You are here

Rounding up 2006: blog stats, thoughts and advice

Well. This is the last post of the 2006. There seems to be a tradition to post stat reports, best posts or predictions. I have posted the latter two, so you are honoured to read the stat report and some analysis of the Improve the Web blog.

Overall statistics

Mo/Year Unq All Pages Hits Bnd/wth

Jul 2006 65 99 630 1314 3.78 MB
Aug 2006 472 1830 3898 6922 89.30 MB
Sep 2006 869 2917 8533 15669 198.10 MB
Oct 2006 1604 4859 14733 30203 354.53 MB
Nov 2006 2179 7240 20947 41894 698.68 MB
Dec 2006 2530 8647 24075 44070 903.55 MB
Total 7719 25592 72816 140072 2.20 GB

As you can see, I started at the end of July and was nearly doubling the amount of visitors for the first two months. I largely contribute this to the quality of content and social bookmarking.

Direct traffic: 91.1%
Search traffic: 3.8%
Referral traffic: 4.3%

Yet again the kudos to social bookmarking (the buttons at the bottom of my posts) or maybe ordinary bookmarking (I guess I need a browser friendly script for this, eh?)

Search engine usage share

- Google 585 590 (~87%)
- Yahoo 69 69 (~10%)
- MSN 22 22 (~3%)
- Unknown search engines 12 12
- Dogpile 8 8
- AOL 6 6
- Ask Jeeves 5 5
- DMOZ 1 1
- Alexa 1 1

As you can see, Google does a good job at filtering out the spam (and/or simply takes more factors into account to rank websites). I am surprised I do so bad at MSN, as I have a nice amount of links to my site. Do they have the sandbox effect too?

Keyphrases traffic

[keyword] 12 1.8 %
content= noodp 11 1.7 %
how to create a website 9 1.4 %
natural websites 6 0.9 %
product benefit 5 0.7 %
how to write website copy 5 0.7 %
optimizing websites 5 0.7 %
emotions that colors portray 4 0.6 %
creating a charity 4 0.6 %
principles of internet marketing 4 0.6 %
how to write a simple will 4 0.6 %
adwords ppc website conversions 4 0.6 %
mass directory submission 4 0.6 %
charitable websites 4 0.6 %
blg 3 0.4 %
keyword research 3 0.4 %
how to create a search engine 3 0.4 %
how to creat a website 3 0.4 %
advantages of social bookmarking 3 0.4 %
content= noodp > 3 0.4 %
steven bradley 3 0.4 %
charity web sites 3 0.4 %
keyword research strategies 3 0.4 %

Top keywords

to 158 5.9 %
how 112 4.2 %
website 108 4 %
a 81 3 %
of 53 1.9 %
charity 52 1.9 %
for 41 1.5 %
the 39 1.4 %
websites 38 1.4 %
create 37 1.3 %
content 36 1.3 %
write 36 1.3 %

Nothing unexpected here, though I don't understand why a page about Matt Cutts videos ranks for 'content="NOODP"'.

As you can see, the most stuff people find is about 'how to create/write content' or 'how to create a charity website'. The charity page seems to be quite popular (thanks to Bill, in part).

Of course, getting traffic for 'blg' and '[keyword]' is pretty amusing, as I didn't find my site with these on Google. Hopefully they have found what they were looking for.

Unexpected visitors

Sure, the site content is pretty targeted at developing websites. But it has to show up for some bizzare word combinations:

  • how to write a simple will : no, I am not a laywer, sorry.
  • dmoz suggest url: DMOZ is here and it looks up again.
  • ready to go charity website: so you want to do nothing and have people donate money to you? Yeah, go ahead. At least write your own content for it, will you?
  • novosibirsk blog: you got me. That makes two of us.
  • reasons to be ethical: someone has a doubt?
  • your own charity website: like, 'Donate to Yuri charity website?'. Folks, charity isn't about you, it is about those, who you help.
  • linkdomain www.14thc.com: now that's unexpected. Hi, Randall!
  • toothpick benefits: just #6 for a phrase I didn't work for. Not bad.
  • how many pages is 5 gb: depends on what kind of pages you have, I guess
  • the truth about article submission: "Just what you see on the shelf, Sir/M'am.". Though it makes for a good topic, it is generally the same as with directories: quality beats quantity. It is not 'article submission' but 'quality content distribution'
  • yuri is your friend: Yes, of course! I sure am!
  • what is the first thing that starts to deterioate as you get older?: no idea, really.

What to make out of it? Create more focused content and don't play with ranking for irrelevant phrases like Danika Patrick for a non-Danica Patrick related website.

Normally, if it is obvious that your page brings untargeted traffic, place a note at the bottom of the page with a link to a more relevant page. For instance, if I get more toothpick traffic, I'll spend some time on researching some good 'toothpick benefits' website for the curious visitors.

Referral traffic

Here are the top pages that brought me traffic:

As you can guess, writing good stuff pays off. Maybe I should start writing more articles for other websites, after all. (Though the majority of the traffic (91.1%) did come from direct address - bookmarks, type ins, etc.) Rock on, social bookmarking.

The SEO by the SEA visitors are partly from the [excellent] blogroll, but most are from the recent 2007 predictions and prophecies on the search marketing industry.

To think of it, posting at forums probably doesn't drive as much traffic, but the relationships I built there (with Steve and Bill, for example) are more than worth it.

Visitor behaviour

Time Visits
0s-30s 6702 77.5 %
30s-2mn 330 3.8 %
2mn-5mn 158 1.8 %
5mn-15mn 199 2.3 %
15mn-30mn 159 1.8 %
30mn-1h 407 4.7 %
1h+ 668 7.7 %

Average time on site: 463 seconds.

Actually, it is pretty astonishing to have such a high bailout rate. I hope this can be explained by the visitor viewing patterns (opening a new window, entering a site, subscribing to a feed and leaving, etc). The average amount of time looks pretty solid, though. 8 minutes of reading articles is a notable time investment. Enjoy your reading :)

Subscribers

And, finally, the amount of subscribers.

And I am not entirely sure what it is. Let's look at the stats:

Url Views Bytes Entry Exit

/feed/ 6089 72.91 KB 3449 3416
/feed/atom/ 3658 45.26 KB 1191 1376
/feed/rss/ 333 4.30 KB 7 8

The stats above are from AwStats.

The entry means the page was accessed directly. What does it mean when it says that? Are the feeds delivered through the reader? To Bloglines?

As I had 7.5k unique visitors this year, I guess it'd be okay to assume I have about 4.5k of subscribers. Prove me wrong by telling me exactly what happened :) I am more likely to believe at the 2-3k gang, though.

You may say that I need to switch to Feedburner. But I don't like the intermediary between my feed and the reader. It takes more time to load, too. I'd happily learn my RSS stats, but I don't want to sacrifice a few seconds of my every subscriber just for this. Stats aren't that important - what one does is.

Blog stats

I now have somewhere under 100 posts and around 400 comments. Most of the comments are links, so I think the real comments are about 30-50. And Akismet has blocked just under 2k spam attempts (most of them in the recent week).

Other stats

Check out the other statistical information on other websites and learn how they analyze it:

I'd like to thank all my readers for their attention to my blog, patience to read it all and also those who help this site reach more people. Thanks!

Also, what are your 2006 achievements that you'd like to share? Maybe you need some advice on what to do (website-wise) in 2007?

Add new comment