This isn’t about Mann and his climatological hockeystick. Instead, this is about a not-too-well-hidden decline. At 1.0. Here are a few graphs from Quantcast.com:
The big spike at the right is the “why I flounced the right” post, that got him so much love from the left for…15 minutes. The rest of it’s pretty much downhill. Did something change?
And BTW, let me point out that that graph (unlike a lot of climate alarmist graphs) goes all the way to zero on the y-axis. If I wanted to be cheesy, I could have made it look a lot worse by cutting it off at, say, 6k.
Next, we have an interesting chart that shows how many people are frequent users.
Hmm. 3% of the visitors are responsible for 48% of the visits. Interestingly, that’s up from 1% when Sharmuta was still around. If you were looking to advertise on a site with these numbers, would you?
Other information that an advertiser might be interested in is demographics:
I’m not really sure how they arrive at this information, and a lot of it may be dated. 91% Caucasian; really diverse there. I’m also not sure if that’s by visits, or by visitors (makes a huge difference).
They need a third category besides male and female; I don’t think that they all fit into one or the other.
The final chart is what they call “affinity”. Not too long ago, this was filled with sites like AoS and Malkin And Hot Air. Now we get this:
The one thing in there that seems odd is ACS. I have no idea whatsoever why people who visit the ACS visit 1.0. The science and technology ones aren’t that hard to understand. Wired is a weird magazine that has a lot of whizbang stuff that appeals to the Nintendo crowd. It occasionally has some good stuff too, but that’s more the exception than the rule. New Scientist is also known as “nude socialist” (hat tip: Lubos Motl). They’re not a serious magazine either, though like Wired, they can occasionally have a good piece. ScienceDaily and livescience are both online services that are geared to the popular audience. Again, not to be taken seriously.
So the common pattern here seems to be a certain overlap with the PBS/NPR crowd, and a bunch of whizbang science for kiddies mags.
I think you all get the picture. Trekkies who think sciency stuff is cool, but don’t know a photon from a futon. Well into middle age. Like their leader.
Oh. And one final reason:
Patrick Trout? And what does that say when he needs to explain what a Glock is?
Oh, and BTW, why isn’t 1.0 doing a thread on this?
Tags: Nancy
