Comments on: Let’s do the numbers: I’ll bite

By: walt

walt — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 21:07:14 +0000

Since it’s old data, something may have been odd that’s since been corrected–94 for 20 days is 4.7 per day, presumably not so odd.

Unless the aggregator itself is running as an application at Emerson, that shouldn’t be it, but who knows?

I wouldn’t worry about it in any case. You’re helping to make a point that I made in my second liblog study (and others have made): Any recounting of blogging numbers is questionable.

By: Elena

Elena — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 20:16:52 +0000

11 per day is a little odd, given the size of the staff here. Maybe we’re sleep-surfing? Or maybe it’s to do with feed requests?

By: walt

walt — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:38:54 +0000

Elena,

I suspect some sort of temporary software malfunction, since the number is 1,026 for three months–and only another 440 or so for the 12 months before that. And 94 in the last 20 days, which is somewhere in the middle. Of course, 1,026 for 90 days is still only a little over 11 per day, which isn’t a huge number.

By: Elena

Elena — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:12:34 +0000

I don’t know what to make of us Emersonians being second on that list. I do read your material, but not obsessively so, and I’m not sure who else on campus read W.a.r.