twopointouch

This is a personal attempt to understand the digg front page. I am not a mathematician, nor a coder nor an Excel wiz (all of which will become obvious). Nonetheless, I wanted to understand digg better than I did and decided a tiny bit of analysis was in order.

This was the state of play on the front page at 16:25 BST today.

(Time means the number of hours since a post was submitted, to the nearest hour.)

Lanjut →

Sorry for another list, but I seem to have run out of semi-profound thoughts for this week about Web 2.0 and social media. Instead, the old standby of weird and interesting things I found from my site statistics this morning. I don’t have an enormous amount of faith in these programs. My host runs two, awstats and Webalizer, which manage to provide totally different results from the same raw data. Be interesting to hear how these observations compare to others’ experiences, though.

1. The joint number three single search term that has led people to this site from Google is “funny”. I am so, so sorry about that. Sort it out, Sergey.
2. AskJeeves is lazy; it’s downloaded 3.87MB from this site, as opposed to Google’s 43MB. Or is Google just greedy?
3. The interview that I did with Paul Graham when the site first launched in June is still one of my top in-bound links. The spooky thing about that is that the interview is on Pauls’ site, not mine.
4. Google searches provide four times more traffic than all the other search engines combined.
5. My reddit links draw in a lot more traffic than digg links. Perhaps because it’s slower moving?
6. The US (or .com domains) accounts for more than half of my traffic. Elsewhere, China is already bigger than Japan; India is already bigger than the Russian Federation.
7. I currently have twice as many Dutch readers as British ones. Dank u.
8. Even a semi-thoughtful comment on another blog makes people come and see who you are.
9. More than half (57%) of my visits are from Firefox users.
10. 10 page views per visit this month, apparently. That’s incredibly high for a blog, I think, and a bit mystifying. I guess it reflects the fact that this is still a new site. Also, some will have been unrecognised bots which would bump up the average a lot.