Monday, January 21, 2008

No one reads Uncommon Descent, Part Deux

No one reads Uncommon Descent.

Even Paul Nelson, apparently, as he stays entertained and informed by reading my blog. *waves to Paulie*

Friday, Paul picked up on my reference to 'LIFE: What a concept!' to pretend Craig Venter supports ID blah blah blah, the usual ID spittle.

Happily, Paulie has good blog-manners and gave me a hat-tip for that Friday post. Its now Monday evening. According to Google Analytics, in the past month Ive gotten 189 hits from UD. 29.63% of those visitors havent visited before, 'new visitors' (which means 70.27% of those hits were from AtBCers, lol!!).

That means over the holiday weekend, I got 56 hits from Uncommon Descent readers. In that same amount of time, Ive gotten +2,500 total hits from other links or direct views.

*squint* No one reads Uncommon Descent.

20 comments:

Gary said...

Good News Indeed - Thnaks for doing the research and keeping us informed.

Too bad your buddy Paulie wiped out my UD post that mentioned your blog. Jesus Christ - if they didn't censor people, you may have gotten, maybe 58 hits from UD!

Bwa Ha Ha - It must suck to be them. Nobody is more "awsomedumber"* than a UD regular. (ahem - not including puppets).

* Kristine Harley just coined this word and it's perfect for describing IDers.

J-Dog

Mister DNA said...

I'd love to get a peek at UD's access logs. I'll bet half of their traffic comes from AtBC alone.

ERV said...

From my experience with UD, Id put AtBCers at 70%.

Between all of our sock puppets, and just checking in on funny threads and funny quotes.

30% from SciBlogs linking to UD.

<0.1% from real, interested IDers.

Check out their Technorati.

Mister DNA said...

Thanks for that Technorati link. Just reading the headlines is a laugh. I especially liked "DaveScot: aren’t the ID folks ashamed of him yet?"

That's a great rainy day bookmark.

Ooooh, and I'm on there with my big ol' authority of 3! Woo hoo! Respect my au.... never mind.

Blake Stacey said...

I'd love to get a peek at UD's access logs. I'll bet half of their traffic comes from AtBC alone.

Yeah. I'd also like to peek at Conservapædia's access logs — until ScienceBlogs noticed them, they weren't even big enough to merit a Wikipedia article.

Corey Smith said...

I did read UD.
For about a week. I'm pretty sure I came to it through your blog, and I thought (naively) that there might be something interesting there. That maybe some of the people reading it were honestly confused about the issues and might listen to another voice of reason. (I was so cute back then).
I don't read it anymore.
But I will continue to read the science on your blog.

Mister DNA said...

Yeah. I'd also like to peek at Conservap├Ždia's access logs — until ScienceBlogs noticed them, they weren't even big enough to merit a Wikipedia article.

Conservapedia got the double whammy of getting exposure from the science bloggers and the leftie bloggers. Jon Swift's write-up is a classic.

On a much lesser scale, blogger "For the Kids" made her blog an invitation only affair for a short period. I'm guessing she opened it back up when she realized that 90% of her traffic came from rubberneckers like us.

Flavin said...

I'd say it's more likely that people read UD, but don't care to click the links provided in the articles.

The UD readers will take their facts second hand and filtered through an ideologue thankyouverymuch; they want nothing from the actual source. Their fearless leaders dare to tread in the blogs of evilutionists so the readers don't have to.

alloy said...

For some reason UD doesn't accept my posts anymore, no reason, they just vanish into ether...not that I care.

I notice most science blogs have trolls, trolls who have to work really hard to get banned, at UD all that's required is common sense.

ComputerGuy said...

I agree with flavin. I think that they are just not curious, that's why they still believe in ID/Creationism. I was amazed about the things that Ftk didn't know about the DI during one of her sessions at the ATBC.

The Factician said...

..."our sockpuppets"...

Our? Which one's yours? E-mail me...

-F.

Barlikeadog said...

Your right. I don't know anyone that reads UD. I can't stand the stupidity. I guess it would be smart to keep tabs on the IDiots though.
Abbie I love your blog...I wish I was as smart when I was a student at OU. You make all us old farts proud. You're in my top 3 too. Yours & PZs & Pandas Thumb.

Anonymous said...

I wish I were in college again, and had computer access to UD. Imagine the fun of getting totally baked and then reading UD posts!

Of course, it would have cut back on my time getting totally baked and watching the Gong Show.....

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD said...

Yet more evidence that ID has nothing to do with religion: New line of christian clothing from Intelligent Design LLC

Gary said...

Bayesian - Thanks dude - I used your link - with proper attribution of course - at ATBC

J-Dog

tgibbs said...

I imagine that even ID/Creationists start to find UD a bit boring after a while, due to the aggressive suppression of any real dissent. It gets pretty tiresome watching people patting each other on the back all the time, even if you happen to agree with them.

Jay Fuller said...

I just wrote an update on your blog, ERV, so expect my audience of...5...to hit your site as well!

woot

Pineyman said...

I must admit that I do read it, just to see what crap I'm going to need to de-program from various acquaitances. Trying to a comment published there...that's another story.....

ERV said...

factician--

You wouldnt believe me if I told you.

Its better this way.

;)

dr. snail said...

Galapogos Finch at UD plagerizes Craigslist!

Today's UD post -
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/thanks-for-your-support-evolution-of-mms/#more-3007

Craigslist Post Aug 30, 2007 -
http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/tpa/409930561.html