louisgray.com - Latest Comments in http://blog.louisgray.com/2009/06/changing-definition-of-subscriber.html

Re: http://blog.louisgray.com/2009/06/changing-definition-of-subscriber.html

maverickny — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:02:17 -0000

I was wondering why two old blogs on Blogger suddenly gained 500 odd subscriptions, so thank you for the explanation, Louis. What I did find odd was that nothing happened with the RSS subscriptions on my main blog at Typepad, where the subs would have been more appreciated.

Guess you can't win 'em all.

Re: http://blog.louisgray.com/2009/06/changing-definition-of-subscriber.html

AnneHaynes — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:44:31 -0000

I guess I'm the "few" I read all of the friendfeed links that look interesting and when I like something it sends to my twitter, so this is when I wear the velvet gloves.

Re: http://blog.louisgray.com/2009/06/changing-definition-of-subscriber.html

Gail Gardner — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:00:57 -0000

Thank you for the heads up on this change. Although I subscribe to worthy blogs I very rarely read them in a reader. I finally put my favorites in a separate section at FriendFeed and built a MyAlltop page and use those. Other than that I read what comes across Twitter and cliKball but not FriendFeed so much lately although I do still share my best finds there too.

Re: http://blog.louisgray.com/2009/06/changing-definition-of-subscriber.html

authorityseo — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:18:54 -0000

My favorite are the Twitter emails I get showing the new people following me on Twitter who have a thousand followers and 2 updates. I bet those thousand people are just loving the two updates the profile has.

Re: http://blog.louisgray.com/2009/06/changing-definition-of-subscriber.html

Webomatica — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:07:08 -0000

Totally agree. But in an odd way, aren't we going back to where we started? We used to say - put up a web page, theoretically, everyone - anybody with Internet access - can see it. You have a potential audience of billions. But at the end of the day everyone who starts a site realizes that actual visitors is another story. So lots of time was invested with search engines and such to get people to actually visit your site.

Now we have a new "WWW" of Twitter and FriendFeed followers with the potential to visit a site, and cycle begins anew...?

Re: http://blog.louisgray.com/2009/06/changing-definition-of-subscriber.html

ZuDfunck — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:48:15 -0000

Solid, as always, insight Louis!
I don't know what I would do without you sir!
If all the numbers are skewed
Maybe we should all just focus
on the Big 'C"
CONTENT!

Re: http://blog.louisgray.com/2009/06/changing-definition-of-subscriber.html

DGentry — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 07:03:27 -0000

> the new number of about 14,000 listed on my blog ... represents the maximum
> potential people who would see my content if everybody who subscribed ...
> on RSS or FriendFeed actually kept their subscription going and active.

The potential is even higher since you tweet every post. I suppose people who watch your delicious.com link history are potential subscribers as well, though I don't think that is a common way to use delicious.

I didn't agree with friendfeed's decision to pass along subscriber numbers in their feed fetch. If friendfeed had done it from the beginning my opinion would likely have been different: the number would have grown slowly and not drawn attention. As I'd been on friendfeed more than a year when they started doing this, there had been enough time for the Google Analytics data to sink in: relatively few people click through links on friendfeed. The link either passes by unnoticed, or (sometimes) people read just the title and then start commenting.

Re: http://blog.louisgray.com/2009/06/changing-definition-of-subscriber.html

Jesse Stay — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:31:00 -0000

As I just mentioned in my reshare, I agree wholeheartedly.