Very impressive!
Who says this site doesn't have the power to change things?

I see these stats made Robert Slager's blog.

Over a millions does seem hard to believe but then again who cares. Since you aren't try to sell advertising as he is actual numbers don't matter.

What does count is the influence this blog has and I'd say it is significant.

Last edited by urneighbor (2009-09-01 09:59:28)

Yes!  Sweet Brucey is up there!

Bobo the Brucey Dupe, on your latest jeer, if you don't think anyone visits this site, why do you spend every waking minute trying to crush it?

And Bobo the Brucey Dupe, why do you have this jeer, but you don't have a column calling for Sweet Brucey's resignation for lying to you?  Oh, wait, because you like being Bobo the Brucey Dupe.

Eg www.google.com, www.youtube.com

    * Contact Us
    * Blogs
    * Faqs
    * Latest Website
    * Home

warehamobserver.com Estimated Worth $547.5 USD
Title     WarehamObserver.Com - Wareham, MA
Description     Report your own Wareham news. No one else will.
Daily Pageview     249
Daily Ads Revenue     $0.75
Last updated 29 Days ago
Index Data
Traffic Rank      4409876
PageRank      0
Backlinks      1
Dmoz Categories     Currently Not Listed in Dmoz
Traffic Data
warehamobserver.com Traffic History
Time Range     Traffic Rank     Reach Rank     Reach PerMillion     PageViews Rank     PageViews PerMillion     PageViews PerUser
3 Months      4409876      4576904      0.13      4633139      NaN      2.3
warehamobserver.com Rank By Country
Click Here To View More
Country     %User     Rank
Top Subdomains
Click Here To View More
SubDomains     % PageViews

Server Info
Hosting ISP : Net Access Corporation
Server Ip : 66.246.76.5
Server Location :
New York, New York, , United States
Latitude: 40.7619018555
Longitude: -73.9763031006     Server Location on Map
Map data ©2009 Tele Atlas - Terms of Use
Map
Map
Satellite
Hybrid
Terrain
Comments
No comments Be the first person to write a comment on warehamobserver.com

Please Login or Register To comment

Other Website On 66.246.76.5     United States Most Viewed

   1. high-street.org
   2. warehamobserver.com

   
wow .75 a day ?
what a loss.

Slager might as well change the title of his "Jeers" section to "A spot on my blog where I write about things I don't understand and generally make stuff up".  There are currently three jeers up, and all of them fit this title.  In his library jeer, he completely makes up the fact that taxpayers paid $40k of the trustees' legal bills.  He never provides a shred of direct evidence of this, but that doesn't stop him from making the claim.  In the post about Mr. Wheeler, he suddenly remembers something about chicken feathers, and admits that both the police and the judge told him he had no case.  Now this.

Let's set a couple of things straight here.  The images in this thread are generated by a piece of software called Webalizer.  Webalizer is commonly used in hosting environments such as this (or Bondware, where Slager's site is hosted).  It is generally run once per day, and creates reports based on the web logs of the site.  Contrary to what Slager tries to spin, a "page" according to Webalizer is not just the discussion threads.  A page is any file that ends in .php, .html, .htm, or other common "page" extensions.  Really, it's anything you'd look at and say "that's a web page".  This includes administrative pages, loading the list of threads, the main page, the submission page, private messages (listing, reading, and sending), and many, many other things.  This is another example of Slager not knowing anything about what he's talking about, so he makes stuff up.  There is so much factually incorrect in this jeer that (all sarcasm aside) I really hope he just takes it down and prints a retraction.  It's not even close to accurate.  Note, that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

Now, for the specifics.  Direct quotes from Slager, as usual are in boxes. 

On his site each thread (which he presumably considers a "page" since he only has 17 total pages of threads that have been accumulating chronologically dating back to when he started the site last summer)

See the paragraph above.  This is factually incorrect, and a ridiculous assumption for him to make.  This is not a matter of opinion, this is a fact that could have been verified if either (a) he had any idea what he was talking about, or (b) he took 5 mins to do a Google search before spouting off about things he doesn't understand.

We checked the total amount of "views" of each thread that received any comments whatsoever this month. According to his own numbers, those views totaled 80,593.

This is either a lie about the number, a lie about what he counted, a situation where he doesn't know how to do math, or Bill got about 8,000 views in different threads since he posted the jeer.  I went through the list of all threads that had "any comments whatsoever this month", and dumped them all into a spreadsheet.  For reference, I had to go to page 4 on the threadlist, and the oldest one was the thread about July's numbers.  We're talking about 175 threads overall, at the time of my analysiIn the spreadsheet, it totals out to 88,674.  Slager was off by about10%.  His count also doesn't take into account any threads from earlier that were read, but not commented on.  I can provide the spreadsheet if there's a way to upload files to this site.

The actual number is considerably less, however. Many of these threads had comments posted prior to Aug. 1. But we didn't feel like counting them all, since the number likely totaled in the tens of thousands.

And many older threads were read but not commented on.  Since Slager's playing fast and loose with assumptions, I'm going to assume that those two things cancelled each other out.

So, this month according to his own numbers, the total amount of views on every thread posted was around 70,000. That is about 60 percent less than what he is claiming.

The more realistic number is just under 90,000, which is still less than what Webalizer reported.  Again, that's because Webalizer reports every page-type-file as a "page".  90k is just over half of the total reported by Webalizer, and it's perfectly reasonable that the remaining 50% could be made up of private messages, admin pages, viewing of the main page, other private sections of the site, the "submit" page for comments, preview pages, etc, etc, etc.  Slager's assumptions show a lack of basic understanding of how web sites work.

But wait, it gets better. He claims that there were 1,051,054 requests for his site this month. That means 900,000 visitors went to his site and looked at nothing.

But wait, Slager's knowledge of Webalizer gets worse.  A request is any request that a web browser makes to the server, whether it's for a page, an image, a javascript file, or something else.  A quick review of the HTML for the viewing-a-thread page shows that there are 7 images and one Javascript file.  This means that every time someone views a thread, they actually make a total of NINE requests for pages.  Other pages have fewer images - for example, the "inbox" makes a total of 5 requests.  Presumably the admin pages have no images.  If we divide the 1,051,054 requests by the 177,585 pages, we see that it's right about 6 requests per page.  That number falls right in the range that one would expect if one understood how a website works.

Sure, maybe some people checked in to see if there were any updates and left when there were none. But according to Mr. Whitehouse's numbers, that happened an average of 30,000 times each day.

This is completely, utterly, blatantly, 100% false.  If someone checked to see if there was an update and left, then that person would be counted as one "page" and somewhere between 4 and 9 "requests". 

Each new post generates between 75-100 views.  That is pretty consistent throughout his site.

This is sometimes true, and sometimes not.  For the most part, though, it's not.  First of all, the number of posts has no causal relationship to the number of views.  The number of views is mostly driven by how catchy the title is (or how good Ham's animation is).  Going back to my spreadsheet, I checked the ratio of visits:posts for each of the 180+ threads that were included in the overall count.  If Slager's assertion is correct, we would expect the average number to be somewhere between 75:1 and 100:1, with most of the individual results in that same range.  The actual facts?  Shockingly, they're way off from Slager's claims.  For threads with comments in the month of August, the average ratio is just over 28 views per post.  Out of the 175 threads in my analysis, TWELVE (less than 7 percent!) fall into the range that Slager describes.  I'm sitting here dumbfounded, trying to figure out if he's lying, or just doesn't have any idea how to do basic math.  The range goes from a low of just under 7 views per post on one thread to about 187 views per post in another.

That means every regular viewer of his site is checking at least 300 times a day for new posts.

I would analyze this claim, but I can't begin to figure out how he came to this conclusion, unless it's the culmination of everything he doesn't understand.  It's so far off-base, I can't even get started on it. 

We're not sure if his numbers are completely exaggerated or his regular viewers are in desperate need of life. Either way it's pretty funny.

I'm not sure if Slager is lying intentionally or just doesn't have a clue.  Either way it's pretty funny.

Seriously, though.  A post as far off as this one was deserves a published retraction.  This was just ridiculous.

Whoops, I stand corrected - Bill uses Analog, not Webalizer.  Same type of program, definitions of "pages" and "requests" are still the same. Slager's math is still 100% incorrect.  Sorry about this misinformation Bill, can't wait to see Slager's spin.