Weekend stats-blogging and results
Some statistical reality checks (unique IP referers):
One offhand link (thanks, Andrew!) from The Register: 3407
A postscript mention in a long post at searchenginewatch.com: 246
Various punditry I did at various Googly blogs (e.g. Google Blogscoped): several dozen each
tech.memeorandum.com: 37
New readers: A handful? Doesn't seem to be many, 10 would be optimistic.
One can almost see an exponential distribution in the results. It may not be precisely a power-law, but the order-of-magnitude differences seem obvious.
The results of the straw poll on whether to do more Google material weren't overwhelming. Of course it's popular. But it looks like there's going to be much competition from everyone else with the same overall idea.
Related, at the moment, I'm sitting out ChinaCenGoo investigations. There's already lots of pluckers of low-hanging fruit. No point in my chasing the pack. And that way lies temptation to do decryption, which would likely be very bad for me.
Bonus link: Dave Rogers: "Competing Messages: Technorati and the Post-Cluetrain(TM) World"
By Seth Finkelstein | posted in statistics | on January 29, 2006 11:52 PM (Infothought permalink)The existence of this ranking mechanism is to promote the interests of Technorati, not individual bloggers. It is a cynical attention-seeking mechanism that exploits the weakness of the human ego to direct attention to Technorati, and, for some people, it is a source of some suffering. Not serious suffering, not agony, in most cases, but it is a source of some concern. Certainly, the existence of the Top 100 and the entire ranking mechanism seems incompatible with the notion that, "we shouldn't be evaluating blogs and bloggers by how many people read them."
