June 24, 2007

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)
Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog (Wikipedia, Google, censorware, and an inside view of net-politics) - Syndicate site (subscribe, RSS)

Subscribe with Bloglines      Subscribe in NewsGator Online  Google Reader or Homepage


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.

Posted by: Blake at June 25, 2007 08:53 AM

"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 :-(.

Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at June 25, 2007 09:10 AM

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.

Posted by: Ryan Shaw at June 25, 2007 10:14 AM

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?


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.

Posted by: Crosbie Fitch at June 26, 2007 03:01 PM

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.

Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at June 26, 2007 08:32 PM
I'd like "respect".

Yeah, you and Rodney Dangerfield. But in your case, Seth, here's some R E S P E C T.

Posted by: aretha at June 26, 2007 09:05 PM