A considerable surprise this morning, when checking the last week’s statistics for Cites & Insights
Typically, C&I averages 300-400 sessions per day, except during the first few days after a new issue, when it’s likely to run 500-800 sessions per day. (Average since March 11, 2009, when the domain was moved to a new server, is 376 sessions and 1,098 pageviews per day–but the pageviews are even spikier than the sessions, typically hitting a couple thousand per day right after an issue comes out.)
When the current issue, my brain dump of open access stuff, came out, the initial surge was a little higher than usual, up around 800 sessions (and over 3,000 pageviews). That wasn’t too surprising; among other things, Open Access News and DigitalKoans both noted the single-essay issue.
Yesterday, there were 1,915 sessions. That’s more than twice as many as I’ve ever seen, except for the time ALA Direct linked to an essay.
It’s true that Library Link of the Day linked to the issue–but I only see 31 referrals from LLotD. (On the other hand, it’s possible–even likely–that hundreds of people clicked on the LLotD link in Google Reader, Bloglines or some other aggregator, so maybe this does account for a lot of it.)
I see more than 700 downloads of the issue so far, which is strong but not spectacular for the first four days–and nearly 1,600 pageviews for the HTML version, which is fairly remarkable for four days. (There are some 3,700 pageviews for the PDF version, but I never know what to make of those, so I leave them out of my statistical recording–which may be a mistake.)
Early days, to be sure, but possible conclusions:
- I should do more single-essay issues. (That one’s tough. The most successful issues have been single-essay issues, but some of them have done poorly–and I generally don’t like to do them.)
- I should stop doing more sections–maybe people want to see my final comments on something. (That one’s just strange.)
- Library Link of the Day has an enormous but indirect influence. (This may be the most likely.)
- No conclusions at all…
I do note that, to date, no open access blog other than OAN and DigitalKoans has seen fit to mention the issue at all–which is in keeping with the history of C&I and the OA movement.
Oh, and as to possible sponsorships for C&I in 2010, which could influence the course of the ejournal: Still batting zero, not that I’ve been pounding the virtual pavement.