This is from a post that Colleen made in the “Is Blogging Dead” thread:

My question is what is normal activity for a blog. How many visitors should you have at first - what do you do to spread the word about your blog, that kinda thing. And maybe what makes some blogs more relevant than others.

Anyone have thoughts?

If you’re starting from scratch—that is, you have no other blogs, and you don’t have any other presence online or off, then you’re not going to get many visitors. You may be in the low double digits for weeks on end, and your numbers will go up noticeably on days when you’re checking the blog more often yourself (perhaps updating your design).

Then, someone “important” will link to you, and just like that, your numbers sail through the ceiling. It could happen on Day 3, or it could happen on Day 300. Or never.

It’s natural to check your traffic, to try to find out where your visitors are coming from, and it’s rewarding when someone actually replies to your posts, but in the end, you need to be happy blogging just for yourself. If you’re not rewarded simply by getting your thoughts down in semi-permanent form, you probably shouldn’t be blogging.

Yeah, we all should be happy with blogging on its own—and I think most bloggers are—but I think everybody obsessively checks their stats to see what’s up. You’re absolutely right about the number of people visiting though.
I think my numbers are typical for the vast majority of blogs. My largest day was something like 89 people. Most days I teeter between 20 and 40 people a day. I also have 8 subscribers on Bloglines. My blog has been around for a while (if two years is a while) and I had one long period of fallowness (6 to 9 months). I’m on the bloglist of a few of the bigger blogs (edrants.com, maudnewton.com, mumpsimus.blogspot.com). 
I’ve yet to get that big link from another page that sends my numbers skyrocketing. That’s OK, I’m enjoying having any audience.
I don’t know, do others agree, are my numbers typical?

I’ve been contributing regularly to Bookslut for over a year now and that’s what prompted me to go ahead with a blog. When I get a link from the Bookslut blog (or Moorish Girl or Gwenda) my numbers shoot up over 100. Most days I have about 30-50 readers, but I have been online only since the end of October. I realize I have a boost with the Bookslut connection and I also review quite a bit, so I make a point of letting authors know if I’ve mentioned their book in my blog, which is usually before I write a formal review for Bookslut. What i’m wondering is if maybe a lit blog (by its very nature) is only going to get 100 - 200 daily visitors tops. What pushes the exceptions over those numbers?

And I know that you should do this only for yourself, but I’m a writer and part of this whole deal is getting my name out there. So I have to be thinking about the numbers, although the content is purely my subjective baby. (I’ve been writing about Canadian and Alaskan literature lately, not the latest thing from Nicole Richie! ha!

What bothers me most of the time is getting people to communicate. If I have 20-40 readers a day (theoretically, who knows how many times I click through and how many are those from repeat readers at different computers) how do I get more of them to comment, or email or respond in some way? Part of this, I realize, is just whether I’m any good. Maybe people are reading my stuff and saying “what an idiot” and surfing away. But assuming they’re not—quite an assumption—what makes people want to actually respond to me?

I think that’s a common problem even on more popular blogs, but from what I’ve seen is that it depends on how the post is written too. On my site (Chekhov’s Mistress), I don’t get too many comments and many of those are from the same people I’ve developed a dialogue with (in part from commenting on their site). I would say I get from 0-3 comments typically on a post. But I know that my posts tend to be long and they tend to be complete - not open ended where I’m asking a question or what have you. Often times, when people ask a question others will comment.

Also, there’s a technological issue. Blog technology is somewhat unfriendly to comments.

Finally (well, not really finally) it’s better, in my view to cultivate people that comment on your site (like a community within a community, if that doesn’t sound too corny) than to have a ton of comments, because then they lose their value. I know the tech sites I go to sometimes get 50 to over a 100 comments and that’s totally unmanageable.

Those are just random thoughts, if I think of some more I’ll post tomorrow.

I do get regular comments sometimes from people I basically “know” and have a relationship of sorts with. What’s funny though is the other day I wrote about Canadian literature. I’m reading a book by Michael Winter and have a review going up in Bookslut this month by Thomas Wharton and I was struck by how brave they seemed to be as writers and wondered why I have only ever read the basically boring Canadian writers in college (in a Canadian Hist. class). I got linked by Bookslut and that was cool but the next day I was linked by Bookninja and that got a little crazy. I got comments from guys who know a lot about Canadian lit - and I mean a lot! It was fun to write back and forth but also overwhelming. I’m not sure how many of those readers I will hold as the next day I wrote about an Alaska book and now I’m doing a twelve days of Christmas in books thing, so not so much about Canada anymore. And who would have thought that an entry on that subject would generate that much notice?

I mean - Canadian literature for heaven’s sake!

I’m wondering if maybe you have to decide what kind of site you want to be. A news oriented site will generate more readers bacause they can drop in and link out to other places fast. (like the Bookslut blog) But a site where you are writing what you think of books and writers - well how well do sites like that do? Ed Rants, Beatrice, what kind of numbers do those guys get and how long did it take for them to get establiished?

I don’t think 100 readers is the upper limit for a litblog. I really don’t think there is a limit—it just depends on your content, and who links to you. It also depends on what you define as a litblog. John Scalzi, who’s a sci-fi writer, but generally writes about writing in general and so arguably could be called a litblogger, gets 10,000 to 12,000 visits a day.

I think a real key to getting big numbers is focus. Word Munger, which is all over the map, gets about 400 visits a day. Cognitive Daily, which is comparatively much more focused (and of course, not a litblog), gets 3,000. That’s fine with me—I don’t want Word Munger to be focused; it’s the place where I write about whatever I’m thinking about.

But if you’re really interested in increasing your number of visits, then you need to narrow your focus. There are dozens of “litblogs” out there, so to stand out from the crowd, you’d need to pick some way to differentiate. A Canadian literature blog would be a great concept, or a blog primarily devoted to a single author or movement in literature. I also think that the fact that MetaxuCafe exists is going to increase interest and exposure for litblogs in general. I predict that many MetaxuCafe members will see a doubling or tripling of their traffic over the next few months.

I agree there is no upward limit to the numbers a lit blog can pull in. I bet somebody who does an interesting analyses of Stephen King’s books would rake in the readers.

As for commenting, I do have a few people who comment semiregularly (and this is partly because I’ve commented on their blogs) and I usually know when I’ve written something really interesting because I’ll get random comments from people I don’t know. 

As for asking questions, unless you already have a good crowd, I don’t think that helps. It does indicate that you’re looking for comments, but I’m not sure most people will take it up. And you look kind of silly if post after post ends with What do you think? but your comments consistently read 0.

Colleen, definitely don’t become a “Canadian lit only” site—I love your blog and the fact that your reading is so wide. I’m always looking up books after you mention them. And you are very good about updating regularly, which is where most blogs fail to hold readers right off the bat. I think it just takes time to build. One way I found new blogs to read when I first started mine--and to a lesser extent still do--was from going through the blogrolls at the sites I liked. It takes time for a blog to start popping up on those, for one thing. And I think it’s also true that the more you are in conversation with other blogs—posting comments, linking to people, etc, generally, the more attention for your own. I started my blog to help control my email, but gradually people outside the immediate circle I was communicating with started reading and then I did consciously shift the focus away from the personal (though I’m probably still more personal than most) to writing and reading and television and odd, shiny things that catch my eye.

Based on my extremely limited ability to analyze stats and all the various feed subs*, I would say conservatively that Shaken & Stirred probably has around 300 daily readers, with spikes here and there. Honestly, I’d feel a little weird if it got much bigger; it would definitely add pressure. I still feel like I “know,” or at least know of, many of the people who read my site and definitely most of the commenters. And I’ve met so many amazing people who are now friends through the site. I also think my readership is pretty faithful, since it seems to have stayed consistent through several URL changes.

Compared to blogs like TEV and Maud, who I believe tend to average 3-4,000 readers a day, that’s pretty small.

*I’m actually not a compulsive stats checker; I usually skim my referrer logs because it’s another way I find sites I like and also what weird search terms are turning the site up for people.

Gwenda - no worries about me becoming a Canadian Lit site - I think I wrote literally everything I know about the subject the other day with that one entry! ha! I was happy to see the comments from folks I don’t know show up, but pretty intimidated as well. These guys were having a conversation on a whole other level than me. I would not even know where to begin to maintain their interest.

I like sites that write about several different things. I read your site, the Bookslut blog, Moorish Girl, etc. everyday just to see what else is going on. I like Laila’s site because it has more of an international nature to it, whereas Michael & Jessa are more about the US literary world, and you tend to angle more towards Sci Fi/Fantasy (which is where I found out about the great Ed Sci Fi Project!) So, I like reading about multiple books, writers, etc - and writing about them as well. I just don’t think I know enough about one thing to stay that narrow and also I read so much and as a reviewer it has to be varied, well, I couldn’t focus on only subject. It’s just not possible.

I guess if anything I try to make my blog about books that I think are overlooked. That’s what I’m doing for this 12 Days of Christmas project - looking on my shelves at books on various subjects that people might not know about and spreading the word. As a reader, I’m always happy when I find a great book I’ve never heard of, but I’m a little disappointed too. Harry Potter is great, but he’s not the only book out there for young adults - why in the world everyone (and I mean mostly the big reviewers) feels compelled to review those books to death is beyond me. They are going to sell, and they are going to written in the same style as the previous titles in the series and you can’t divulge any of the plot surprises in your review. So why not use the space to tell me about something else?

I guess that’s what I’m doing, using the space to tell the world about something else. And I guess I just have to be proactive about telling people where I am and inviting them over to take a look.

I’m averaging between 120-140 unique visitors a day after 11 months of blogging. The growth has been slow and steady since the beginning, no jumps. My best advice is to participate in conversations on blogs similar to your own. Leave thought-provoking or humorous comments and people will click through to read your blog. And when the blog owners begin to see you as a friendly supporter, they’ll link to you.

Be sure to use your full name or your blog’s name at every opportunity. You want people to remember you and be able to find you if they don’t have you bookmarked.

Hope this helps somebody.

This thread is causing me to think about my blog in a new way. I started blogging as a contributor to Collected Miscellany as well as at Publishers Marketplace. That experience is like being a Hells Angel on the back of someone else’s bike. Now I have my own bike but don’t know how to drive it, so I sit in the driveway and tap the throttle, scowl at a few neighborhood dogs, always remembering to duck when the paper boy wheels by. I’ve made some attempts to drive my blog here and there, wear my colors, talk loudly at the library, be a literary outlaw. These forays have only heightened my awareness that, in unskilled hands, a Fat Boy is six hundred pounds of dead weight.
My blog is not about anything other than my attempt to impose a Sixth Century sensibility on current events. I don’t know who reads it, other than Bud, David I, and people from Miss Snark and 007 who wander over the way strays arrive at a funeral tut tutting about the deceased ‘s lifestyle. I write about books I’ve read from time to time and went off for weeks about Elizabeth Crane’s All This Heavenly Glory and later about The Diviners, but, bear in mind, there is a powerful Nancy Sinatra overhang that leaves me culturally awash in vestigial images from the Sonny and Cher Show. Thus cautioned, you’re all most welcome to visit.

There’s no recipe for how to increase traffic or get more comments, but a combination of a few techniques can help.  Controversy is always good—say something that’s a bit reckless, and your comments will probably increase.  (It may take a couple tries.) I don’t recommend doing this too often, or you’ll get a reputation for being a knee-jerk contrarian, but it’s fun to spur people on, and the discussions can become illuminating.  It’s good not to become predictable, to keep people wondering what sort of thing you’ll post next.  Posting frequently helps, too, although I personally most appreciate the blogs that are less frequent but more thoughtful—Waggish is a fine example of this, one of the highest-quality blogs out there, but new posts are rare compared to a place like Maud Newton’s blog.  They serve very different purposes, though, and we need both sorts.

It often takes time.  I toiled in utter obscurity for months, and I’m glad I did, because I got to figure out how to do all this by trial and error, and a lot of my early posts were pure crud.  Blogs that get noticed and judged early on often end up disappearing pretty quickly.

I seem to get somewhere around 300 visits/day, which is apparently pretty high for a litblog, though I know some of the more newsy sites that post lots of little things every day get ten times that traffic.  I’m amazed anybody reads my site, but I started it a few years ago when there were far fewer blogs out there—actually, whatever success I’ve had has been based entirely on lucky timing, because there just wasn’t anybody out there doing quite what I do (mixing discussions of science fiction with other literatures in a deliberate attempt to break down boundaries) when I started.  That’s not true anymore.  It took some time for the idea of blogging primarily about books and writers to catch on; a couple years ago, I could read all of the litblogs in a pretty short amount of time.  I think it’s more fun now, with so much to choose from, but it does make it harder for new blogs to gain attention.  And as much as we say we do this just for ourselves, the audience be damned, etc. (which is entirely true, because the audiences are still pretty small), there’s a real thrill to seeing a sudden spike in traffic, especially when it’s because a site you read a lot links to you.

Matt

Matt—You get so much traffic because you’re brilliant. I’ve been reading your blog for a long time and I can’t remember any posts that were “pure crud.” In fact, at one point I was trying to do a pale imitation of your blog, until I realized I just can’t do what you do.

And I think that’s part of my own problem. I don’t have a focus, I don’t do any one thing. My blog has changed a lot over time and continues to. On the one hand, this is good. I want to keep writing away and finding out what I like to do. On the other, I would like to feel more confident in the subject matter I take up.

It makes me wonder sometimes if blogging needs a critique. Maybe there should be a blog that reviews other blogs, not for site design and that crap, but about their focus and subject matter and writing style. I’ve seen attempts at it, but not much that was any good. The potential problem with that is reviewers start forming rules about what a blog should be. And that doesn’t work, because, really, the fun of blogging is that it can be anything.

I think I’m just rambling here, but I do wonder what I do right and wrong at my blog.

Interesting. I’m starting to regularly push over the 900/day point with jumps depending on linkage above 1000 (http://www.TobiasBuckell.com), so I don’t the hundreds is a top-out point. But the ramping up has taken years. I started blogging in 1998 at Geocities doing straight HTML posts. About 3 years ago I got my own URL and started with blogger, then typepad, and finally an invisible server installed blog. Last year my traffic was about 200 or so a day.

-Tobias S. Buckell