Thursday, May 08, 2014

Readership Note

Earlier today, the blog surpassed the 6,000,000 mark for visits. It currently has just under 9.1 million page views. The overwhelming percentage of that total came in 2006 and 2007 (when posts were, at least, daily), but the blog still averages around 7,500 reads per week.

I should observe that the “definitive, magisterial” account of the case lists DIW readership at 100,000—leaving author Cohan off by a factor of 60 on visits and over 90 on page views. Although this item is insignificant when compared to the book’s serious errors, Cohan has never explained why he chose to use an incorrect figure, or why he did not contact me to ascertain the correct figure before publishing.

As always, thank you for visiting the blog.


Anonymous said...

Cohan chose an incorrect figure because he is in denial about the readership of your blog-Just like he is in denial about the facts of the Duke rape hoax.

Anonymous said...

I'd suggest that this is really an apples and oranges comparison. A blog's readership--which to me means the number of unique readers--and its number of visits aren't really the same thing.

A Duke Dad said...

@ 2:17 PM

It is not at clear exactly WHAT this 100,000 number represents.

Not to worry :

I turned on my computer and ... and .... and .....
s o m e t h i n g . . . h a p p e n e d . ! !

skwilli said...

"Missed it by THAT much." -Maxwell Smart.

Anonymous said...

2:17 - so go the hell ahead and suggest it. In the meantime learn to write in the present tense. Yes, I know it's a small point, but damned if psuedo-intellectualism doesn't annoy the hell out of me...

Anonymous said...

Is Charles Rectum a Communist?

A Duke Dad said...

Well, the very last amazon review of Cohan's book was on May 4 by . . . . by .. . . . . .. . . by . . our friend, Charlie Rector.. . .

It's almost 5 days since anybody thought to put a comment on amazon for PoS. [not counting any comments on comments].

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 2.17:

I'm not sure I follow your point. The figures that I quoted come from sitemeter, which registers (1) unique visitors; and (2) page views.

The 100,000 figure Cohan quoted in the book came from me (he obviously would have no other source for the blog readership unless he hacked my sitemeter account). The figure came from Sept. 2006. During the course of the case, I periodically updated the number of blog readers in small posts, culminating in today's post which prompted you to comment. Each of these posts used the same two metrics, from sitemeter.

Cohan, for reasons known only to William D. Cohan, ignored all of these updates, and instead presented the blog readership as the total I revealed as of Sept. 2006. The comparison was an "apples to apples" one, since the two metrics from sitemeter remained constant.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations on the visitation and readership quantities; you certainly deserve an achievement award.
I started reading this blog when my brother expounded on what you were doing. I have learned a great deal about how truth can be overwhelmed by personal emotions (which called to my mind the bell-shaped curve of population vs IQ) and how difficult it is to stay on topic. Thank you for this post-academic education.

Big Al

Anonymous said...

"As always, thank you for visiting the blog."

Thank you for your indefatigable pursuit of truth and justice.

Duke Prof

Anonymous said...

It would be a better blog and world if KC was as concerned about the injustice dumped on all USA citizens by this case, and about the current murder charged levied against Ms. Mangum when Duke killed her alleged victim with malpractice and then supported and corrupted the fired Medical Examiner to commit fraud to coverup the malpractice in order to insure she was charged with murder for their malpractice and received a convinction.

Your overly commercialized concern for that case as demonstrated by your constant blogging of the matter is overshadowed by your disregard of the current murder case which is in the appeals process.

Why complain constantly about the details of that case and then completely ignore the injustice, fraud, and corruption of the Mangum/Duke murder case?

Anonymous said...

Does this make you an accessory to the fraud and corruption and conspiracies of the Duke / Durham justice system if you constantly complain on this blog about it for the duke lacrosse case, but completely ignore even more outrageous injustice by the same system and Duke against Ms. Mangum?

Are you sure you even interpreted the lacrosse case correctly KC if you do not see clearly with the current fraud of the Mangum / Duke murder case that Duke does NOT have a concern for the welfare and health of Ms. Mangum or others, and that they possibly hold and abuse a revenge factor, (even in their medical health delivery), against others, including rape victims, blacks, victims or perpetrators of domestic violence, the mentally ill or substance abusers, and the innocent children or families of their revenge targets who could number in a vast unknown amount given Duke's apparent freedom with medical health revenge, and political / judicial corruption, etc.?

To the point: Duke NEVER gave a damn about Ms. Mangum or anyone or thing else but their own agendas, which were all politically motivated and corrupt.

If you consider that fact, the interpretation of that case becomes a bit more clear and easier to understand for those who are still confused about the case.

A Duke Dad said...

@ 5:02 / 5:37

Well, my good man/woman. With all that passion, why don't YOU start a blog on that issue.

You could call it

Justice fer Precious

Anonymous said...

there is more than one USA citizen in this country ye of hate filled troll like intelligence ...

don't ya know?

that means ye ol' evil duke troll too

... go figure

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 5.02/5.37:

As DukeDad noted, a blogspot blog is free, and you're welcome to start your own.

I should note that--as with newspapers--libel law does apply to blogs, as well.

Anonymous said...

what libel?


Anonymous said...

Why should i start another blog just to have the bigger broader picture of the 'problems' demonstrated in ALL these case just to have to read all these trolls anyway - to see if the evil duke troll gang can take over that blog too?

Answer this: do you personally KC plan to visit NC any time again after knowing what you know about the Mangum/Duke murder case?

A Duke Dad said...

@ 5.02/5.37 - 10:11

1. If you could post under a unique name, then your words would be more readily linked with your previous thoughts.

2. It is entertaining, watching you attempt to pressure KC to blog about a conspiracy theory of YOUR choosing. Please make an effort to be more droll and witty.

3. With the Control Issues you've displayed here, consider this as a friendly suggestion:

Start working as a Square Dance Caller. . . . That way, people will do EXACTLY what you tell them to do.

4. Feel free to use my suggestion for your future blog

. . . . Justice fer Precious

Anonymous said...

your the one with the control issues i assure you - can't even pose a view that is not ya'lls without ya'll demeaning, degrading, insulting, and demanding that those views not cross the path of your conscious ever again - seriously - get real - why don't you go make a free blog if you are so interested in the idea troll

anyway, your NOT a duke dad - your a troll

A Duke Dad said...

@ 5.02/5.37 - 10:11/1:22

hmmmm . . . . In reading your missive, one presumes you have not yet matriculated :

First-year writing requirement.
Writing 101 is the only course required of all Duke undergraduates, and it must be taken within the first year of enrollment.

Go Blue Devils !

Anonymous said...

so ... obviously i am simply writing blog posts which don't require perfection nor missives.

seriously troll, got any more complaints or yeah we are Duke and your not put downs ya'd like to troll me with? seriously

A Duke Dad said...

Cohan offered perhaps his most extreme commentary yet, telling CNN that "there is an incredible amount of evidence that something untoward happened in that bathroom . . . Who did it, when they did it, what they did is absolutely just still not clear."

Does that mean that Mr. Cohan is confessing to . = HIS = . ' untoward . somethings ' . with Ms. Mangum ?