It has been over two years since I had a look at the statistics. Why do I even bother collecting them? Perhaps they are usefull in a way. More about that later.
I do not even remember when, but the previous plugin that I used for statistics was no longer maintained and a while ago it actually stopped working. I had to look for another simple stats plugin, but the results are quite different from before. Did I misinterpret the previous plugin or do I misinterpret the current one? Do they work much different from eachother? One thing is for sure, the new plugin is hard on me.
The current plugin allows me to pick a period and then gives me a few numbers. I used the period “this year so far” and come to the following numbers:
- Main website, 384 pageviews, that is 3 average daily pageviews over a 120 day period. In this period 233 unique IPs visted either the index page or the website intro. Many people come to the index by following a link to an old website (for example Monas.nl). With the previous plugin I came to almost 40 unique visitors per day. Now just below 2. Quite a difference! Which would be most credible?
- Articles, 2804 pageviews, that is 23 daily average. 1791 Unique IPs. The previous plugin came at 73 unique visitors per day two years ago. When I have a look at the download counter for my ‘downloadable’ articles, I can see that two years ago the counter for the “Traditionalism vs Tradiotionalism” article stood at 307, now I have 337 for the PDF; the Epub went from 31 to 141 (!). “Traditionalistic Asatru” went from 115 to 261 for the PDF and from 45 to 133 for the Epub file. That does not sound too bad;
- Book reviews, 1091 pagesviews in 2016, 9 per day, 535 unique IPs. Those were 85 unique visitors with the other plugin two years ago.
- Film reviews, 415 pagesviews, 3 per day, 70 unique IPs; 38 unique visitors per day two years ago;
- Music reviews, 805, 6 and 276; 86 unique visitors two years ago, 6 now;
- News, 31, 0 and 14. I have not listed the news section previously.
This immediately tells me that close to nobody is going to see this message, since I posted it in the “news” section, which is visited by 14 people in 2016. Thank you for reading this when you are one of those. I am going to share this little text on Facebook and see what happens.
Like two years ago, I am quite surprised that the film reviews section has so few visitors. It is the section with the most updates. Almost every week I review one or two films, while music reviews go a lot slower, books even more and articles especially so. I suppose people have other channels to get ideas for films to watch or the films that I review are boring.
There seems to be more demand for the book reviews. So what are the most popular ones?
- Index, the index of the book reviews section gets 14,64% of the pageviews;
- De Geestelijke Wereld van de Germanen attracted 4,03% (44 hits). A Dutch title on an English website. Below, when I talk about Facebook, you will see how this comes;
- The archive got 3,02% of the visitors, 33 hits;
- The Faulkes translation of the Edda comes next with 2,10% (23 hits) in 2016.
Not really whopping figures. Next are books with 10 to 20 hits in 2016 and two tags.
What about the articles. What are people looking for when they find this website?
Actually, the popular articles are the same as always:
- Rune calendars with 13,37%, 375 hits in 2016;
- Asatru and Hinduism with 299 hits;
- Christian Cabala with 212 hits;
- Angel Magic with 130 hits.
Top search terms list must be taken with a grain of salt, since the top search term “Freemasonry” had 8 hits in 2016 and can never have resulted in any of the articles mentioned above. What is different that most people come with from Google nowadays (or according to the new statistics plugin) 766 in 2016, while Wikipedia brought me 115 hits. Facebook 24, so that is not exactly a visitor attractor even when the counter currently stands at 195 “likes”.
Speaking of Facebook, Facebook has statistics of its own. Let me have a look at these. Facebook, for example, tells me how many people I “reached” with the links to new reviews, etc. that I post. A few numbers to give you an idea. Like I said, there are 195 people who “like” the Facebook page. That does (by and far) not mean that a post reaches 195 people. Perhaps a “reached” person has to click on my message in his or her wall?
I posted the Thorofon review 6 days ago. This post “reached” 36 people. I posted the last film review on the same day, but this one only reached 8 people. On 16 april I “shared” a link to the latest Idehall cd review, 11 people. The latest book review is of the latest Acta Macionica which reached 23 people. Then follow a few posts with 20 to 30 people and the next ‘peak’ is a track that I shared of the new noise project Ausströmen which reached 37 people. That is better than most of my own stuff.
Earlier I mentioned my review of De Geestelijke Wereld van de Germanen, a popular book review. The post linking to this review was “shared” by three people, thus reaching a whopping number of 191 people. It is very clear that Facebook is a social medium and that to reach an audience, that audience has to cooperate without “likes” and “shares” I “reach” usually around 25 people, sometimes a bit more, sometimes less.
As for Facebook’s statistics page. It tells me that in the last week I had one “action” (I suppose this is a “like” or a “share”), six “pageviews” (is that how many times the Facebook page is visited?), 41 “reached persons” (for different posts) and five “involved”s, whatever that may mean.
I am sure that the above was exactly what you have wondered about for years?
Oh, it could be that the website looks different for you. More about that here.