Monday, July 1, 2013

That's interesting... blot stats

Yeah, I haven't been blogging much this summer, and my blog stats show it. Actually, they dropped last summer and never recovered much. But they're not looking great now, either.

No problem. I'm sure I repeat myself. And I write this for me, mostly - just a way to get things off my chest. A good rant never hurt anyone, right? :)

But I do glance at my stats each week, both from StatCounter and the internal stats here. And for the past couple of weeks, my post with the most 'hits' - by far - is this one, from a year and a half ago, about "Mitt Romney's Bain Capital problem."

Why? I have absolutely no idea. Has there been something new in the news about that? If so, I haven't seen it. And I did a search myself without finding anything recent, at least at the top of the results. Blogger also lists the "search keywords" which presumably led people to my blog, but there's nothing even remotely relevant there, either.

Weird, isn't it? I'm happy enough for that particular post to get hits, because it's a long post, drawing from a variety of sources, leading up to a point. But as I note there, it's mostly just an introduction to my follow-up post on "Our Bain Capital problem" - and that one hasn't had any hits at all (well, not many, at least).

This stuff isn't important, I know, but it's strange, isn't it? Normally - almost every week - my most popular post is the one I wrote about house sparrows. Yeah, that's one of only six posts I've written which are even loosely connected to birds (this isn't exactly a nature blog), but apparently a lot of people in the world are looking for information about sparrows and find themselves here. (I'll bet they're surprised by that!)

But not last week. That house sparrows post wasn't even in the top ten last week. I guess, for some reason, all those people who normally search for sparrows suddenly lost interest last week, instead becoming curious about a failed presidential candidate's past business dealings.

Or is Blogger just making all this stuff up? :)

One neat thing I discovered today was that a link to my post about "How to deal with sexism" was added to the description (at YouTube) of one of the videos I embedded there. I didn't get a ton of hits from that, but apparently 19 people clicked on that link last week. (I thought it was neat because the link was posted at all, not so much from the traffic I got.)

Week after week, most of the hits I get - at least when it comes to older posts - are about computer games. Mostly, people seem to be looking for information about less commercial games - Dwarf Fortress (always popular), Cataclysm, UnReal World, etc. That's understandable, and it's great, too.

Unfortunately, these are games which are still in development - and continue in development for years and years, in fact - so I'm not sure how much help my older posts will be. Still, that apparently leads to hits on my computer games page, too - at least, that tends to be the most popular of those pages - so it's all good. :)

OK, none of this is important to anyone but me. Actually, it's not even very important to me, but I find it interesting. When it comes to blog stats, I understand some of this,... but some of it makes no sense at all. Well, maybe if I knew why people were suddenly interested in "Mitt Romney's Bain Capital problem," it would make sense, huh?

Any ideas?

No comments: