« when the future was orange | Main | mackems, tackems... »

October 29, 2005



Kos a daily readership of 850,000? Sitemeter says it gets 850,000 visits a day, of 2 seconds each. They're quick readers.

I don't know much how these figures work, I was under the impression the time thing actually overstated it, not understated it. If it's correct, then I make that 471 hours of Kos reading in that day, which is (if your paper takes you 20 mins, about 1500 readers of a Daily paper, or if you watch a TV show for 30 mins, about 1000 viewers. Even 5 mins each is only 5000 readers, 1 min 25000.

Have I done something wrong with my calculations?


Ok, it's not as bad as all that. Sitemeter calculates duration from click to click, so those who don't click once after they've arrived count as zero seconds.

This brings the average down, obviously. In fact it would be hard to work it out.

Still, Kos is regularly updated, so I suspect it's readership is only a fraction, maybe a 5th, or a 10th, of those numbers?


I'll try some heroic calculations.

The average number of pages is 1.1. It seems likely to me that those who click more than once, the vast majority do so only 1 more. So I'm going to say 90% just viw one page (no clicks) and 10% two pages (1 click). This makes an average of 1.1 pages.

The 10% who do two clicks make sitemeter record their time spent, which totals at 471 hours a day. These people I'll say spend the same amount of time as the no click people (very heroic assumption), thus total time spent on Kos is ten times that, or 4710 hours, which would be equivalent (see first post) to about 250,000 readers of 1 min each. Or less than 100,000 a day.

I'm rambling.


"When people talk about increasing the impact of blogging, they don’t refer to people who happily blog away about cross stitching or baking cakes or their messy bedrooms. They usually mean political blogging."

Which is a shame. The whole argument gets a bit skewed that way. The amazing political potential of blogging is that it offers us a genuine, unique opportunity to view and understand what other people's lives are like.

Great post.

Oscar Wildebeest

Agree with the "great post" bit, but I'd offer another purpose to blogging, which I would never have realised before I started it. By forcing me to put my thoughts into words, blogging has also forced me to back up my assertions with evidence. Being forced to gather evidence, I have come across information and opinion (through following links and suchlike) which I would never otherwise have accessed. Indeed, it has turned my political views both to the right and to the left as I come across new arguments, new points of view, new proposals (more to the left than to the right, I have to admit). It has also given me tons of background information so that my views are actually based on having properly researched subjects, rather than relying on my gut instinct. You might say, in short, that blogging has been enlightening.

Oscar Wildebeest

Oh, yes, and I have a bloody brilliant job, which I love. I do shout at the TV, I admit, but only when Blair's on.


Are you talking about Brit blogging when you talk about it being done mostly by men? Because that simply isn't true in the US. Most of the US poliblogs I read are by women.

And I don't see an answer here to the question, why aren't there more political bloggers with huge readership here? By your analogy to drinking, which is done much more here by both sexes, there would be a lot more bloggers too, or maybe they're all drinking instead of blogging?

And btw, there are new numbers at Kos posted today. Something like 23 million visits and 26 million page views, up from 6 million a year ago. That's almost a million page views a day, and is apparently a conservative (no pun intended) number.


KathyF: most of the US poliblogs that I read are by men, but then I'm quite aware that my surfing habits probably have a hefty gender bias to them.

The comments to this entry are closed.

friends blogs


Blog powered by Typepad

my former home