Comments on: 75 posts a month

By: Pete

Pete — Thu, 17 May 2007 20:43:57 +0000

Ugo,

Posting 75 times a month is ridiculous. That would be approx. 2-3 posts a day. I agree that the quality of your posts would have to suffer. In all honesty I originally came here to seek a joost beta invite but I ended up ready most your blog for this month. I laughed at Master Yanagiryuken and I was pissed when I read about what happened to Rebekka on Flicker. If you wrote 75 posts a month, good posts like previously mentioned would we lost in the muck. You write a quality blog with a certain panache and wit. I’ve added you to my aggregator and I look forward to your next post.

Take Care
Pete

By: ugo

ugo — Thu, 17 May 2007 07:26:53 +0000

Thanks for the comments, folks. I would like to reassure you that I’m not going to turn this blog into a dumping ground just to reach some number of postings. I don’t have the time nor the qualities to do that, especially with English not being my mother tongue.
Still, I used to manage to do at least 30-40 posts per month at the beginning and I would like to go back to those averages. This might not bring me a thousand daily visits, but even without setting me a specific goal, I’d like to see a growing trend instead of the mostly flat graph I am seeing now.

By: TDavid

TDavid — Thu, 17 May 2007 02:42:33 +0000

niq - most of the top visited/read blogs are written by groups, not individuals, like Engadget, Lifehacker, Boing Boing, see a breakdown of the top 10 by Technorati authority here: http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20070515/4496/

It’s not uncommon to see 75-150 posts per week for some of the these blogs.

Even single author blogs like Michelle Malkin (#10 on the list) are often updated more frequently than five times per week. Heck, I just counted 9 posts from Michelle today already and the day isn’t even over.

If you look at some of her posts though they’d fit what I’d deem the less quality category.

As a reader I’m turned off by too many posts from a single publication/feed because I think the quality does tend to suffer but I’d think most readers can comfortably follow a feed with 2-3 quality posts per day.

By: niq

niq — Thu, 17 May 2007 01:28:29 +0000

I blog when the mood takes me. And even then, my blog isn’t the only place I write. And I’m prefectly happy with a small fraction of that posting rate. Readership? I’ve no idea.

But 75-150 posts per month? It’s hard to think of a blog more successful/popular than Groklaw at its peak, but she averaged maybe 5 posts a week.

By: TDavid

TDavid — Thu, 17 May 2007 00:08:02 +0000

Ugo - thank you for the mention. If increasing the number of posts would hurt the quality of your writing I’d be among the first to say don’t bother.

DrBacchus - you might have missed the emphasis in my post (or perhaps didn’t follow the link above to read my complete 2,750+ word post?) on the importance of quality too? Quality and quantity are two major components.

Noticed that you used the qualifier “purely in order to grow [readership]” which I’d agree with your statement. If one only has a goal to grow readership but doesn’t care about the words, the material, the art than they aren’t really writing, they are running a post factory.

By: DrBacchus

DrBacchus — Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:25 +0000

I have never had a desire to have a thousand visitors. I write because writing is a way to express myself. I know that people read it, but that’s not why I write. I mean sure, there are some things that I write in the hopes that certain people will read them, but a thousand? That’s never been a goal. There are at most a few dozen people who I really care about reading what I write. Writing 3 posts a day purely in order to grow my readership seems very artificial to me.

By: Anton Tagunov

Anton Tagunov — Wed, 16 May 2007 22:57:39 +0000

…and how much visitors per day does planetapache.org have? Perhaps this could be added

Me personally as a reader I prefer real low noise so that planet signal wouldn’t get lost.