Statisticizing has for some time been very open about the number of visitors it receives. We at Locally Grown thus far have chosen to keep our statistics hidden away from public viewing and scorn. Today however, we’re revealing our embarrassing secrets. So… everything you wanted to know and then some:

Visits and Pageviews in January 2007
Our hits and visits in January

Looking at the month of January, our total number of hits — page views — was 13,585.’s was 34,557 39,570. Our total number of visits was 5,254 —’s 6,593 16,589. The disparate ratios may be because of technical differences — the majority of’s stories link to a separate page, we simply keep ours entirely on the home page. However, it may not — we receive considerably more comments than — to make and view those comments, people would have to make more page hits; so it may mean that people tend to simply skim through our content. Tricky.

Browser usage in January 2007
Browser usage in January 2007

One remarkably similar number is that of browser usage. shares are 47% Internet Explorer, 37% Firefox, and 12% Macintosh Safari (and a few others making up the remaining percent). Locally Grown is 49% Internet Explorer, 34% Firefox, and 15% Safari. I’ve been asked not to preach here, and I’ll bite my tongue to an extent, but Internet Explorer users: cut it out! has nagged users to switch to Firefox, and for good cause. Firefox is a fundamentally better browser — it’s safer, snappier, and most importantly supports websites with more modern scripting than Internet Explorer. Not convinced? Well, it happens. At least upgrade to the latest — more than half of you IE users out there are still using the old Internet Explorer 6 series.1

Visits: October '06 to January '07
Visits: October ’06 to January ’07

The last thing I’ll leave you with is our growth. In October — the first full month for which we have numbers — we had 143 average daily visitors. Today, we have 169. (In the same time, went from 204 per day to 212.) The growth isn’t terrible steady or dramatic, but it’s there. So keep on reading.

Correction: Adam from NCO has bursted our bubble. So, all original numbers have been crossed out and replaced with the information provided to us.

1Full disclosure: Ironically, I don’t use Firefox.

22 thoughts on “Statisticizing”

  1. I was wondering when you’d go public with that data (or start collecting it in the first place).

    I fear that anyone interested enough in traffic statistics is already running Firefox though 🙁

    I also find the inferred competitive nature with surprising 😉

    Sean, what are you using as a browser?

  2. Nick,

    We are more complementary to than competitors but we’re still both in the citizen media blogosphere.

    Why complementary?

    We do a podcast, opinion pieces, fluff, straw polls, and fake news – they don’t. And we’re a group blog with just 3 authors.

    They do community event announcements, email discussions, web forum, full aggregation of local news/blogs, and a web site directory – we don’t. And they’re a group blog with an unlimited number of authors.

    I like it that we mutually link to each other’s blog posts and participate in each other’s discussions.

  3. Nick: I use Camino. The reason for the comparison was that has a similar purpose, and their numbers were already public, so it seemed reasonable to present both.

    Adam: I didn’t have access to the Analytics numbers, so Mint was the best I could do. I’ll post a correction though. Edit: Correction posted.

  4. It didn’t occur to me that the Mint numbers would be significantly different.

    A man with one watch knows what time it is, a man with two watches is never sure.

    Lies, Damn Lies, and Web Statistics


    Also, I feel compelled to mention that during the week ending June 11, 2000, got zero visits during the entire week.

  5. Visits are still wrong – 16,589 is the correct number from the image, not 6,593.

    Patience, Adam! They’re crossed out now. The only thing I couldn’t correct is the growth comparison. Want to share October numbers?

  6. Patience, Adam! They’re crossed out now.

    Sorry, I saw the ‘edit: correction posted’ and thought you had missed some.

    The only thing I couldn’t correct is the growth comparison. Want to share October numbers?

    Sure, what chart are you using there?

  7. Although statistics can be of value, I am more interested in purely qualitative assessments – actually my own. I really like this site. Of course, the “Wiggley” factor has something to do with that. Keep the faux news, the locally grown audio feed, and the like coming. It is a refreshing alternative to info in a box. In the 90’s I edited The Free Radical – today I just tune into LG. It works for me and I suspect for others in our tidy corner of the world.

  8. Numbers are nice… But how about some news… Faux or otherwise?

    Content generates hits, not content about hits. 😎 I’m just not so sure about whats going on with the “my numbers are bigger than your numbers” thing that is going on here.

    I see both as complementary sites. As stated above, each has its niche. Just keep up the good work. Numbers are for marketers. I thought you guys were just in it for the public good? 😎



  9. The “mine is bigger than yours” thing is primarily due to the preponderance of males behind the scenes on this site. It’s the same mentality that thinks the way to get something done is to declare war on it, e.g. the “War on Poverty” or the “War on Terror”, or in this case, waging war for relevance or readers or whatever.

    Public good quakes in the shadow of all that testosterone.

  10. Ahh – thanks Tracy!

    I have bandages all over my fingers from, well, um…damaging them during my mud room makeover project. Makes closing tags hard!

    OK – lame excuse, but my fingers are messed up. 🙂

Leave a Reply