Intelligent Design

Congratulations to Uncommon Descent Bloggers!

Spread the love

Figure 1

March was yet another month of steady growth in interest in Uncommon Descent as can be seen in the following Webalyzer graphs. December was an anomaly due to a very popular blog linking to a single post with a downloadable file in it (see the corresponding spike in (red bars) bandwidth). Lay a ruler across the tops of the total hits (green bars) or the number of visits (yellow bars) to see the slope of the average monthy growth. It works out to about 10% growth per month which means a doubling approximately every 7 months due to compounding.

So for all our authors and commenters… CONGRATULATIONS and THANK YOU! There’s steadily growing interest in what we have to say. And don’t forget about our advertisers. Clicking on the ads to see what they have to say helps defray the operating cost of our server.

Some additional stats for

March 2006:

Daily average hits: 44,372
Daily average visits: 4,461
Unique visitors: 28,694
Bandwidth: 19 gigabytes

May 2005:

Daily average hits: 11,920
Daily average visits: 1,081
Unique visitors: 13,049
Bandwidth: 6 gigabytes

At the request of my fang club (whom I dearly love and feel very flattered by all the attention they give me) here are referrer stats. For March 2006.

Direct Address/Bookmark 92.2%
Search Engines 2.3%
External Pages 5.1%

Top Six External Pages
———————-
designinference.com 0.91%
antievolution.org 0.42% πŸ™
leiterreports.typepad.com 0.26%
telicthoughts.com 0.17%
newyorknytimes.com 0.13%
pandasthumb.org 0.13%

Kind of hard to tell how much the fang club contributes to people bookmarking us which is where the vast majority of referrals come from. But I do appreaciate their efforts nonetheless and I try to keep them as excited as humanly possible. It’s great fun for everyone!

Update: steve_h didn’t understand how it was newyorktimes.com. The reason is that in the report itself these were all hotlinks so I couldn’t just copy & paste the text but had to type out each URL. I saw nytimes.com in the report and accidently typed newyorktimes.com in this article. The large linkage from the Times in March was to the Dennett/Ruse email. I was going to do the top ten but some of them didn’t make much sense such as this and this. If it’s any consolation if I add up all the iconboard board referrals with all the generic PT referrals and all the links from specific PT articles (not in the top ten) then the cumulative PT/Antievolution total would move into the top spot in March. Sorry Steve, but your latest conspiracy theory, like all the others, doesn’t pan out.

I’m quite sure I’m not about to try matching up IP addresses with muzzled commenters. In any case, and you can ask any of the authors here because I emailed them explaining why I was being so controversial, getting more of YOUR traffic was my plan all along. Traffic generated by ID supporters was already extant. I wanted the attention of ID dissenters but without you turning the commentary into an unmoderated dumping ground like Panda’s Thumb. So I use the Howard Stern model which is that people who don’t like you listen to you longer and more often than people who do like you. NBC in New York took a listener poll of Howard’s show that asked “Do you like Howard Stern?”, “Why do you listen to the Howard Stern show?”, and “How long do you listen on average?” The top answer among both Stern likers and Stern haters for why they listen was “I want to hear what he’s going to say next”. The people who like Howard listened for 40 minutes per day. The people who disliked him listened for 1 hour each day. This strategy made Howard the highest paid entertainer in history.

Ergo, all you anti-ID folk tune in here because you can’t wait to hear what outrageous thing I’m going to say next and you tune in more frequently than the pro-ID folk. Thanks for all your support and thanks especially for allowing me to play you like a fiddle. The funniest part of this is that even though you know I’m playing you, you won’t stop. You can’t help it. You just have to hear what I’m going to say next. It’s an addiction. :mrgreen:

5 Replies to “Congratulations to Uncommon Descent Bloggers!

  1. 1
    StuartHarris says:

    Dave,

    Do you have any statistics on the number of hits or cleck-throughs that your advertisers are receiving from their ads on Uncommon Descent? Are there any comments or testimonials from your advertisers about their success with advertising on Uncommon Descent?

    Thanks,

    Stu

    I don’t. Bill and the server adminstrator handle that end of it. It’s possible some of the server tools I don’t use keeps track of click-thrus but I doubt it. In my rather extensive but somewhat dated experience with internet advertising (I haven’t been involved with internet advertising for several years) the advertiser keeps track of that – or rather the advertising agent (such as DoubleClick) – and you’d log onto his server to check the advertising metrics. If Bill happens to see this comment he might ask that you contact him directly. -ds

  2. 2
    turell says:

    Most enjoyable blog. Follow it daily. David J. Turell, M.D. author of Science vs. Religion: The 500-Year War, Finding God in the Heat of the Battle, June 2004

  3. 3
    GilDodgen says:

    Dave,

    The truth is seeping out! Thanks for helping.

    Gil

  4. 4
    avocationist says:

    Sounds like my kind of book Dr. Turell. Nice to know you’re lurking.

  5. 5
    Lurker says:

    Dr, Turell,
    I enjoyed reading your website. Visions of neo-Darwinists sitting around the table inventing just-so stories ran through my head as I read this part….

    “Chapter Five, Our Hat Size is too Big for Darwin, asks why is our brain so big, and is so complex that we have an enormous intellect, marked aesthetic abilities, consciousness, and religiosity. The brainΓƒΒ’Γ’β€šΒ¬Γ’β€žΒ’s abilities are far beyond what is needed for survival of the species by natural selection; for instance, inventing advanced theoretical mathematics or classical music. Further, as the brain enlarged in the human baby, upright posture required a change in pelvic shape and at the same time the maternal pelvic outlet had to enlarge to handle the baby. This requires simultaneous changes by separate individuals (mothers and babies) from chance mutations!”

Leave a Reply