That’s a pretty big jump in a year Tobias - from 200/day to 900/day. Any major changes?

I wonder if it is just possible to be a lit site that people visit that has no goal other than to talk about books and sometimes book news. In other words, do I have to focus on certain titles or genres or can I just discuss what I’m reviewing and reading on my own? I guess the answer is, do I read enough interesting stuff and write enough interesting comments to make it worth the visit.

I’m still figuring this out, but it’s interesting to see what everyone else has to say, and what has worked for you.

I created a unique URL, I didn’t use typepad, blogger or something like that. That is one of the bigger differences. My writing has appeared in more places over time as well. It goes up every month a little bit…

Someone earlier in this thread seemed to give the impression that they didn’t want a particular blog to concentrate on Canadian Literature - maybe I’m wrong that that’s what I thought they said.  It’s a valid argument that blogs should be capable of spreading their wings as and where they want, but the opposite is also true.  I’d suggest that there is definitely a place for a specific Canadian Literature blog.  Matthew has a fine sf blog (which I read a lot), and Sarah Weinman looks at mainly crime fiction.  And both of these are popular because they are a bit different from the standard generalised litblog.  I concentrate on Australian literature with occasional forays into “foreign” stuff and am quite happy to stay that way.  I don’t know if anyone else is doing what I do, so I may well have found a niche of my own. 

The implication of this is that my audience is greatly reduced, and again that’s not such a bad thing.  Early on I didn’t have a meter on my blog so I had no idea of how many people were reading it. I’ve put one on now and find I have about 100-150 hits a day with a lot of them being searches of one sort or another.  I haven’t spent the time to determine what the non-search numbers are but I’d suspect they’re about a third of the overall number.

This might be too much information, but this article outlines Web stats, particularly what “hits” mean, and so on:
Digital Web Magazine article on Web analytics

Yeah, I’m talking uniques/day

Actually, about niche, I think more focused blogs tend to grow traffic better, you stand out more.

Tobias - I was throwing that article in there. Bad timing on my part if it seemed I was directing it at you.

Also, I agree with what you say about niche, which belongs with the three pillars of blog traffic: focus, short posts and pop/gossip/controversy factor.

But for me, I’ve been happy to trade high traffic (I’m talking about my Chekhov’s Mistress site) for being able to write long posts that I get a lot out of in terms of writing. My posts tend to be between 600 and 1200 words, which I think is fairly long, not the longest.

Wow, you guys are the freakin? NY Times compared to me.  I think only about 10 people read me - if I’m lucky.  I’ve been on Blogger about a year or so but only recently started to focus on writing and book reviews.  I’d appreciate feedback if anyone cares to give it.  I can pay you in highly valued Phantom Keyboard links!  How can you refuse such an amazing offer?

http://phantomkeyboard.blogspot.com

Thanks in advance to anyone who stops by.

Perry, the bit about the Canadian Lit blog started with a discussion on an entry I had on my blog about Canadian Literature that took off like gangbusters. The thing is, I can’t do that kind of blog because I was already over my head! ha! I do think there is a place for narrow focus blogs, but I like to meander a bit too much in my subjects. So I think the best way for me to build an audience is to keep putting myself out there in different places and just let people know where I am. I’m already a leg up on most folks because of the Bookslut connection and I just have to be patient about letting the rest happen.

I would love to have a web site and not be tied to blogger - I’m already confused as hell over something that has happened with my coding over there that I can’t seem to fix - but dealing with a site on my own just seems like a bit too much right now. Lord - I still have presents to wrap and mail! ha!

Understood! I’m paying someone right now to deal with the site’s blog latest upgrade because I got tired of fiddling with it myself.

Here’s my view on the short post/long post thing. I think it’s probably easier to get traffic with short posts. It’s generally a simple thing to write a coherent paragraph on a popular topic.

However, you can also be successful with long posts—the difference here is that you’re now competing with magazines and newspapers—professionals who do this for a living. Unless you can do better than the NYT book review, people are going to turn to the NYT first. There are really two ways to do better: you can cover different topics, or you can cover the same topics better. That’s why I made the comment about a Canadian Lit blog being a potential winner—it’s not something you typically see in the major press outlets, so it would qualify as “different.”

Being better, of course, requires real work. You can’t just knock out an NYT-quality article in 15 minutes. And if you can, you should be getting paid for it.

One thing I think worth noting on this idea of short post/long post thing is that there is a talent to it. It’s not a matter of just making short posts and readers will come. Concision is difficult to pull off, wit rules the day and that’s why people like Ed Champion are popular - he’s just really good. I think too that a combination of short and long posts are probably ideal - the short keeping you in the conversation and the long allowing you to make your points and enjoy the writing.

I certainly prefer to keep my posts short most of the time. I think that’s generally the style that I’ve developed over the past year and a half. It might have something to do with me being a cartoonist, and liking things short and to the point (and hopefully amusing). Also, I’m very impatient, and when I have an idea, I want to say it pretty quickly. I know that my blog is more a place for people to stop and have a laugh and be entertained, rather than read a compelling intellectual manifesto.

Some excellent points made here, and I would add that the result of all the questions is this very own venture of Bud’s called MetaxuCafe.  One of the things I intend to do over the holiday season (I have a retail business so these next few weeks are hectic) is put up a membership listing of metaxu on the sidebar of Spinning as well as some of the other (currently hidden) blogs I’m behind.  I know most of you already through links and surfing, but am so delighted to meet so many more that I hadn’t yet happened upon.  This is where the membership list will be so effective, and I’m wondering if it shouldn’t be a sidebar issue right here so we could go through and visit everyone on a regular basis. (Maybe something like this is already available--I haven’t checked out the membership page yet.) And yes, commenting is very important.  Not for the links you may eventually get, but to support a fellow writer and communicate.  There’s nothing worse than seeing a large number of folks stopping by and reading something you think is particularly brilliant, and then not ever leaving a comment.  It’s like producing a play with no applause or even hissing and booing to show they were affected in some way.

Unless you can do better than the NYT book review, people are going to turn to the NYT first. There are really two ways to do better: you can cover different topics, or you can cover the same topics better.

Another advantage book blogs have over the NYT book review is that they are (usually) more personable and conversational.  I’m often turned off by the NYT book reviews because of the pretentious, “Listen to me, I am God” tone.