FeedBurn, Baby, FeedBurn

How many people read this blog?

Who knows. Our hosting service says about 50,000 unique visitors come each day. That’s a lot of people — but when our traffic is analyzed by other companies, the number is considerably less.

The other day, I noticed something strange. The little box in the right-hand margin of this page that lists the number of RSS subscribers, via our FeedBurner feed, had jumped from about 14,000 to 42,000. Surely, I thought, this was an error.

But it wasn’t. According to the FeedBurner blog, the FeedBurner numbers as of last Saturday now include people who subscribe to blogs through Google Reader and Google Personalized Homepage. It may be that some of our subscribers actually subscribe to blog “packages,” and not the Freakonomics blog in particular. Even so, we suddenly have three times more feed traffic than we thought.

So: thanks to FeedBurner, Google, and of course you 28,000 previously uncounted readers. This is the most exciting data revision since the I.R.S.’s discovery that seven million declared dependents were in fact phantom deductions.


the financial ladder

Wow, that's a huge jump. That number is impressive...

crabwalk

Re: the "seven million phantom children" point, do Levitt and Dubner have any response to the point raised in this article:

http://arielrubinstein.tau.ac.il/papers/freak.pdf

Namely, that the number was actually more like three million, that four million "phantom" kids were "recovered" within one year, and that a healthy percentage of those were parents who hadn't bothered to get a SSN for their child until the IRS made it mandatory? It certainly seems to be a different conclusion than the idea that "one in 10 children" in America were tax fictions.

lermit

I'm gay.

.lermit

aroger

To explain, Google Reader request the feed only once for every body. So if you've got 10 people reading the feed from google reader you might see only one. Google Reader act like a proxy if you'd like. So probably google is providing now how many people on beholf of it's requesting the feed.

Anyway nice to be count as one, and not as part 1/x0000th :)

jejorda2

Google's announcement of the new feature from a few days ago:

http://googlereader.blogspot.com/2007/02/one-subscriber-two-subscribers-three.html

omodudu

Feels good to be counted. I subscribed to The Freakonomics blog via google reader a couple of months ago.

omodudu

Also, I observed that the ratio your blogs, comment per post / unique visitors is a bit low. The experts say 1/200 is about right.

Measure

Requiring a registration to leave comments probably deters quite a few readers from actually leaving their thoughts.

For what it's worth, I subscribe to this blog through bloglines, and it tells me that 550 bloglines users subscribe to it.

angelofthenorth

Livejournal also has 260 readers on your feed. Small drop in the ocean, perhaps...

lannamichaels

There are also 260 readers from livejournal: http://syndicated.livejournal.com/freakonomics/profile

Jonah

@Measure:
Did you leave off the leading 1? I'm seeing 1,555 users subscribed in bloglines. Somehow I doubt that the subscriber count actually grew by almost 200% in the last 3 hours.

indi500fan

The rise of computers has aided and abetted the miserable evolution of our complex awful tax code. Computer software has facilitated relatively low cost methods of tax preparation.
If everyone was required by law to manually prepare their own taxes, we would have a new simple tax code in 12 months, guaranteed.

Nolan Matthias

I read every single post via the google reader. It is the only way to go as far as getting all the info you want in one place. I can read this blog plus 50 others including my own. Best of all, pre-sales of my book have increased due to the traffic generated by the reader.

Nolan M

egretman

Freakonomics is a subtle serenade
Well beyond my humble pay grade
Levitt is everything I ever wanted to be
Dubner is everything I could never be
Both are clearly from another planet
Can we honor them in handsome granite?
But if aliens want me for their stew
I'll insist they take both of them too
For if their blog doubles every hour
Who can control such infinite power?

marianovsky

I'm one of those happy readers using Google Reader, keep up the good posting!

I read an article on theregister.co.uk about the economics of Second Life. Although the article is really interesting, some of the numbers seem as if they were made up. I would love the read the "Freakonomics view" of Second Life.
Here's the link: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/20/second_life_analysis/

Zach Everson

So that explains why my feed vaulted from 27 readers to 35!

JustMe

Google reader here too guys. Like the ease of the reader, but I do stop by from time to time.

dansage

I'm one of the 28,000 too.

the financial ladder

Wow, that's a huge jump. That number is impressive...

crabwalk

Re: the "seven million phantom children" point, do Levitt and Dubner have any response to the point raised in this article:

http://arielrubinstein.tau.ac.il/papers/freak.pdf

Namely, that the number was actually more like three million, that four million "phantom" kids were "recovered" within one year, and that a healthy percentage of those were parents who hadn't bothered to get a SSN for their child until the IRS made it mandatory? It certainly seems to be a different conclusion than the idea that "one in 10 children" in America were tax fictions.