While I knew I was gaining on Grist, this was a surprise to me when I checked it today, so I thought I would share. The graph below shows many of the blogs and websites on climate. The Discover Magazine metric also includes traffic for blogs.discovermagazine.com where angry people like the “Bad Astronomer” blogged about climate.
All data/screencaps is from from my Alexa.com account. For traffic, lower numbers are better, for example, Google Traffic rank is #1.
Here is the data in tables:
The bounce rate is telling. For those of you who don’t know what that means see the definition here
People ask me how I do this. Some assume I must be funded by some massive “big oil” campaign or some “dark money”, but to be honest, it is just me and a few contributors that put up stories a few times a day, plus some Google adwords revenue, of which wordpress.com takes about half, since they host the site, provide the bandwidth, and manage the advertising. I have no control over it.
As always, to my readers, contributors, and moderators, a sincere thank you.
Cant find Hotwhopper on the list, shame that………….
Yeah,I’ll call it – ‘whats up with the disbelievers !’.
I looked at “Time on Site” – now that’s just sad (for the other guys). You’d think they’d be asking themselves what they’re doing wrong (or you’re doing right). But considering some of the other guys, you’d be wrong.
Congrats and THANKS, Anthony & contributors/mods. 😀
WUWT delivers. We know that.
What surprised me, though, is that the public gets it.
I wasn’t so ready for that!
I wonder how much traffic WUWT drives to other sites due to WUWT posts providing the link to the other sites content? Example, the link to the NY Times article in the following post will probably drive some traffic to the NY Times: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/14/nyt-pushes-the-rising-tide-of-climate-nonsense-this-time-in-the-dominican-republic/
Fits in with Google’s politics, which is why I stay as far away from them as I can.
It is interesting that WUWT runs away with the “Time on Site” stat, with GWPF and Bishop Hill behind but still way ahead of the Warmist sites. It tells us that not only are the skeptical sites more popular, but they are read much more attentively.
/Mr Lynn
=====================================================================
You left out a few things. Quality. Honesty. Integrity. Openness. By “openness” I mean that the “snip” is used sparingly and, as far as I can tell from this end, never to censor content. Sometimes to keep comments to a post on track. Sometimes to keep things within the site policy’s sometimes fuzzy line. Sometimes because the “taste” of a comment appears so bad that the “ModSquad” can’t stomach it. But never for on-track content in order to silence an opposing view.
Sometimes a commenter is given a “time out”. Sometimes they’ve been “banned”. But only when they’ve been habitual offenders of the above.
Whether or not you and your “team” get high numbers, Thanks for what you do.
leftturnandre –
your comments re google panda are interesting. anything further you could say about this?
CONGRATS to Anthony, guest authors, mods, & all who visit/contribute to WUWT.
jdseanjd says:
January 14, 2014 at 11:28 am
Congratulations Anthony & mods, well deserved. 🙂
Also the commenters on here. I’ve learned so much.
True. I enjoy reading many posts but also the comments and the conversations. I think this truly makes WUWT great! Congratulations!
Congratulations Anthony! Thank you and you helpers for keeping the truth afloat.
“it is just me and a few contributors that put up stories a few times a day”
It is because you post the mystery ingredient – TRUTH.
A rare commodity in this sphere of science.
Steamboat Jon says:
January 14, 2014 at 1:41 pm
“I wonder how much traffic WUWT drives to other sites due to WUWT posts providing the link to the other sites content? Example, the link to the NY Times article in the following post will probably drive some traffic to the NY Times: ”
Not in the long run. You learn quickly to read the news indirectly – go to the blogs that comment on the MSM articles first. Better writers. Sharper minds. Uncensored comments. “What did the MSM do stupid today.”
Congratulations, Anthony, and long may your good work continue !
Steamboat Jon says:
January 14, 2014 at 1:41 pm
I wonder how much traffic WUWT drives to other sites due to WUWT posts providing the link to the other sites content?
I suspect that SkS gets a discernable bumb in hits whenever it is mentioned here. Must be galling.
🙂
{ Tim Clark says:
November 26, 2008 at 1:02 pm
AnonyMoose (08:57:34) : \
It would be OK with me to have ads under all the right-column stuff. Particularly if the ads are automagically selected based upon the content. It will be entertaining to see how often GW paranoia ads appear versus rational weather ads[…].
It would not only be entertaining, but I would find it pleasingly ironic that this site would be supported in part by AGW money! }
Well, actually, Anthony, I liked it better when there weren’t ads and only 15-20 comments to wade through.
/sarc
Congrats!
Gunga Din says:
January 14, 2014 at 2:10 pm
“But never for on-track content in order to silence an opposing view.”
————–
For me this is the simplest way to tell if someone is telling the truth. If you are telling the truth you have nothing to hide, unlike sites like RealClimate, HuffPo and SKS, which censor, block, delete and modify user posts.
Unfortunately none of the Carbon Crisis Creationists are interested in an open debate. Gavin Schmidt (in the previously posted video clip) is a perfect example. Open debate is like sunlight to a vampire for them.
Keep up the great work, Anthony! It’s good to know there are a least a few honest men left.
Gkell1 says:
January 14, 2014 at 1:25 pm
“Yeah,I’ll call it – ‘whats up with the disbelievers !’.”
In which you can ponder what mysterious things happen on WUWT. I can tell you; it is called a debate. A concept that is foreign to the warmist believer; so I’ll help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate
Is there any way to determine the number of people who access SkepticalScience because of links from WUWT articles? It would be interesting to see how much of their traffic can be blamed on you.
I know it is the only time I go there.
Con grats
Eugene WR Gallun
Congratulations on the rewards for intelligence, integrity and investigation!!
It is also nice to see the Bishop and GWPF doing so well in the rankings. The Bounce rate shows people are really reading it all.
Congratulations and thanks, A!
Congratulations!
I notice that the skeptic sites tend to have folks linger longer.
I predict a new “peer reviewed” paper in some psychobabble journal: “Why are climate skeptics slow readers?”
🙂
Blame it on the sustained level of high quality articles and excellent commentary. Although you may want to send Chris Turney $23.02 for his efforts too. Congrats…
The bad astronomer just reads other peoples’ claptrap and regurgitates it without checking the source material. This at least is the case for two articles I read, one on climate change and one on, err, astronomy.
Mr Lynn says:
January 14, 2014 at 2:06 pm
Fits in with Google’s politics, which is why I stay as far away from them as I can.
It is interesting that WUWT runs away with the “Time on Site” stat, with GWPF and Bishop Hill behind but still way ahead of the Warmist sites. It tells us that not only are the skeptical sites more popular, but they are read much more attentively.
/Mr Lynn
==================================================================
About the only to reduce WUWT’s numbers, aside from nefarious means, would be if those sites were as open and honest as this one.