This presents another attempt to rate NZ blogs. Again I used the methods described in Ranking methods for NZ blogs. Besides an overall aggregate rating using 11 statistical measures I have also provided aggregate ranks for three criteria:
The new feature is that I have included Bloglines subscription numbers in the RSS subscription ratings (Thanks to homepaddock for requesting this and david w for helping me work out how to get the data).
Relationship to stat counter data
I also compared the March ’09 data with actual March stat counter data for 27 blogs which make this available. I did this because of speculation about how reliable Alexa Rank is for indicating visits.
Statistical analysis shows that Alexa Rank only explains about 30% of the variation in visits and page views. Not surprising because it really is lemons and apples – Alexa rank is a 3 month average and derived from more than just visits.
On the other hand there doesn’t appear to be any relationship of stat counter data to Google Page Rank or Technorati rank. Interestingly, though, is that link figures (Google Web, Google Blog and All the Web) are similar to Alexa Rank in explaining the stat counter data).
Google Reader Subscription numbers are actually a better predictor, explaining 40% of the variation in stat counter visits.
All this underlines to me that including link ranking and RSS subscription ranking together with the usual page rank statistics should give a more objective assessment of blog “popularity” rank.
April blog rank list
At this stage I have included only 149 blogs (taken from those rating in first 100 of Tumeke and Half Done lists, plus a few extra of personal interest). I am also only reporting here the top 100 of these. The change figures (+ or -) relate to the March ranking (NZ blog ranks – March ‘09) redone to include Bloglines (see Revised NZ Blog Rankings March 09.pdf.).
For a full list and full ranking details for each of the 11 statistical measures download NZ Blog Rankings April 09.pdf.
So have fun comparing your rank below with those determined by by Tumeke and Halfdone. Don’t forget each survey uses different methods so results will differ and should be interpreted intelligently. (Perhaps some people might prefer to use rankings for Links or RSS subscription (or page ranks) instead of the total aggregate ranks).
The remaining 49 blogs ranking below 100 are given below in alphabetical order. Anyone with a blog not in these lists but who wants to be included – -please send details:
Oh please, you are ahead of us? Our Alexa ranking is higher than yours. Our NZ ranking is higher than yours. Our page rank is higher than yours. We have more Technorati Links than you do. More readers subscribed than you do and our daily uniques are higher than yours.
As such, any formula that then places us below you if a flawed formula.
Madeleine – the process I have used is transparent and described in detail in linked postings. If you have found a flaw – please let me know.
But read my reasons for the selection of criteria (eg. I don’t use
Technorati “link” or reactions because they are very closely correlated with Technorati Rank and would overemphasise Technorati).
Madeleine – my ranking exercise is not about “your” or “our”. It is an objective exercise based purely on the downloaded data for 4 ranking procedures, 5 link numbers and 2 RSS subscription counts (11 measures in total). I am not in it to inflate my own ranking (or downplay others). (I think Damian had the right attitude towards this sort of competitiveness -
humour – in his post Masturbatory Blogging)
Now, of course one can select any criteria one wants to get the result one wants. I have chosen to aggregate 11 measures to attempt to balance out the quirks inherent in each individual count. As I said in my post – you, or any other interested person, are welcome to select the figures they wish. I have made this easy by providing separate rankings for Page Rank, Links and RSS Subscription Counts. If you download the pdf you can get the rankings I found for each individual measure – and use them. All I ask is that you honestly attribute them according to the actual measures used.
Madeleine, it’s up to you how your feel about the data I have presented – but if you are going to claim it is flawed (or that I have rigged it) – please do this with evidence.
I am open to proper criticism (that can only help) but really can’t do
anything about groundless aspersions.
I wish everyone was able to accept reality in this way.
Your reality, or mine?
(I still think – however transparent and replicable your result – that you need to get some actual traffic figures to get a meaningful ranking. Tim Selwyn goes to some lengths to do that, and that’s why his list is the best. Not just because it puts me 20 places higher… )
Gareth, the reality I was referring to was the data – not anyone’s particular interpretation (there is only one reality, after all). I felt Madeleine was denying the data because it didn’t suite her (or was bullying me into changing that data?).
However, I agree actual traffic figures would be useful as none of the criteria I have found explain more than about 40% of total visits or page views. However, I don’t know of an easy way of getting those stats. Tim relies on what he gets from sites who allow public access (about 28 of the 150 I have looked at), what data people send him and estimates the rest from Alexa rank figures (which only explain 30-40% of the variation in the stats).
Gareth, if you know of, or can suggest any other (convenient for me) way of getting better estimates of visit stats I am all ears (and would be very thankful).
I don’t want to go to the lengths Tim does – but would certainly appreciate it (and do something with the data) if more people made their stat counter data available (at least to me).
Currently I am making available the ranking for all the separate measures I have used, as well as the total overall aggregate rank. This will enable Madeleine, for example, to use my data to show that her site ranks 7th for Alexa NZ rank, 10th for Alexa overall Rank, 15th for overall page ranking, 45th for subscription counts, 50th for overall linking stats – or just 30th for overall aggregate rank. If she just used the Alexa or page rank aggregate figures the result is basically the same as for the Halfdone ranking (which after all uses the same Alexa, Alexa NZ and Technorati data).
However, I would think that if she wants to intelligently access the progress of her blog then at least the RSS subscription count data could be useful.
Personally, while I think a ranking based purely on visit stats would be very useful (probably more useful than Alexa and Technorati data), I would also be interested in monitoring, for example, RSS subscription counts as well. The link stats would be less useful to me, but may be to others.
I wasn’t employing snark… I respect the effort you put in. I’m happy to copy you into the mails I send Tim every month so that you can see the Statcounter figures for Hot Topic. What has struck me, however, is that over a period (the last six months) when my daily visitors have more or less doubled, things like the Technorati rating haven’t moved…
Thanks for the offer, Gareth. I think I will have another go to see what correlation there is between stat counter data and the different ranking methods for April.
I also found that there was no correlation between Technorati ranking and stat counter data. A bit surprising, but I am not clear what time period their ranking data refers to. It may take some time for changes in visitor figures to be represented.
Thanks adamsmith – this gives me one more number to play with. I should actually check out other blogs which may be posting monthly stats but don’t allow public access to the sitemeters.
I could not find where to add our blog. So hope the comments box will serve this purpose.
Can you please add our blog at Right to Life New Zealand http://www.righttolife.org.nz
I have included the site for next months survey, Chris.
You don’t make you stat counter stats for visits. etc., public do you? I’m just trying to put together an analysis of how these compare with commonly used page rating criteria.
Subscribe to Open Parachute
Subscribe by Email
Oh please, you are ahead of us? Our Alexa ranking is higher than yours. Our NZ ranking is higher than yours. Our page rank is higher than yours. We have more Technorati Links than you do. More readers subscribed than you do and our daily uniques are higher than yours.
As such, any formula that then places us below you if a flawed formula.
Madeleine – the process I have used is transparent and described in detail in linked postings. If you have found a flaw – please let me know.
But read my reasons for the selection of criteria (eg. I don’t use
Technorati “link” or reactions because they are very closely correlated with Technorati Rank and would overemphasise Technorati).
Madeleine – my ranking exercise is not about “your” or “our”. It is an objective exercise based purely on the downloaded data for 4 ranking procedures, 5 link numbers and 2 RSS subscription counts (11 measures in total). I am not in it to inflate my own ranking (or downplay others). (I think Damian had the right attitude towards this sort of competitiveness -
humour – in his post Masturbatory Blogging)
Now, of course one can select any criteria one wants to get the result one wants. I have chosen to aggregate 11 measures to attempt to balance out the quirks inherent in each individual count. As I said in my post – you, or any other interested person, are welcome to select the figures they wish. I have made this easy by providing separate rankings for Page Rank, Links and RSS Subscription Counts. If you download the pdf you can get the rankings I found for each individual measure – and use them. All I ask is that you honestly attribute them according to the actual measures used.
Madeleine, it’s up to you how your feel about the data I have presented – but if you are going to claim it is flawed (or that I have rigged it) – please do this with evidence.
I am open to proper criticism (that can only help) but really can’t do
anything about groundless aspersions.
Pingback: Blog rankings « The Inquiring Mind
Oh please, you are ahead of us? M
Yes! Atheism is finally being Christianity in the the One Way of measuring Truth! (Also, I’m pretty sure our Dad could be up their Dad)
(that should be beat up their dad, as I’m sure you guessed)
and it should also say “beating” Christianity in the first sentence. In my defence I have (human) flu atm, brain not work so good.
Wonderful blogs! US should have one, and in NYC too.
Dan Howitt
123rd! Woohoo!
(Not sarcasm.)
Ah, a happy customer. I wish everyone was able to accept reality in this way.
Scepticon, you are soooooo below me. I’m whopping yer ass from the lofty heights of position #121!
Now, I invite you to write a response along the lines of Madeleine’s at the top of this page. “Oh puhleeze!..”
It’s rigged I tell you, this is a travesty!
Honestly, with an average output of one entry a week and a loyal readership made up of (as far as I can tell) my Dad, I’m happy to even be ranked.
As with Scepticon, I’m just grateful to be included, regardless of ranking. Thank you.
Your reality, or mine?
(I still think – however transparent and replicable your result – that you need to get some actual traffic figures to get a meaningful ranking. Tim Selwyn goes to some lengths to do that, and that’s why his list is the best. Not just because it puts me 20 places higher…
)
Gareth, the reality I was referring to was the data – not anyone’s particular interpretation (there is only one reality, after all). I felt Madeleine was denying the data because it didn’t suite her (or was bullying me into changing that data?).
However, I agree actual traffic figures would be useful as none of the criteria I have found explain more than about 40% of total visits or page views. However, I don’t know of an easy way of getting those stats. Tim relies on what he gets from sites who allow public access (about 28 of the 150 I have looked at), what data people send him and estimates the rest from Alexa rank figures (which only explain 30-40% of the variation in the stats).
Gareth, if you know of, or can suggest any other (convenient for me) way of getting better estimates of visit stats I am all ears (and would be very thankful).
I don’t want to go to the lengths Tim does – but would certainly appreciate it (and do something with the data) if more people made their stat counter data available (at least to me).
Currently I am making available the ranking for all the separate measures I have used, as well as the total overall aggregate rank. This will enable Madeleine, for example, to use my data to show that her site ranks 7th for Alexa NZ rank, 10th for Alexa overall Rank, 15th for overall page ranking, 45th for subscription counts, 50th for overall linking stats – or just 30th for overall aggregate rank. If she just used the Alexa or page rank aggregate figures the result is basically the same as for the Halfdone ranking (which after all uses the same Alexa, Alexa NZ and Technorati data).
However, I would think that if she wants to intelligently access the progress of her blog then at least the RSS subscription count data could be useful.
Personally, while I think a ranking based purely on visit stats would be very useful (probably more useful than Alexa and Technorati data), I would also be interested in monitoring, for example, RSS subscription counts as well. The link stats would be less useful to me, but may be to others.
Hi Ken,
I wasn’t employing snark… I respect the effort you put in. I’m happy to copy you into the mails I send Tim every month so that you can see the Statcounter figures for Hot Topic. What has struck me, however, is that over a period (the last six months) when my daily visitors have more or less doubled, things like the Technorati rating haven’t moved…
Thanks for the offer, Gareth. I think I will have another go to see what correlation there is between stat counter data and the different ranking methods for April.
I also found that there was no correlation between Technorati ranking and stat counter data. A bit surprising, but I am not clear what time period their ranking data refers to. It may take some time for changes in visitor figures to be represented.
Ken
To assist I posted my April data
http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/april-blog-statistics/
Gareth
Technorati seems to rank less on traffic as such, it takes account of links and references to your blog elsewhere in the blogosphere
Hope this helps
again re Technorati it does not always pick up references and there is a timelag
Thanks adamsmith – this gives me one more number to play with. I should actually check out other blogs which may be posting monthly stats but don’t allow public access to the sitemeters.
Hi,
I could not find where to add our blog. So hope the comments box will serve this purpose.
Can you please add our blog at Right to Life New Zealand
http://www.righttolife.org.nz
Thanking you,
Chris O’Brien
for RTLNZ
admin@righttolife.org.nz
I have included the site for next months survey, Chris.
You don’t make you stat counter stats for visits. etc., public do you? I’m just trying to put together an analysis of how these compare with commonly used page rating criteria.
Very interesting bloglist,rankings,etc.
Pingback: Ranking NZ blogs with sitemeter data « Open Parachute