louisgray.com: louisgray.com: Should Bloggers Open Up Their Statistics?
Matt Shaulis
· 1 year ago
I don't think people should care what bloggers' traffic stats are. There is really no "need" for this information. A lot of people want to see it or know about it for their own selfish reasons, but as far as the industry is concerned and what should/should not be expected: I think a blogger's traffic stats are irrelevant to anyone besides that person.
If you like a blogger, subscribe to them and read what they write... if you don't, don't. I would be rather suspicious of someone who felt they NEEDED to know this information to know wether or not they ought to follow/read that person's blog, or wanted to use that information as a measurement of someone's credibility.
There are some "tech" bloggers who have in the neighborhood of 2500 - 3000 RSS subscribers that honestly don't know anything about what they are writing about.. they are literature people... writers... not web developers, or early adopters, or even geeks for that matter. It is painfully obvious in their ramblings about the industry that they are new to it, and know nothing of it. But they use flavorful synonyms with a lot of syllables and keep us running to our dictionaries to learn new words (or basically new ways to say the same old words) so they entertain an audience with their literary skills (there are some of these I like, some I don't). And then there are people with 100-250 subscribers who might not know the correct way to use a semi-colon but they sure know the web, are sharp as a tack, and could teach the entire industry a thing or two.
When I first found LouisGray.com there was not 1637 subscribers.. thank goodness I did not feel like someone had to be widely known to be relevant to me. The reality is that sometimes the bloggers with 200 subscribers are being watched and read by the bloggers with 200,000 subscribers... Louis might not have had a "big" audience early on but he had a vital audience early on (or so I've surmised)... so I'm not convinced the numbers game should be allowed to influence us a readership because all too often the numbers will lie.
And of course, to be fair, there is a blog with 750,000 - 1,000,000 subscribers that employs a writer who really doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground (and should clearly take his head out of the former and stick it in the latter)... I'll leave that mystery to your imaginations. ;) (That last bit is gonna come back to haunt me, isn't it?)
Louis Gray
· 1 year ago
Matt, once again you prove you need to blog. I should start an unofficial Matt Shaulis blog that includes only the best of your comments. You would get a cult following in no time.
As for big stats vs. small stats, I've been reporting my Feedburner data since I had about 20 or 30 subscribers, and I started doing monthly updates when I was averaging less than 100 visitors a day. While my numbers have gone up a bit, I don't think I should get less transparent, but should keep being the same blogger I always have been (for better or worse).
Mark Evans
· 1 year ago
For bloggers, disclosing how much traffic they get is akin to how most people are loathe to tell anyone how much money they make. :)
Louis Gray
· 1 year ago
That's what I said in paragraph one: "Talking about visit counts can be seen as off-limits as one's salary." So... think people won't do it?
Daryl Tay
· 1 year ago
I see your point about traffic hitwise, but to me it's about the RSS subscribers. Because they're the ones who obviously see value, and will keep coming back. Also, I guess whichever metric is used is not as important as the trend it's going, which is, hopefully up (as I'm sure yours is!)
CyndyA
· 1 year ago
There aren't any good stats anywhere anymore. I don't care who is keeping them! When I was asked last week about analytics, my first response was "Do YOU really trust one set of analytics or are you tracking more than one metric?" Advertisers may love this stuff, but what does it impact? If I look at Compete, I can see where our blog as a whole looks to fit among other tech blogs, but that doesn't necessarily correlate to what's hitting Techmeme or what's hitting Google News or what the "influencers" are reading. And without that whole picture? The numbers are meaningless anyway. It's like noting which CEOs take a $1 salary without looking at how much they get in perks and stock options.
Frederic
· 1 year ago
I wrote about this a few weeks ago when Alexa updated its way of gathering statistics and wondered about the same thing (http://tinyurl.com/6973mh - my stats are linked from that post, btw).
But as I think Jason said on the l33t podcast, the only real stats you can trust are your actual log files - Google Analytics, Sitemeter, pmetrics etc all come up with different numbers anyway. And then, there is always the question which metric matters anyway: unique visits? RSS subscribers? Technorati ranking? Techmeme ranking? Shares on Google Reader? Number of visitors eating bananas while on your site?
But as you point out, there is a lot of interesting data in those stats besides the pure visitor numbers.
Matt Shaulis
· 1 year ago
lol @ bananas! (I think the developers of a metric that can measure that statistic is bound to go places!)
Chris Nixon
· 1 year ago
Good on you. Why should Google et al. have all this information about our blogs in order to sell us things, but we don't use that same data with each other to improve and compare ourselves. Old media like television and newspapers publish their audience figures, so what are we afraid of. All we need is a standard way to share this nformation. I'll be reading your post tomorrow with interest.
Robert Seidman
· 1 year ago
I would be very open to sharing, although I understand why specifically blogs who wish to make money at blogging via a variety of different business models might not want to share. I find that with the exception of really big sites, there is often little hesitation to discuss "visits" with huge hesitation to discuss page views, average time spent per visit, etc.
My personal experience with Google Analytics, Feedburner (web stat tracking), Quantcast and raw web logs is that these services are all "close enough" to each other to be used as far as web tracking (visits, uniques, page views) go. GA isn't great at real-time tracking but all of yesterday's page views usually show up by the next day for me.
RSS publishing is problematic because there are not great tracking metrics, especially if you publish full posts. You can see how many times those pages were viewed but you can't track if they were actually read. At least on the web you can see time spent on page, bounce, etc.
engtech
· 1 year ago
"Talking about visit counts can be seen as off-limits as one's salary."
Actually, talking about visit counts can be seen as being boring. :)
It's like how most sidebar widgets benefit the blogger instead of the reader. Your stats are interesting to you because it's your blog. Other people? Not so much.
Louis Gray
· 1 year ago
There is definitely some risk of being boring. I know that my monthly summaries rarely get comments, while more discussion-friendly topics (like this) do spur conversation. But for some reason, the way I'm wired, I really dig the stats. I remember yours and Jason of Webomatica used to do them quite a bit, which in turn, inspired my monthly updates. I would read yours and others if they were posted.
I think it depends on the content of your blog. If you blog about blogging, then maybe stats add to the conversation. But I don't think it makes sense to talk about "bloggers as a whole," because as engtech said the non-blogging audience doesn't care. Not everyone blogs about tech.
It's also relative. When our nonprofit site was young and started averaging around 100 visitors a day, my colleagues were thrilled. I knew that was not something to issue a press release over, but if you don't have a frame of reference the numbers are meaningless.
SeekGround
· 1 year ago
you asked why we don't share out site statistics. My response in general is human nature. We don't want to put ourselves out there in a way that other people are not.
I don't actually have a stars package myself and are not that familiar with what's available. Is there a package out there that provides a comprehensive picture of blog activity or does it take a compilation of multiple sources to get a true picture? I do keep an eye on the basic metrics available through various services because of curiousity and obsession.
I don't think that the average reader is interested in a blog's stars. I know i'm not interested in seeking out a site's metrics. Although I don't mind if you want to push the info out. Readers may actively seek the informtion if they are looking for information to build their own readership or ad revenue.
But then I am just an insignificant gnat in the wild and wooly woods
Andy C
· 1 year ago
Come on - don't be so precious everyone. OK - I'll go first.
I work in IT, earn £125,000 per annum after tax (honest) and my blog stats are here.
Of note, my raw stats, analyzed by Analog, always come out higher, but SiteMeter is pretty good.
Andy C
· 1 year ago
Cool. Thanks for sharing. It's all about trends (not absolutes) but those trends are pretty good !
I don't think Google Analytics let's me post a live URL with dynamic reports (rather than useless static screenshots) like that. Doesn't GA need authentication ?
Matt Shaulis
· 1 year ago
It does [require authentication]... furthermore, I would go so far as to say that opening up your entire Google Analytics for public consumption might not be the most ethical move in the world.
Sure, sharing your pageviews and stuff is one thing but Google Analytics houses additional information about your guests and the sites they came from. Not everyone want's to be laid out so bare to the public. (With enough cross referencing in GA you can really start to paint a picture of your visitors and certainly of your top referrers. I almost see it as a disservice to your top referrers and avid visitors to throw them in front of the bus that way not knowing wether or not they are prepared to jump out of the way.)
Am I living in a paranoid delusion, or is there a valid discussion to be had about urging some more "Sharable" types of data from Google's Analytics team? (Like a "Visits" Widget or something... Something that can exist outside of the authenticated Analytics application and share some ambiguous statistics that speak only for the website doing the sharing.) Perhaps this exists for all I know, anyone ever heard of such a thing?
dankeldsen
· 1 year ago
Trust might be easier to come by with more transparency than less. Isn't that what we've learned both in the blogosphere and in the "real world" of Enron, Worldcom, politics, etc.?
dan
· 1 year ago
Gawker media has open access to their site meter, I have it open through blog top sites, anyone can check alexa and compete on any site, numbers are numbers, are you writing what you want? Or does your writing match your goals for the blog? My best ever post is still has the words get rich quick by blogging the rest of the title is "why you will not". I love people....
charlesfrith
· 1 year ago
I quite like to blog my own modest stats when I can. Mainly to share how interesting the data is. Which is saying something for a person like me who isn't really into quantitative data. Geography is interesting too from net stats. That plus WHO is dropping by.
Beth Kanter
· 1 year ago
I've shared stats from my blog - not necessarily traffic, but more the analysis and insights that are generated from thinking about the stats and making improvements!
All Comments
If you like a blogger, subscribe to them and read what they write... if you don't, don't. I would be rather suspicious of someone who felt they NEEDED to know this information to know wether or not they ought to follow/read that person's blog, or wanted to use that information as a measurement of someone's credibility.
There are some "tech" bloggers who have in the neighborhood of 2500 - 3000 RSS subscribers that honestly don't know anything about what they are writing about.. they are literature people... writers... not web developers, or early adopters, or even geeks for that matter. It is painfully obvious in their ramblings about the industry that they are new to it, and know nothing of it. But they use flavorful synonyms with a lot of syllables and keep us running to our dictionaries to learn new words (or basically new ways to say the same old words) so they entertain an audience with their literary skills (there are some of these I like, some I don't). And then there are people with 100-250 subscribers who might not know the correct way to use a semi-colon but they sure know the web, are sharp as a tack, and could teach the entire industry a thing or two.
When I first found LouisGray.com there was not 1637 subscribers.. thank goodness I did not feel like someone had to be widely known to be relevant to me. The reality is that sometimes the bloggers with 200 subscribers are being watched and read by the bloggers with 200,000 subscribers... Louis might not have had a "big" audience early on but he had a vital audience early on (or so I've surmised)... so I'm not convinced the numbers game should be allowed to influence us a readership because all too often the numbers will lie.
And of course, to be fair, there is a blog with 750,000 - 1,000,000 subscribers that employs a writer who really doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground (and should clearly take his head out of the former and stick it in the latter)... I'll leave that mystery to your imaginations. ;) (That last bit is gonna come back to haunt me, isn't it?)
As for big stats vs. small stats, I've been reporting my Feedburner data since I had about 20 or 30 subscribers, and I started doing monthly updates when I was averaging less than 100 visitors a day. While my numbers have gone up a bit, I don't think I should get less transparent, but should keep being the same blogger I always have been (for better or worse).
But as I think Jason said on the l33t podcast, the only real stats you can trust are your actual log files - Google Analytics, Sitemeter, pmetrics etc all come up with different numbers anyway. And then, there is always the question which metric matters anyway: unique visits? RSS subscribers? Technorati ranking? Techmeme ranking? Shares on Google Reader? Number of visitors eating bananas while on your site?
But as you point out, there is a lot of interesting data in those stats besides the pure visitor numbers.
My personal experience with Google Analytics, Feedburner (web stat tracking), Quantcast and raw web logs is that these services are all "close enough" to each other to be used as far as web tracking (visits, uniques, page views) go. GA isn't great at real-time tracking but all of yesterday's page views usually show up by the next day for me.
RSS publishing is problematic because there are not great tracking metrics, especially if you publish full posts. You can see how many times those pages were viewed but you can't track if they were actually read. At least on the web you can see time spent on page, bounce, etc.
Actually, talking about visit counts can be seen as being boring. :)
I use to do this all the time when I started blogging ( http://internetducttape.com/category/statistics... )... then I realized people who aren't also bloggers don't really care.
It's like how most sidebar widgets benefit the blogger instead of the reader. Your stats are interesting to you because it's your blog. Other people? Not so much.
openstats.blogspot.com
It's also relative. When our nonprofit site was young and started averaging around 100 visitors a day, my colleagues were thrilled. I knew that was not something to issue a press release over, but if you don't have a frame of reference the numbers are meaningless.
I don't actually have a stars package myself and are not that familiar with what's available. Is there a package out there that provides a comprehensive picture of blog activity or does it take a compilation of multiple sources to get a true picture? I do keep an eye on the basic metrics available through various services because of curiousity and obsession.
I don't think that the average reader is interested in a blog's stars. I know i'm not interested in seeking out a site's metrics. Although I don't mind if you want to push the info out. Readers may actively seek the informtion if they are looking for information to build their own readership or ad revenue.
But then I am just an insignificant gnat in the wild and wooly woods
I work in IT, earn £125,000 per annum after tax (honest) and my blog stats are here.
http://andyc.tumblr.com/post/33367574
One place to start: http://sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s15lgraycom&r=36
Of note, my raw stats, analyzed by Analog, always come out higher, but SiteMeter is pretty good.
I don't think Google Analytics let's me post a live URL with dynamic reports (rather than useless static screenshots) like that. Doesn't GA need authentication ?
Sure, sharing your pageviews and stuff is one thing but Google Analytics houses additional information about your guests and the sites they came from. Not everyone want's to be laid out so bare to the public. (With enough cross referencing in GA you can really start to paint a picture of your visitors and certainly of your top referrers. I almost see it as a disservice to your top referrers and avid visitors to throw them in front of the bus that way not knowing wether or not they are prepared to jump out of the way.)
Am I living in a paranoid delusion, or is there a valid discussion to be had about urging some more "Sharable" types of data from Google's Analytics team? (Like a "Visits" Widget or something... Something that can exist outside of the authenticated Analytics application and share some ambiguous statistics that speak only for the website doing the sharing.) Perhaps this exists for all I know, anyone ever heard of such a thing?
Here's a recent example
http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2008/04/twit...
http://makemeafreemason.com/mint
I'll report back on how this goes - the good and the bad of transparent analytics.
--ryan