October Stats
Instapundit reports that his October stats show over 7 million page views:
Interestingly, I wrote Allah at Hot Air a couple of days ago to congratulate him on that site having over 7 million page views in October. There’s actually a touch more there than Instapundit:
Although you do notice one obvious difference: Instapundit has many more “unique visitors.” His number of page views barely exceeds the number of uniques every month. [See UPDATE below: the yellow bar actually tracks “visits” and not “unique visitors.”] Hence the little tiny red cap on each column. That small red cap is, to me, indicative of a wider readership.
But Hot Air’s graph looks really nice, doesn’t it? A steady upward movement. Same goes for Glenn’s chart.
Oh, this site? Uh, well . . . it got about 1/19 of the other sites’ 7 million page views in October — right around 370,000:
But that’s the best I’ve done in at least a year, and possibly ever.
I attribute the rise primarily (indeed, perhaps exclusively) to the erudite blogging of DRJ.
I’ll repeat Instapundit’s sentiment: thanks for coming by!
UPDATE: In comments, Allah explains that the yellow bar actually tracks visits and not “unique visitors.”
Nope. You’re the one who pulls in readers here. But it’s fun, isn’t it?
DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/4/2007 @ 2:38 pmThanks for the plug. There’s a simple explanation for our page views vis-a-vis Glenn’s: on our site you have to click through from the front page to read a post, on Instapundit you don’t. That means if you want to read 20 posts on IP you can do it with one page view; on our site you need 20. Given how ad revenue is keyed to page views (for the moment), I’m amazed more bloggers haven’t followed our lead with their own layouts. If Glenn did so, and if he opened comments, his traffic would probably bounce to 350K hits a day and monthly page views would easily exceed 10 million.
Also, in the interests of precision, those yellow bars aren’t tracking “unique visitors,” as you claim, but “visits.” The former is a small fraction of the latter, as Patrick Ruffini recently discovered.
Allah (179258) — 11/4/2007 @ 2:51 pmYou’ve done some real yeoman work there, Allah.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/4/2007 @ 3:11 pmOn behalf of Bryan and myself, thanks.
Allah (179258) — 11/4/2007 @ 3:24 pmDRJ is a great blogger. You may have noticed a recent criticism (mixed with a far huger compliment, although I expect her to be over sensitive and focus on the criticism) of mine, also in moderation.
But the fact is she’s prolific and, while often dense, is dense no more often than you are.
I see Allah has commented. He too is a great blogger, in a different way. When it comes to religion, though, he can be unbelievably dense (he doesn’t grasp the basic fact that people believe their own religions are true and, therefore, believes others aren’t… while he sees them all as fairy tales, he doesn’t fully grasp why a Christian whose religion warned him or her about “false prophets” in Revelations would look at a Mormon and go “follower of a false prophet”.
Makes total sense from a Christian point of view — including loving the person who they believe is mistaken — but Allah doesn’t get this at all. And yet, even rationally, it is totally logical if you can put yourself in the Christian’s point of view. So even the one-of-a-kind Allahpundit (who if he’s being honest will admit I was on his side more often than not in debating theological proponents) can be dense.
So don’t worry, DRJ, you’re in good company. And if your feelings get hurt once in a while, you are far less sensitive than Allah.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/4/2007 @ 3:33 pmAnd Patterico, if you decide not to let my preceding comment through… then I would say that’s the equivalent of your censoring Bilbo Baggins’ last speech Hobbiton.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/4/2007 @ 3:37 pmI got 7 page views yesterday…
Kevin (4890ef) — 11/4/2007 @ 5:48 pmPattrico, DRJ, Justin and WLS,
Thanks for running the site you do. Pretty good stats for a site that doesn’t seem to be into much advertising. And of the ones you mentioned I think this one is by far the best for the dialog between the four of you and your commenters.
voiceofreason (db52f9) — 11/4/2007 @ 5:54 pmMy opinion only but more real two way dialog occurs here than any other site I’ve encountered. In other words it meets the intent of a forum very well.
Hats off as well for making it less personality based than idea based.
To Those Whom I’ve Verbally Attacked in a Personalized Way and Those Who’ve Had to Read This, Whether Targeted or Not:
I want to apologize and ask for forgiveness to all those I have called stupid, etc., and stronger words and combinations of words besides.
Most of the people who come here including those I disagree with are predominantly good people who spend their free time talking about issues they care about in an effort to convince people of their views, which naturally they see as right.
I do the same and am within the right to use facts, reason, data, and even emotion to make my point. Yet when I fail to convince or simply disagree strongly with you, it is wrong of me to generalize and attack you at your core because we disagree over one or several issues.
Even if I am right in the specific case, and in some cases I freely admit I may not be, to call you an overgeneralized name is to attack you at your core instead of attacking the peripheral idea or principle I feel strongly about.
I am sure there are many thousands if not hundreds of issues and topics each person I have so attacked knows more about than I do. So to call you stupid because we’re having a disagreement about the effects of unleashing a comprehensive strategic nuclear strike, for example, when, yes, I have studied this and might (stress the word might since I haven’t exactly seen one) know a bit more is ridiculous. Yet it’s the kind of thing I have frequently done and more online than in person for obvious reasons none of them particularly noble.
I do not guarantee I will lose this bad, uncharitable, and destructive habit immediately nor without relapse, but by all means mention to me this statement if you think of it.
I ask that you consider my apology and if you are able, forgive me for my “trespasses against you”.
In Jesus’ name,
But the faults were all mine,
Christoph
Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/4/2007 @ 10:41 pmI totally agree with voiceofreason. Yours is a daily read for me which I truly enjoy.
Sue (aabd51) — 11/5/2007 @ 9:02 amAnd my site is about to turn the corner on 75,000 total visits — for it’s entire history. 🙁
Oh, well, at least I have a goal for which to strive!
Dana (3e4784) — 11/5/2007 @ 9:53 am