As you know, I only check my stats every month or so. This time it was more like three months. I learned that very few people are reading this blog anymore. I can estimate the number who show up in a week, and I can likely identify almost all of you. All of the readers can identify some of the usual commenters. I am aware of a similar-sized group who have commented in the past, or comment to me privately for reasons of their own, and I know still check in weekly or more. Then there is another third who I can only guess at - sometimes people say things that suggest they are still reading, sometimes I know they used to read and know their cast of mind and so guess how much they read now.
A sensible person would modify content to increase readership. I have a good sense what draws a link from Maggie's and others and on a bet could even draw referrals from larger sites if that was my aim. If you make extreme statements on one side of an issue, you will get picked up by sites on that side. Conservative blogger renounces Trump! NeverTrumper embraces Trump! Prolife writer really, really despises New York and Virginia! Liberals once again prove they are the devil's spawn! Part of me says "Well, readership should be your aim," because what is the point of having ideas if people don't hear them? But there is no crisis of blogging here. I started because I had things I felt I had not fully passed on to my two oldest sons and wanted to get it into print. An audience of two, though I didn't tell them. My second son no longer reads often, if at all. There was a secondary audience of six people in my Bible study of 40 years, and maybe a percentage of their children. Maybe one of them is still on board. The rest of you are gravy. I think you new ones - some of you dating back a decade - have strongly influenced what I write. But we area all writing for an audience of One, whether we know it or not, and that is still fun.
Just so you know, because I know some of you can relate. I have a long post that is still unwieldy coming. Please fight through it when it comes. I can't promise it will be well-written, but the thoughts are good.
19 comments:
I don't know how long I've been following you, at least since 2010 I'd guess. I use an RSS news aggregator where I can read your blog posts. I don't know if those get counted in your views.
A lot of your posts seem like extended versions of comments you may have made in the comments section of other blogs. I always wonder where those comments were posted so that I could read the original thread that inspired them.
I hope you have many years of blogging left in you.
Thank you. I just like writing these things down. It's better if someone is listening, but I don't think it influences whether I continue or not. I might do it even if no one were reading, just in case someone might some day, and I wanted it to be as clear as possible.
Well, no. If I knew that no one was reading I would likely search for another place to put a message in a bottle. But it wouldn't have to be more than that.
I often compose responses to posts I find on various blogs and delete them prior to hitting the submit button. They primarily serve as a catalyst for me to organize my thoughts on the particular topic presented, to challenge myself to reason why I might dispute this or that blog post conclusion, or why my response to another may be strongly positive.
I find it difficult to simply sit and think and reason my way.... I do so very much better seeing my thoughts take shape and sequence in print -- and most often, it more readily becomes apparent to me where my logic fails.
Just as an fyi & for whatever it might be worth, I highly value what I read here. Like your recent post on "triggered." Which brought me to think about active v. passive in today's emotive social environments. How, for example, someone stating that they were "triggered" by a MAGA hat removes from them any sense of personal choice, of responsibility for what might follow, and transfers those to the socially-acceptable target du jour. "Not my fault. I was triggered!"
And I wrote all that out here in the comment box, and more, and then deleted it when I was satisfied that I had captured the thought.
So, anyway, if sui-blogicide may be or have been under consideration, please don't. I, for one, would greatly miss you. :-)
"But we area all writing for an audience of One, whether we know it or not, and that is still fun"
A friend of mine is fond of the following passage from Milan Kundera:
"We all need someone to look at us. we can be divided into four categories according to the kind of look we wish to live under. the first category longs for the look of an infinite number of anonymous eyes, in other words, for the look of the public. the second category is made up of people who have a vital need to be looked at by many known eyes. they are the tireless hosts of cocktail parties and dinners. they are happier than the people in the first category, who, when they lose their public, have the feeling that the lights have gone out in the room of their lives. this happens to nearly all of them sooner or later. people in the second category, on the other hand, can always come up with the eyes they need. then there is the third category, the category of people who need to be constantly before the eyes of the person they love. their situation is as dangerous as the situation of people in the first category. one day the eyes of their beloved will close, and the room will go dark. and finally there is the fourth category, the rarest, the category of people who live in the imaginary eyes of those who are not present. they are the dreamers.”
My audience is much smaller--the bulk of my traffic seems to be pulses that I suspect are spiders. I wrote/write partly for family, and partly in hope that some of the ideas are useful and may sometime be seen by someone who can benefit.
There's a tradeoff when the venue is small and the material doesn't circulate far. I can publish online, and hit my small circle, but that makes publishing more conventionally harder (one can always self-publish, of course).
Posting almost always takes longer than I think it will, partly because as I write I'm thinking about the topic, and sometimes changing my conclusions about it. Fortunately or unfortunately, there are plenty of other demands on my time.
FWIW, I don't understand my stats very well at all. The second-largest referring site this past month was the jewishworldreview.com site--which isn't reflected in a google search. I suppose I could use google analytics--if I have some free time this month I might give it a whirl just to see what it does--but I don't have plans to change merely to drive traffic.
I've only commented once so far, but I really like your writing. I am an atheist who finds your Christianity very interesting. I am surprised to hear that your readership is small. Please continue- you have a lot to offer, and open-minded, fair, thoughtful bloggers are few and far between.
I read semi-regularly (often enough that I seldom miss anything new) and I comment rarely. It'd be more often, but I'm actively reducing all internet use in my life. (Not eliminating, but trying to make sure it stays within reasonable bounds.)
There are several other blogs that I read on a semi-regular basis that I only know of because they are linked on your sidebar.
Also, I'm considering starting a blog for much the same reasons you did. There are things that I think about but don't tell my kids for one reason or another, but that I'm pretty sure I'd like them to have access to those thoughts if ever they need them.
PS - Of all the personalities I've ever encountered on the internet, you're likely my favorite; and the one I would most go out of my way to meet if the opportunity arose.
I'm curious about your thoughts on the Democrats working tirelessly in Concord to shred our 2nd amendment and give the state back to the Teacher's union.
You're on my daily list of sites to read, though I don't comment all that much, unless I can do so humorously.
I think I gave the opposite impression from my intent. I seemed to be suggesting I might ratchet down if the numbers went down further. Not that I said that, but Upon Further Review, I detect that tone in my own writing. Perhaps I thought that more than I knew. Yet my intent was to reassure those who still come by and presumably find value that I'm going to keep writing, and why. Fish gotta swim, bird gotta fly, I've gotta write what I think till I die.
Thank you for your kind words, though. Maybe i was asking for that more than I knew.
@AT - Well, that's another fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly situation. I've worked with liberals my whole life. It's what they do. I'm not much good at convincing my neighbors, I've found. At least, not that I've noticed. I may be only a AA batter myself, but I quickly grow impatient with people who keep bringing that high-school fastball, asking for a game.
AVI,
I don't remember exactly how long we've been bumping into each other on the web. It's gotta be going on 20 years now. You're on my "must read" list, and have been for many years. Stick with it, friend. I'd miss you.
I was worried at the beginning of the post... glad you're going to keep writing. I have a lot in common with Murph, especially about that triggered post. I've deleted 3 comments on it so far.
As a member of your gravy train, I appreciate your thinking, and writing. Carry on!
You're on my must-read list, too.
I find I don't care how many people read what I write, here or elsewhere. I care about two kinds of readers, and would like to see their numbers increase: (1) neighbors who might take local social or political action because of some suggestion I make ("please show up at this public hearing, or beach clean-up party"), and (2) people (friends or strangers) who will respond in a way that makes me believe my communication met a receptive mind, and generated a response I wouldn't have thought of on my own. If someone told me another 1,000 people read me but didn't fall into one or the other of those categories, I can't say I'd much care. Three people who read and respond are a treasure.
I've been a regular reader since you started. I enjoy and appreciate your observations about life, and am impressed by your ability to maintain your writing all these years. Your blog provides a rare opportunity to continue engagement (although mostly silent) with a family member/family I have always been very fond of. I don't agree with much of anything you say related to politics, but don't hold it against you ;)
My memory isn't all that clear, but I do remember you agreeing with me on a comment I made elsewhere, perhaps 10-15 years ago? (Classical Values, I think) What better way to gain readers than by agreeing with them?
@ Doug - you do well to read opinions you don't agree with. Most people can only do that a short while.
@ Donna - I am probably a better commenter than I am writer, better at noting the strengths and weaknesses of others' arguments than crafting my own. I did comment at classical values years ago. I liked the site, and couldn't remember why I had stopped going. I just went back and checked and was immediately reminded: marijuana legalisation-obsessed. I don't mind people being in favor, because it's a plus-minus situation. But I recalled trying to get into discussions about downsides and getting nowhere. There were no downsides.
AVI, pretty much why I quit reading there too. It's not that I'm against legalization so much, but the "marijuana cures everything so it should be legalized" turned me off. I could see how it might be effective on pain and seizures. Diabetes? No, especially Type 1. That was several years ago and I haven't been back. I do follow Eric on Facebook though.
I used to have about 30+ must-read sites, but discovered I couldn't spare that much time. Now there are only about 5 blogs, with yours being the first I look for.
BTW, one reason the wisc.edu link is so busy for you is that several people use it. (It was my early implementation of cloud bookmarks.)
Post a Comment