When we do our work in the actual world, it’s striking how much feedback we receive. Every sense can find some evidence of our actions and the reactions to them: we hear the sound of our voice, see the reactions of those we’re speaking to, sense the acoustics of the space around us, feel the tension or tone of the group we’re with, and experience the smells and sensations of our environment.
The virtual world, on the other hand, seems more like an anechoic chamber for the majority of us not in the celebreality world. We say things — through blogs, or e-mails, or other posts — and off they go. Maybe they’re read. Maybe not. Maybe they provoke. Maybe not. As a result, bloggers like myself are grateful for whatever feedback we can find — in web visitor statistics, references from other blogs (through Technorati, and the like), comments to our posts, and the odd comment or two when we meet a reader in real life.
It was the search for feedback, as well as curiosity about a new toolset, that led me to sign on with Google Analytics, a free web traffic analysis system that’s full of charts and numbers. After about three months on the system, here’s what I know about the visitors to my blog:
- From January through March of this year, 17,157 of you visited 33,169 times;
- On average, you read 1.46 pages during your visit. But 79.6 percent of you visited only one page;
- Your visits lasted, on average, 1 minute and 15 seconds (long enough to get the gist of the post you came to read, I assume);
- You connected from 124 countries and territories, but the vast majority of you browsed from the United States (with visits in decreasing frequency from Canada, the UK, Australia, Ireland, India, Germany, the Phillippines, New Zealand, The Netherlands, and then everywhere else);
- 46 percent of you came by way of a direct link (from ArtsJournal, from my weekly e-mail summary, or from an e-mail link somebody sent you);
- 32 percent of you arrived here from a search engine;
- 22 percent of you came from a referring site (another blog, perhaps, or a referral site like stumbleupon.com);
- you posted 92 comments, although many posted more than one.
So, what do I know about you? Almost nothing of import. I can see your footprints. I can read your comments. I can read your e-mails when you send them. I can find your posts on the web when you refer to my posts. And now I can view a hundred lovely graphs that represent your behavior over time.
I’m not complaining, mind you, as I’m perfectly happy to speak into an empty box (it helps me think better to write things down, and it keeps me honest to post them in public). I’m just struck by the peculiarity of posting thoughts in an on-line world.
The thing I have found about blogging is that my writing skills, and the speed with which I write, has increased markedly. I am in the midst of writing a book review at the moment, and being able to write quickly is definitely a good thing! Anyway, we’re listening, and I suspect that certain posts are circulated in other forms around the net. Keep writing!
I love this post because it gives us a small glimpse of you, Andrew! There is the idea that bloggers only want to be heard, satisfied with the statistics alone. That you’re interested in the people behind the numbers is unique, and I’m always attracted to those who are willing to reveal something about themselves.
On the contrary – I think you could learn a lot from these statistics:
-You have good retention: most people visited you twice (17,000 unique visitors resulting in 33,000 visits). That means they had a valuable experience the first time.
-You have less than a minute to get a visitor’s attention, so that will inform your writing style.
-Considering that most of your readers are in the US, we would likely derive great value from you writing about innovative practices from other countries because they would truly be new to us. And those visiting your site from other countries might feel especially engaged when you talk about their countries’ practices.
-Direct links are important to getting your readership – nearly half of us came from there. Word of mouth and all that we know about viral campaigns are tools your readership responds to.
-You have a small base of really engaged readers (the commenters).
Putting any one of these statistics to work along side your goals/mission for the blog might be really helpful to you. For example, if you want to increase readership, you might want to engage the commenters in helping you spread the word through forwarding posts to their friends.
The data itself isn’t useful until you put it to work towards a goal.
Just wanted to say once more, Andrew, that your blog is one of the most informative and entertaining about the arts profession I come across. A UK resident but Dutch Indonesian by origin (just to upset the neatness of statistical categories) I am finally reaching the stage where I can attend to it on a regular basis and so retain enjoyment in my job as a manager of several galleries. The material always stimulates further thought and action: have just registered for Google analytics. Good idea! Interesting material about Florida too, since he is all the rage here with regard to the retention of creative professionals as a means towards sustainable communities. Keep on doing what you are doing!
Andrew ~
As always, I find you looking around the corner of accepted practice and down the street. Those web stats are very valuable but also certainly sterile.
Who am I? Oh, thats a long story. Basically, I’m someone who values the arts and is intrigued by the business impact… both positive and negative. I’m currently freelancing but seriously looking for a “home” to return to 501(c)3 arts management.
Shouting down a hole. That’s good. I’ve grappled with the same thought when commenting or writing my own blog. I recently dialed into LinkedIn.com. Another time-sucker, or potential network opportunity? QED.
What rings truest: writing things down is good; writing them publicly keeps us honest. I like that.