Stats on the blog

Something made me look at the WordPress statistics page on this blog.  It seems that in March the blog received 15,485 hits.  In April, however, I was more boring and only got 13,906.

I have no idea whether those stats are real, or good, or bad.  But the trend seems to be steadily upwards.  It seems slightly unlikely to me that 15,000 people interested in the ancient world came by during March, but if so, it testifies to the level of interest, if this very personal blog can attract those sorts of numbers. 

The classicist and patristicist can feel pretty isolated.  But the web makes a real difference.  We can all find out about each other, and share what we know.  We are, indeed, fortunate to live when we do.

10 thoughts on “Stats on the blog

  1. Indeed. Yesterday and today, I traveled to Germany and Texas and Egypt to study manuscripts, and was only slightly late to dinner. Well I /virtually/ traveled there. And it was a good study day, too.

    Really looking forward to the Ad Marinum book. Did you happen to examine J.P.P. Martin’s French materials as you were preparing the text?

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

  2. I wish the proof copy of the Ad Marinum would arrive. It has been an unconscionable time doing so.

    I’m not familiar with J. P. P. Martin. Tell me more!

  3. Roger,

    I read all of your updates and many I find interesting, a few fascinating.
    Your article about the spaces left between words in ancient texts, which were lost by later copyists/translators was one of the most interesting things I’ve read in a long time, and explains to an extent why so many Latin texts seem so bereft of punctuation.
    A request for future posts: go in more depth into the nuts an bolts of the grammar, and vocabulary issues you encounter. Following a man of Classical letters as he figures his way through a puzzle of grammar and vocabulary one learns some of the best tips and trick possible.

  4. Jean Pierre Paul Martin was the author of a French multi-volume Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism. In the course of this large work, Martin addressed the issue of the ending of Mark in very great detail. Part of it can be downloaded from .

    J.P.P. Martin was one of the few people who have been able to directly access the manuscripts in Paris to check the veracity of various claims that were made about them by researchers such as Sholz, who spot-checked MSS rather carelessly. He must have been remarkable erudite; in the course of his French text he has citations in English, Greek, Latin, Armenian, Syriac, and Arabic. Martin also made Plates of several important pages of manuscripts, some of which are the same pictures that have somehow become Plates in Metzger’s “Text of the New Testament.”

    It’s a pity I am not so good at reading French; I am sure I would enjoy Martin’s book much more if I were. Anyway, if you find the volume that is 640 pages long, the part about Eusebius and Ad Marinum should be on pages 76-126.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

  5. Hello Roger,

    You shouldn’t underestimate how interesting your work really is. The sheer volume of your output is staggering, not to mention the breadth of material you cover.

    Beyond all this, you’re like the Robin Hood of the Classics/Patristics world, plundering precious gems from the endowed Uni’s and painstakingly sharing them with the masses.

    As always, thank you for the work you do.

    On a more technical side, 15,000 unique visitors is definitely a solid audience for a personal blog; especially about such a nerdy topic.

    To put things in perspective, you could use a tool such as to compare the stats on some other sites you frequent.

    On an unrelated though absolutely amazing note, it appears Yale University has opened up large sections of their Archives to the public on an open license:

    I thought you might find that of interest.

    Be well,

  6. @Gregory: I’m afraid that grammar and vocabulary issues don’t really interest me all that greatly. I confess that I have been skipping those sections of Aulus Gellius!

    @Joshua: Thank you for your kind words. It is very good news to see more and more institutions realising that it is their duty to contribute content, and doing so. It can only increase. Sadly UK institutions have yet to see it as other than an opportunity for profit.

    @James: Do you have the title of the book? My own French is pretty decent, and Google French->English is also very good.

  7. I am going to show my ignorance here, but do those statistics give any information on readers who use a feed reader and don’t actually visit the blog?

    In my case, I read your blog through google reader, and only rarely actually end up on your page. Nevertheless, I’m a regular reader. If your statistics don’t include people like me, you could have even *more* readers.

  8. I’m ignorant on this also. I’m using the WordPress “stats” plugin, but the pages do not say.

    I was able to find this link on the WordPress-hosted stats, which says:

    The following are not counted:

    • Visits from registered users of the blog when they are logged in.
    • Visits to uploaded documents and files
    • Visits from browsers that do not execute javascript or load images.
    • GoogleBot and other search engine spiders.

    But it looks as if rss reads are.

    I suspect it is the same for me.

  9. “Introduction à la critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament.” There is more than one volume, but for some reason today is only showing me one. I hope that’s the one I’m thinking of.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

  10. Regarding Feed Stats, consider using a tool such as FeedBurner which would track subscriptions to the feed, views of the feed, and other such nifty info.

Leave a Reply