|
|
Pageviews
|
|
23 May
2009
|
10453
|
|
22 Jun
2010
|
7129
|
|
28 Feb
2012, 31 comments
|
3424
|
|
8 Jun
2010
|
3198
|
|
30 Nov
2009
|
2252
|
|
27 Jun
2012, 17 comments
|
1962
|
|
7 Feb
2009
|
1516
|
|
13 Dec
2012, 20 comments
|
1484
|
|
29 Dec
2011, 29 comments
|
1087
|
|
24 Feb
2013, 22 comments
|
1077
|
**
Conclusions? Most people (not necessarily commenters) are most interested in my opinions on IQ and evolution, not so much in the Christian Apologetics and Sociopolitical analysis. But a simple cut-and-paste visual joke is the easiest way to rack up the page views.
*
"But a simple cut-and-paste visual joke is the easiest way to rack up the page views."
ReplyDeleteOr posting controversial (for some group) views. It was disappointing to see that your most popular post that mentions Christianity or religion in the title turns out to be the weight-training one.
(The discussion of Psychoticism mentions Christianity as well, but only in passing.)
@A - "disappointing to see that your most popular post "
ReplyDeleteYes - Apart from the number 1, which gathers Google queries - most of these posts got their extra numbers of hits above and beyond the normal background level of 150-200) from being linked from more popular and usually *secular* blogs.
That's probably why they are so unrepresentative of the core interests of this blog.
For instance this was the biggest hit of the past month
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/socially-conditioned-ingratitude.html
which was linked from Foseti.
Ahoy, Bruce, O/T but your kind of thing.
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/25/peer-evil-the-rotten-business-model-of-modern-science/
@d - Hmm, yes indeed.
ReplyDeleteDuring the lead-up to my being sacked from MeHy (the official excuse for which was my refusal to introduce peer review) those careerist drones, I mean professional researchers, who wanted me out - used against me the documented fact that (by reviewing papers myself, rather than using referees) I tended to make a decision on papers in an average of about 3-4 days instead of about 3-4 months; 'therefore' the journal 'must' be a vanity press - despite that I had, somehow, apparently forced other scientists to cite it such that the Impact Factor factor doubled, while also increasing the number of pages in the journal by more than fifty percent. Make sense of that if you can...
For me, your posts in IQ etc were a "gateway drug" to your posts on Christianity, so I wouldn't feel to bad that the initial thing hooking people into reading this blog isn't necessarily what you feel is most important. I really like your posts on religion, but would have almost certainly never come across them if it weren't for your IQ posts.
ReplyDelete@pwyll - I'm not feeling bad about this, I just find the lack of correlation between number of comments and page views to be striking - but, as I said, the posts with most page views are almost by definition the posts that attract outsiders - and sometimes these submit inappropriate comments which I do not publish.
ReplyDelete(The weight training/ Christianity posting had 20 published comments as well as a lot of views, but a lot more comments were censored for obscenity, because they were anonymous, or because they were simply people venting against me!)
No offense, Dr. Charlton, but I skip the IQ stuff. Old news, or a shrugged, "yeah, thats probably true", after reading the header.
ReplyDeleteSlightly off topic, but I enjoy most the posts on Tolkien and straight-up medicine, followed closely by the posts where my favorite commenters weigh in (if I were a decade younger I would feel confident with providing a list, but I am too old to have that kind of accurate memory). Like many people, I think, I check in several times a week by googling your name and then clicking on the site name (so as not to miss posts).
ReplyDelete