2010 in review

2 01 2011

Some automated stats from WordPress on ConservationBytes.com.

The stats helper monkeys at WordPress.com mulled over how this blog did in 2010, and here’s a high level summary of its overall blog health:

Healthy blog!

The Blog-Health-o-Meter™ reads Wow.

Crunchy numbers

Featured image

The Louvre Museum has 8.5 million visitors per year. This blog was viewed about 130,000 times in 2010. If it were an exhibit at The Louvre Museum, it would take 6 days for that many people to see it.

 

In 2010, there were 105 new posts, growing the total archive of this blog to 287 posts. There were 208 pictures uploaded, taking up a total of 29mb. That’s about 4 pictures per week.

The busiest day of the year was November 12th with 816 views. The most popular post that day was One billion people still hungry.

Where did they come from?

The top referring sites in 2010 were stumbleupon.com, twitter.com, adelaide.edu.au, facebook.com, and researchblogging.org.

Some visitors came searching, mostly for sharks, inbreeding, network, impact factor 2009, and extinction vortex.

Attractions in 2010

These are the posts and pages that got the most views in 2010.

1

One billion people still hungry November 2010
12 comments and 1 Like on WordPress.com,

2

ISI 2009 Impact Factors now out June 2010
20 comments

3

More than just baby sharks April 2009
2 comments

4

New Impact Factors for conservation journals June 2009
1 comment

5

Journals July 2008
5 comments


Actions

Information

6 responses

6 01 2011
Marty Deveney

Your comparison to the number of people who walk in through the door of the Musée du Louvre assumes that everyone who visits Musée du Louvre looks at everything. This is unfortunately, deeply flawed. The vast majority of people who go there run in, look at the Venus De Milo, the Mona Lisa, maybe the Apollo of Piombino and some still relatively poorly displayed Egyptian artefacts and then make for the cafe before getting back on their tour bus. Difficult to measure, but it seems more likely that when people come to ConservationBytes they read a greater proportion of what’s there and take it in.

Much of the contents of museums like the Louvre were stolen and are displayed completely out of context, whereas ConservationBytes is original and carries a compelling single thread through its content.

Marty

6 01 2011
CJAB

Accepted – but it wasn’t my analogy. WordPress generated it automatically and I was too lazy to do much more on it over the holiday ;-). Back soon though with more content (and thanks for the glowing support).

5 01 2011
Cagan Sekercioglu

Dont make it such an interesting read. I’ve got a lot of work to do!

6 01 2011
CJAB

Thanks (I think)

3 01 2011
Clem Weidenbenner

Happy New Year Corey and everyone else.

A nice summary and I think some well deserved kudos in the work. Your average of two new posts a week is fantastic – a mark to keep in view as the new year matures. And not just quantity, but quality as well. Nicely done.

I am a bit curious why you chose the Louvre for comparison… that’s not a comparable that immediately comes to my simple mind.

6 01 2011
CJAB

The Louvre analogy was automatically generated by WordPress. I had nothing to do with it ;-). Plus, Marty (see below) points out that it’s not a good one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,242 other followers

%d bloggers like this: