For some of my more visually-oriented readers (and yes, this book will have graphs when appropriate), an actual example of what’s at stake might help. I’m not going to embed the table—that brings along wayyyyy too much HTML—but let’s see whether Word’s blog-to-WordPress will help.
A complete table (more or less)
| Metrics |
2007 |
2008 |
Q |
Change |
Q |
| Posts |
26 |
17 |
3 |
-35% |
3 |
| Total length |
6,813 |
6,399 |
3 |
-6% |
2 |
| Post length |
262 |
376 |
2 |
+44% |
1 |
| Comments |
14 |
8 |
4 |
-42% |
3 |
| Comments per post |
0.5 |
0.5 |
4 |
-13% |
3 |
| Figures |
2 |
1 |
5 |
-50% |
4 |
| Figures per post |
0.1 |
0.1 |
5 |
-24% |
4 |
A trimmed table (more or less)
| Metrics |
2007 |
2008 |
Q |
Change |
Q |
| Posts |
26 |
17 |
3 |
-35% |
3 |
| Post length |
262 |
376 |
2 |
+44% |
1 |
| Comments per post |
0.5 |
0.5 |
4 |
-13% |
3 |
| Figures per post |
0.1 |
0.1 |
5 |
-24% |
4 |
In the book, of course, the tables are a little neater–each row is a single line high.
So: is the first substantially more useful than the second? (If you’re wondering: “Q” represents quintiles, explained in the book—and yes, these are real numbers for a real blog.)
Comments either here or on the original post. Thanks!
I like the trimmed table. It presents basic facts.
I am not sure I care about total length and total comments. I am interested in averages per post (I tend to get carried away with figures and images and often wonder if it is a help or hinderance). To me blogs are more about individual posts than the whole enchilada.
Thanks–not only for the response but for a useful expansion.