My reply to Byron is that "pathetic" traffic is in the eye of the beholder, and it's all relative. Over 1000 unique visitors a day is nice, but still pitiful compared to the big players in blogville. Still, I am happy we're getting such steady traffic and that it is building rapidly.
I was thrilled at the boost we received from the Harold Camping controversy, but it only lasted three days, and we are now back to our regular 1,000 a day or so (see chart below).
The blue bar represents unique visits, and the traffic surge started on Saturday, May 21 (Rapture/Judgment Day). Yesterday, we were back to just over 1,000.
The thing is, even I myself am not taking advantage of this opportunity. I don't post as much as I'd like to, or all the original posts I've been working on, because I simply don't have time. My shift at work has changed, and I have to get up and be there much earlier than before. By the time I get home at night, I'm just too exhausted to make the contributions here that I would like to, and instead find myself falling asleep at the keyboard.
I shall try to do better...
Don't worry about posting to please 'surges' of new visitors. Look at my blog with about 20 visitors a day, versus my old blog that still gets the same 200-300 per day as when I was writing there.
ReplyDeleteFrom that it can be guessed that amidst the random googlers etc, only 10% or less of a blog's visitors are 'hardcore' readers. They follow the blog like it's a TV series. The others prefer to peruse box sets from years ago.
The point is, quality trumps quantity; no blog is pathetic simply because few people read it. Even a mere half dozen good readers are worth much more than 36000 people googling 'tsunami'.
Well, sure, Adam, that's part of my point, and I agree. But it is nice to have people reading your posts, too.
ReplyDeleteI don't disparage traffic, but I don't worship it either.