Home » Intelligent Design » March Another Record Month for Uncommon Descent

March Another Record Month for Uncommon Descent

Usage

Thanks everyone for helping make another new record high for Uncommon Descent traffic in the month of March.

The graph is a little misleading as March had 10% greater number of days than February. Daily average number of visits (which eliminates the differences in number of days per month) rose from 6430 to 6896, up 7%.

April is shaping up to be far faster growth and indeed the last week of March was more active than the first weeks. I believe we can credit this to the addition of the voting icons at the bottom of each article, particularly Reddit (the last one on the right). So if you see an article you especially enjoy please vote it up by clicking on the Reddit icon. HT to our behind-the-scenes technical wizard Micah Sparacio for the voting icons. Way to go Micah!

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

10 Responses to March Another Record Month for Uncommon Descent

  1. Simple question does that count multiple hits from one ip address? Or are those genuinely new people?

  2. 2
    sagebrush gardener
  3. This fact is obviously a direct result of global warming.

    In fact, the observed double exponential-like increase in hits is something that needs to be stopped before the all available energy is converted to hits — leaving less energy for satisfaction of post-normal science claims.

    Because February-into-March was one of the coldest on record (a natural, indubitable, ineluctable, consequence of global warming) folks are inside at their computers and, as random design would have it, fingers just happened to type uncommondescent — another result of global agitation of finger muscles responding to exponential distributions of warming brain waves to uncommon sense.

    The conclusion is that descent into the uncommon shows survival of the hittest will triumph. And a new variant of entropy reversal is born.

    When entropy had finally reached its maximum, and darkness covered the opposing faces of deep doom and despair.

  4. To Sagebrush:

    It was just a matter of time! ;)

  5. Acquiesce – the pages/files/hits are raw requests for resources on the server. ‘Pages’ are basically text based (htm, php, cfm, etc); ‘files’ are other resources, usually graphics (jpeg, gif); and I believe ‘hits’ are roughly a sum of the two. This is an estimation as different stats packages do things a little differently.

    The ‘visits’ stat usually indicates unique IP addresses (visitors) within a certain time window, probably several minutes in span. I’m guessing ‘sites’ is purely unique IPs. If this is correct then ‘sites’ is an estimate of unique visitors based on IP address, and ‘visits’ will count multiple visits to the site from the same IP.

    RE: Evolution going out of business –

    If there is a clearance sale, I need to get my hands on a set of those “monkey to man” statues, and maybe a framed print of Haeckel’s embryos.

  6. Apollo

    Visits excludes search bots and the like and the time span is 30 minutes. If any IP address hits the site within 30 minutes of the last hit then it doesn’t count as a new visit. It’s Webalyzer if you want more detail.

  7. Thanks Dave

    I checked out:
    http://sonic.net/support/faq/web/webalizer.shtml

    I wasn’t quite correct on ‘hits’ versus ‘files.’

    ‘hits’ represents any incoming request for any resource (html, jpeg, etc), and ‘files’ represents what is sent out in response to the request. So hits/files would basically be incoming/outgoing. ‘Pages’ is only the html files, and not any graphics that they reference, so it is a subset of hits.

    I have to assume then that the disparity between ‘hits’ and ‘files’ can be accounted for by the browser cache, since presumably a file would not have to be sent out for every referenced resource in an html page, even though it was initially requested.

    So I guess the simple answer to Acquiesce’s question is that the 7% is a good estimate of the increase in visits to the site, according to the daily average visits. It does not directly represent new visitors, although it undoubtedly includes them; it can also include more frequent visits from previous visitors.

  8. That’s great.

    The internet has totally transformed the battlefield. Information is so easy to obtain. Before you’d have to make an effort to find books, but now it’s just a click away. I don’t think it’s a coincedence that ID and the internet came into being at the same time.

  9. I do have one criticism however.

    I think that any major site critical of orthodox darwinism should have a section devoted to people, many of them young and interested, who know nothing about the issue. Lets face it most people do not even understand the basics of evolution, how then can they understand criticism of it?

    I realise there are many widely held views within ID, but there are also many anomalies (abrupt appearance, stasis, disparty preceeding diversity, irreducibility, specified complexity, cost of selection etc,.) we all agree are real and pose insurmountable problems for darwinian orthodoxy.

    These anomalies, I believe, should be listed out (1.2.3.4…) in short to the point chapters all on a single page for impact, illustrated where possible, perhaps no bigger than this comment and most importantly written with the layperson in mind (much like uncommon descent holds that…).

    Small nuggets of information are much easier to digest than pages and pages of long drawn out arguments using terminology and wording people in general have never heard. I am sure many of you think this is a waste of time, that this information can be found elsewhere, but elsewhere is not convenient.

  10. Thanks to Micah as well.

    By the way, how many authors and contributors are their at UD, now? It’s been great having a larger pool to offer a diversity of discussions.

Leave a Reply