I count my statistics (when I get around to it) from the access logs on my own server. One reason for this is that I know that these statistics are reliable. I know how they were generated, and can filter for misleading data (like, for example, excessive search engine traffic). Not so with services like Feedburner, which has been shocking bloggers recently with a significant drop in traffic figures after being converted to Google logins. My question: which data is right - the older, high-traffic data numbers, or the new, low-traffic data numbers. Not that Google has any (*cough* *mumble* *adwords*) motive to under-report traffic. And not that Feedburner had any (*cough* *acquired*) motive to inflate the figures. Of course, you can't know - nobody knows but Google. And that's why I read my sever logs. (p.s. I looked it up; Fryer's weblog has 614 subscribers in Google Reader alone, suggesting that the 2000 subscribers originally reported by Feedburner is more accurate than the 265 readers now being reported - OLDaily has two separate feeds totalling 2293 subscribers in Google Reader, which suggests an overall subscription rate of roughly 7000 RSS readers (compared to 4000 email readers)).
Today: 3 Total: 100 [Direct link] [Share]
