A question of hubris: what’s our traffic?

We ask because we saw a couple of blogs speculating about our traffic, and making a mathematically incorrect calculation underestimating it by mistakingly assuming that our 2006 readership had not grown from 2001. So how much do traffic do we have? The answer: we don’t know for sure. If one were to count raw page […]

We ask because we saw a couple of blogs speculating about our traffic, and making a mathematically incorrect calculation underestimating it by mistakingly assuming that our 2006 readership had not grown from 2001.

So how much do traffic do we have? The answer: we don’t know for sure. If one were to count raw page views, we served 1,176,741 pages in January 2007.

A naive, boastful or deceitful newcomer to the web might try to claim that number as readership. However, a significant share, for us as for any site, consists of spiders from search engines and other mechanical “visitors”, 404 pages not found, reloads and various other categories that inflate a proper readership, including periodic “storms” of a hundred thousand or even a million page requests that are unrelated to reader interests and appear to be either DoS attacks or some other form of static interference. (January did not include any major attacks of this sort; November had a big one, which brought its figure to 2.8 million.)

We do know that our PageRank is 7, the same as major blogs like Instapundit and Gawker or sites like Law.com. By comparison, the top law blog, Volokh, has a PageRank of 8; and my own personal unpublicized little-read rarely-posted-or-linked-to vanity blog with under 100 readers/day has a PageRank of 6.

Of course, we don’t suggest that people read our blog just because others are doing so or because it’s trendy or even because of all the awards and praise we’ve won (and those pages need about five years of updates); we hope you do so because you appreciate the unique analysis we provide here.

4 Comments

  • I have become something of a PageRank whore myself, and I am still trying to figure out exactly how many kittens I must drown to go from PR5 to PR6. So I of course prostrate myself to your PR7.

  • I would like to ask for MORE analysis, rather than just synopses(sp?), even though (maybe especially because) I often disagree with Ted.

  • Looks like I have a PR5 also. I had to go look up PR to figure what it is about.

    I figure if I get a comment on a post every day or so, that I’m happy to blog.

  • John: I do recommend you check out the other blog, Point of Law, which is much more in the way of analyses and much less in the way of synopses.