. But if it has become a chore . . . well, I at least enjoy it.
who on earth would want to belong to SB anyway. It's just a bunch of appeasers, ya know, tools of the religious, etc.
"Is it really true that some of the established SEED blogs have less than 1000 per day? "
My estimate is that most of us ScienceBloggers average less than 1,000 visits per day (i.e., 30,000 visits a month). I don't know who told you that you had to have 1,000 visits a day to be considered" "successful" as a blogger. That's a load of crap. It took me a year to hit 1,000 visits a day and then another year to get to my present level of around 2,500-3,000 visits a day. I suspect that I only made it to this point because I filled a distinct niche. As far as I know, there are no other academic surgeons with R01 funding out there blogging, particularly none who blog with a skeptical viewpoint about alternative medicine and evidence-based medicine.
I'm also very good at it. (Yes, that' my surgeon's ego talking.) ;-)
Some of the best bloggers I know get only a few hundred visits a day. Heck, one guy I know gets only around 150 visits a day. Readership doesn't necessarily equal quality. (Just look at Instapundit, Michelle Malkin, or Daily Kos for irrefutable evidence that this is true.) As for joining ScienceBlogs, I thought there had been some discussion of inviting you. I have no idea why it didn't happen.
PZ is also correct. Traffic seems to fall during the lazy days of summer no matter what I do. Ditto December around the holidays. (Traffic between Christmas and New Years for me has fallen by 30-60% both of the two years I've been blogging.) You have to look at overall trends over several months to get any idea. Even just monthly fluctuations will drive you crazy.
Your blog is better than most of the ones on scienceblogs that I have read.
I actually think it is precisely because you are not obsessed with "traffic", which is basically meaningless.
Besides, independent voices are important. Most of those on scienceblogs "sound" similar.
Please do not join the sciencebolgs shill wagon!
Independant thinking is what makes you different!
I think if you look at the response of most of those on ScienceBlogs to the framing "debate" and to the legitimate concerns that you, PZ Meyers and others raised about the issue, you will learn everything you ever wanted to know about Science blogs.
With the exception of PZ Myers, much (if not most) of the support for Mooney/Nisbet came from those on ScienceBlogs: Coturnix (Bora), Orac, Uncertain Principles(Chad Orzel), Mike the Mad Biologist, Questionable Authority(Mike Dunford), Thoughts From Kansas (Joshua Rosenau), and others.
In fact, the only island of doubt -- only one really questioning the framing thesis of M&N -- that I could find on ScienceBlogs was "Island of Doubt" (James Hrynyshyn)
On the other hand, most of the serious reservations about what M&N were proposing came from independent blogs (eg, ERV, Greg Laden)
A coincidence?
You tell me.
So why are you ignoring the angry elephant in the room? PZ Myers is also a member of scienceblogs. I can tell you that there were no declarations from on high about what positions we ought to take on the issue, and they actually made framing one of the buzzwords for a while, highlighting posts from both sides of the issue.
There is no moderating influence or pressure to conform from simply being on scienceblogs. The fact that the obviously highly qualified Larry Moran didn't get in raises concern that there might be some ongoing selection, but really, once you're in, the gang at Seed get it: we're left entirely alone to stir up whatever trouble we want.
"So why are you ignoring the angry elephant in the room?"
I did not ignore the angry elephant and I did not say there was any pressure.
I mad an observation, that's all.
People can make of it what they may.
Perhaps there is nothing to it.
Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!
Post a Comment