December 01, 2004

In Your Face Andrew Sullivan!!

Did you know that The Jawa Report is bigger than Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish? It's true. At least according to Dan the Carnivorous Conservative's who argues that a better method for measuring blog success it by total daily hours of readership. While Dan should be made aware that the TTLB Ecosystem has been having a few issues as of late (NZ Bear is already on the case), and thus the initial numbers he's using may be off, I think the overall gist of his method is sound. And by 'sound' I mean highly inflates the importance of my blog while deflating the importance of my rivals!(Note from Minitru: all methodological problems in contradiction to objective goals of the Party should go unreported.)

His method is this:

take the average number of daily visits times the number of seconds per visit. That gives you total viewing time in seconds. Dividing that by 60 yields minutes and dividing by 60 again gives you hours.
So using that method how does My Pet Jawa do? Look for yourself (all the numbers taken from Dan, except those in italics which I ran):

KOS 399.07
Drudge Retort 335.05
Instapundit 228.77
LGF 211.68
Protein Wisdom 169.39
Wonkette 162.89
Winds of Change 155.02
Eschaton 141.27
Volokh 135.02
Captains Quarters 127.72
Wizbang 116.26
Belmont Club 113.63
ACE 112.97
The Jawa Report 112.63
NZ Bear's TTLB 89.29
Outside the Beltway 63.6
INDC 58.00
Hewitt 57.44
AsmallVictory 56.49
Powerline 44.55
Andrew Sullivan 44.14
The Politburo Diktat 43.66 (watch out AS!!)
Flea 41.12 (in the Spirit of Male Objectification Week Flea is on AS's rear)
Laurence Simon 28.16
Llama Butchers 21.76 (ouch!!)

I have no problem with Goldstein beating me [even if it takes me, like, five minutes before I really get any of Jeff's posts], and I'm tickled pink to be right up there with fellow mu.nu domain buddy Ace (who, BTW, is doing nothing wrong according to this method), but what the hell is Wonkette doing beating any of us!! Where is the justice in that? How much time can a guy really spend on her site after doing a Google search for Jessica Cutler anal sex?

Of course, the consolation is that Andrew Sullivan, according to this metric, is hardly read at all. It's the small things, really, that make life worthwhile.

Alas I'm afraid that Bill will not like this, not one bit! And the Butchers?? Where are the Butchers!!!!

Alas, as I was parousing the old blogroll in search of victims for this post I found a number of blogs that:

a) don't use Site Meter (probably because it is notorious for being wrong and underestimating hits)

b) don't allow Site Meter to publish their data publicly (probably because they are ashamed of the number of hits they get) or

c) allow Site Meter to publish their data publicly (but should get a clue from group 'b' above and hide their info--I didn't include a lot of those on my regular read list because I didn't want the word to get out that some of you get, like, 50 hits a day--so don't be offended that I left you out)

Posted by: Rusty at 03:43 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 5 kb.

1 I suspect that having a comments section open may up time spent - clicking on comments, and then travelling from that page to another, etc. A lot of the big sites are most likely to be accessed from the main page, which on sitemeter registers as no time spent.

Posted by: Kate at December 01, 2004 04:05 PM (7wN5T)

2 Good point Kate.

Posted by: Rusty at December 01, 2004 04:15 PM (JQjhA)

3 I... uhhh... got your back?

Posted by: Flea at December 01, 2004 04:16 PM (kcv3S)

4 Are you warning Randy Andy Sullivan to "watch his back" from the Commissar? Who knew the Commie swung that way? Now I'll run and hide befoer he tries to, uh, re-educate me.....

Posted by: Senator PhilABuster at December 01, 2004 04:39 PM (UHfuz)

5 How much time can a guy really spend on her site after doing a Google search for Jessica Cutler anal sex? I'd suggest that, unless they've got voice-command browsing, such a search string might lead their browsing hands to be er, otherwise occupied in a new browser tab, whilst Miss Cox's worthless site ticks away in the background.

Posted by: The Country Pundit at December 01, 2004 04:53 PM (Y6cRj)

6 You said Cox...

Posted by: Rusty at December 01, 2004 04:54 PM (JQjhA)

7 What? You got a problem with those of us in the under 100 hits per day range? Huh? Huh?

Posted by: Jeremy at December 02, 2004 12:31 AM (/U19w)

8 It's good that people spend so little time reading IFOC. That means they spend the rest of that time watching the Sitemeter-less catcams.

Posted by: Laurence Simon at December 02, 2004 01:58 PM (uBCxH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
22kb generated in CPU 0.1089, elapsed 0.2127 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.2004 seconds, 252 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.