Nobody Here But Us Chickens?

David Giacalone, of the late great Ethical Esq? blog (go ahead, click on the link, it'll make his hit count go up), emailed a few bloggers last night asking whether there really is anyone out there in the blogosphere. He's watched his hit counter on a blog he's stopped updating continue to register really big numbers. He asks whether this is likely -- would real readers keep coming back to a site they know isn't being updated?

I guess he's positing that most of those "hits" are phantoms -- maybe crawlers or spammers but not real folks really reading the page. Or, I guess, that once someone has read it and knows it's not being refreshed they have no reason to go back, or to keep a link active for new visitors.

On this site I learn about flesh and blood humans reading the site in three ways: because they comment, or they email me privately, or they blog something that refers to the page so I know they read it. I keep learning about new folks through one of these three ways and these make me very pleased whenever one of the three happens. Although I monitor my visitor stats I don't trust them very much, so I really only know you've been here if you tell me so.

The reason I don't trust my visitor stats is that some folks who have emailed tell me they read me through a blog aggregator that pushes my content to them. I have something similar installed, and the way mine works I read the content of people's pages without actually loading their site into my browser, and I don't know whether those readers are counted on the stats page. I also don't trust my stat page because a huge number of my visits are crazy and probably crazily frustrated Google searchers for whom my site is the top five search result for terms that clearly aren't meant to bring them to my page. (e.g. I am the number one result for "execution facts" and "Skadden head hunters" and come up high for "Mike O'Sullivan" and "professional appearance" and "Jeremy Blachman enron"). In other words, people who want to read what it is I have to say might not actually "hit" my site, whatever that means, and lots of people who don't want to read what I have to say DO hit my site.

And anyway, whatever the "real" numbers are, who really cares? I mean, I guess David's right to question all the stats of who's getting read and how on earth people know whether those numbers are any good and is Glenn Reynolds really being read by all those people, but for my part do I care whether there are 10 or 100 or 1000 people reading what I write? I suppose I do, but the truth is I'm thrilled that there are a handful of confirmable people, who have spoken back to me in interesting ways, who I didn't know before I began this thing. What a gift!

Comments

[David Giacalone]

As usual, you've summed things up better than I, Sherry Like yourself, I believe that the small group who have made meaningful contact with me through the weblog experience make the effort unquestionably worthwhile. More than a gift, a blessing worth celebrating this Thanksgiving week! [of course, a guy can be grateful and skeptical at the same time.]

[Andrew]

I'd bet that many of the hits to EthicalEsq are coming in via RSS readers for subscribers who have not unsubscribed to David's feed. While these users are not visiting his site everyday, their agents are. So, while many of those hits are likely from automated tools, they represent real live readers.

[David Giacalone]

Andrew, Thanks for the input. However, RSS-feed hits on behalf of people who are not actually reading or checking out a site on a particular day is exactly what I would consider to be invalid, non-human contact, which inappropriately inflates the totals and over-estimates the influence or reach of any particular site and the weblog world. Those feeds certainly don't "represent" me. If such feeds do generate page hits, nobody's numbers are the least bit realistic.

[Richard Ames]

A page on my site is number one in the whole wide world (i.e., on Google) for the phrase, "I need something to do," or "need something to do" for short. I kid you not. It amazed me. All the sites on earth plying their entertainment services, and a page on MY site (which contained but one sentence until I fluffed it up recently to cash in on its notoriety) hit the very top. Freaky.

[Marie]

I'm one of the people who recently contributed to David's numbers. When I saw that he commented on one of your posts I also commented on, I clicked his link. Small world side note: I see Richard Ames commenting on your blog and he actually commented on mine a couple weeks ago. Wow.

[Prof. Bainbridge]

I have to admit I care about both. I check my stats obsessively, but what really makes me happy is when some smart person takes what I write seriously enough to write up a thoughtful critique (like you did a couple of posts below). Steve