Comments: Readership Analysis

I wonder what everyone's criteria for adding someone to their aggregator is... Mine are quite low... I figure if there's a chance that I'll be eventually interested in something someone has to say, I add them. I can imagine others having higher standards.
As for why I added you... I liked your perspective.

Posted by joe at January 17, 2004 04:05 PM

On my personal blog I average around 100-120 uniques a day and an equal number of revisits. Today is an exceptional day because I commented on an "A" list post and Steve den Beste was kind enough to mention the comment.

So what?

If I want mass readership I write for mass media - and, hey, they pay - but to develope ideas, jot down research notes and generally meet and interact with interesting people I love my little blog.

Influence, however, is a process. One entry is not going to drive your influence up even if Glenn Reynolds and /. both link and your server melts. Rather it is a body of work which brings readers back. A body, I might add, that you have accumulated.

You write a lot about filtering which forces me to think hard. Not about, "how the heck do I contradict Seth" rather about, "gee, I hadn't thought of that, I wonder if IF2K is doing that, can be modified to deal with that." So there is some influence. Which will grow.

Posted by Jay Currie at January 20, 2004 10:09 PM

Joe: Thanks

Jay: Kinds words, but objectively, the influence isn't there. This is what I call The One Reader Argument. That is, if in the entire world, you have one reader, that reader will say, "I read your material, so consider it worthwhile". Sadly, this is not sufficient (in my view). And if I don't have a reach beyond the 100 or so readers now, given all the hard and sacrificing work I've done, well, that's a pretty poor reflection on how much I can expect in the future.

Posted by Seth Finkelstein at January 21, 2004 09:00 PM