23 Replies to “Congratulations, Dr Torley and the wider UD team . . . 100,000+ hits

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Dr Torley, 100,000 hits on the Dr Tour thread. A milestone for UD. KF

  2. 2
  3. 3
    vjtorley says:

    Thanks kairosfocus. For my part, I’d like to congratulate Professor James Tour for exposing scientists’ ignorance of how macroevolution is supposed to have occurred. I hope that kicks off a discussion among the educators of today’s children. I’d also like to thank Barry Arrington, the President of Uncommon Descent, and the staff who assist him in maintaining the site. Without them, none of this would have been possible. Cheers.

  4. 4
    Dionisio says:

    since Marche 6?

  5. 5
    Dionisio says:

    well, the number in my preceding comment is already obsolete, in a couple minutes it went up to 101,429.
    This total amount of hits seems to turn obsolete almost as fast as some dogmas written in biology textbooks 😉

  6. 6
    Dionisio says:

    I was wrong, the original post must have been since Feb 18 or earlier. Still, 101,525 hits since then seems pretty high for a post on this kind of topic.

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    D: The post was put up last year, and over the course of a year had gone dormant, but kept going as the most popular single UD post, maybe hundreds of hits per month . . . maybe 10 – 20 per day similar to other such longstanding posts. Feb 18, Science News — the aggregator not the more well known site — auto picked up VJT’s article and posted it. It took a while but about a week ago, it started to surge, shooting up to near 40,000 then basically overnight, 70,000. That is when I noticed and googled, finding viral discussion and the apparent root. A debate popped up on my post on the phenomenon, with some fairly nasty accusations. In partial answer, I have been posting numbers on this thread which is manifesting a new phenomenon. I think the numbers re now settling down to a different post-fad stable pattern, I think a much higher level of reference [thousands per month maybe . . . time will tell] as people are tracking back to find ammo for discussions in Facebook, Reddit and for all I know Youtube etc. KF

  8. 8
    kairosfocus says:

    VJT: Thanks for the kind words, and it is good to recognise the behind the scenes work of web masters and site leadership teams, without whom none of that is possible. KF

    PS: I am thinking that there is now a settling down to steady need for reference in a much wider circle. As such I am suggesting a post appendix, on where to go for resource materials on ID and related topics — online and offline. You will note too that in-thread I have pointed out Wiki’s article on Micro evo which puts to rest a canard that tries to pretend that such a term does not exist and in trying to argue that “Creationists” misuse, the errors made reveal much inadvertently. The talking point that macro is just accumulated micro needs to be definitively put to pasture, as a context for Dr Tour’s point. Your article in follow up here will be important and should be first on the appendix, and your article on a case study the eye should be second, third being your recent piece on Myers regarding abiogenesis copouts, with the UD weak argument corrective a close follow on (along with the glossary and the definition of ID) . . . all from the resources tab top of our pages, as well as maybe IDEA’s wider FAQ, here. Right after, I would put up the NWE article on intelligent design. Doubtless, there are others out there that you would want.

  9. 9
    Dionisio says:

    KF @ 7
    Now I know the rest of the story. Thank you for explaining it.

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    D: Welcome, near as I can see original post date was Feb 18, 2013. KF

  11. 11
    Dionisio says:

    KF: I’m enjoying the interesting discussions y’all have here on UD. I don’t have much to add, while studying information processing within systems biology. But can definitely learn from some of the comments. The more I learn, the more questions I have 😉
    Kind off like a never-ending story?

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    D: Yes the story keeps on going on. KF

  13. 13
    origin_surgeon says:

    105,129+ hits going strong!

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:

    Indeed, 105,173 . . . that Sci News dot info repub had more impact than the detractors were willing to acknowledge. BTW, they seem to have been in operation since 2007.

  15. 15
    DiEb says:

    Indeed, 105,173 . . . that Sci News dot info repub had more impact than the detractors were willing to acknowledge. BTW, they seem to have been in operation since 2007.

    KF, you are kidding yourself if you think that science-news.info (alexa-rank below 4,000,000) has such an impact on a post at uncommondescent.com (alexa-rank ca. 400,000)! The server data should show that the traffic comes to the article via reddit.com (alexa-rank ca. 80).

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    DiEb, I don’t doubt that the social sites are carrying the spread in numbers, but I am also pretty sure that something got things rolling that was not working over the past year or so. KF

  17. 17
  18. 18
    mk says:

    hi kairosfocus.

    question: how do you know that all the 100,000 are unique visitors and not the same visitors that come again and again?

    very nice ud!

  19. 19
    kairosfocus says:

    MK, I do not have that level of access, and am not claiming unique visitors. However the point is the buzz is unprecedented, and the pattern is well out of that of the usual circle of debaters [which has led to a roughly 10:1 hits to comments ratio once a thread is going steadily]. The key message is that the combi of Tour and Sci News triggered a going viral then a surge and now what looks like a much higher steady plateau of references and hits than previously. In addition, this is backwash from what is going on. A very high proportion of that 100,000 are going to be new hits. KF

  20. 20
  21. 21
  22. 22
  23. 23
    Dionisio says:

    How do these two numbers n and m relate to one another?

    Visited n times, m visits today

    Is one partially added to the other?

Leave a Reply