Readership Statistics on Goring Gorman's Google Grump
The Michael Gorman / Google post I wrote a few days ago was significant effort to do original work, and, I thought, something worth flacking around to various gatekeepers. So, I tried one high-volume place (which didn't accept it), and a few librarian-oriented sites, and left some comments. Here's the readership results, from referer logs (unique IPs).
unknown - 139
LISnews.org - 189
crookedtimber.org - 59
librarian.net - 61
blogs.britannica.com - 16
All in all, adding in the 100 or so people that seem to actually read the article from feeds or site in general, it looks like that post got around a total of 600 readers. I hate to say it, but it's another example of, given the effort involved in research, writing, *and* flacking, it's not worth it.
An earlier Britannica post did get noticed by some other interesting blogs, e.g. Link Spiel. I'm also among interesting company (though sadly just seven hits richer) from Frank Paynter's link list:
Seth Finkelstein, my favorite should-be-an-A-lister, takes a close look at the Britannica blog's recent link baiting behavior.
Thanks, Frank, but it's not going to happen. :-(
By Seth Finkelstein | posted in statistics | on June 24, 2007 11:58 PM (Infothought permalink)
hurray for the librarians!
Maybe think of it this way, that's several hundred people that are reading what you write. There's not too many bloggers that even get that many.
"that even get that many" - right, which I think goes to show what a deceptive scam blogging is, how nobody besides the tiny, tiny, A-list is heard much.
It's such a rigged game :-(.
I don't know if absolute number of readers is the best metric for whether blogging is "worth it." Anyway, I hope you don't get discouraged and stop blogging--you're one of the few fresh voices blogging on issues I care about. 90% of the rest are just passing along the received wisdom of the hour.
Come the day each reader is ranked, those 600 could end up weighing more than 1,000,000 spiders, spambots, and searchers for 'seth'.
Anyway, what do you want?
Adulation?
Influence?
Affluence?
I'd stick to achievement and affiliation.
Do what you fancy, disseminate it, and attract and discover collaborators.
Aspire to an audience, but abhor its arrival - such is the artist's paradox.
I'm still waiting for your next work of art. I think I, along with others, just have this gut feeling that you're someone to watch.
Ryan: Thanks. Unfortunately, I *am* discouraged. While all readers gratefully accepted, still, it's a lot of work for very little return.
Crosbie: Influence, definitely. A certain measure of affluence, yes, I have to make a living, though it won't be by blogging. Rather than "adulation", I'd like "respect". Those don't seem to me like unreasonable aspirations, though of course they may go unfulfilled.
I'd like "respect".
Yeah, you and Rodney Dangerfield. But in your case, Seth, here's some R E S P E C T.