Holy eyeballs Batman! The latest newspaper website readership numbers were released today by Nielsen Online (and printed on the Editor and Publisher website) and startribune.com placed third (behind the Arizona Republic and New York Times websites) in the amount of time readers spent on the site. Readers in October spent an average of 27 minutes, 40 seconds on startribune.com as compared to 34 minutes, 53 seconds for the New York Times, and almost 40 minutes for AZcentral.com.
Could it be, with circulation down, that readers are spending more time reading the entire Strib online? The website's readership numbers (1.5 million unique readers per month) didn't change all that much, ranking 26th out of 30. The New York Times website ranked first , with more than 17.5 million unique monthly visitors, up from 14.5 million in September.
I increased Rake's stickiness by having to read BJr's post several times over to understand it--it just didn't seem possible that someone would be postulating that the problem with Katherine Kersten is that she is too intellectual.
I posited that to the average liberal, Kersten's truth nuggets posed serious issues of "comprende'-ability.
They're lovely gems of, well, truthiness.
The great thing about conservatism is that it's principles are really rather simple.
Which leads to no end of tunic rending by the likes of "jimmy".
The self parody continues unabated. "Truthiness"? Without quotes? Surely on some level you understand that Stephen Colbert's "Colbert Report" persona is a parody of just your sort of "simple conservatism," right? And that "truthiness" is a reference to the dishonest forensic style so in vogue among those you parrot, yes?
Even if you disagree with his take on all the bloviating malarkey peddlers you regard as sages, you must at a minimum be intelligent enough to get that it's parody, right? Don't you? (sigh) Maybe not. Well, bravo for endeavoring to turn necessity (simple agitprop for the simple minded) into a virtue, in your tiny mind anyway. Whatever gets you through the night.
The real question is whether stickiness is a useful metric versus the raw # of users, demographics and ad impressions. Let's just say I've never had an advertiser -- including those from some rather sophisticated interactive ad agencies -- ask about the stickiness of my sites. It's a meaningless metric.
that's the average? i wonder what the median is.
i stay on some web sites, including the new york times, all day long.
jim leinfelder -- where you working these days?
Hoppy: I don't even know you name. Let's stick to snarky posts.
As most liberal readers need to move their lips while trying to read Kersten's truth nuggets, this is easily explained.
Hey Bertram
I enjoy a good contentious debate that scores points back and forth based on insights of substance. But gratuitous crap like the above, designed solely to initiate partisan bickering along the lines of "You guys are stupid! Yay, we win!" is useful in what way? Because whatever small satisfaction you get from annoyance is at the cost of your reputation as a person interested in debating your philosophy on the merits.
Britt: Just a word to the wise. We're not certain "bertram jr" actually exists, at least as anything other than a spambot. I mean do any of us actually know anyone who only speaks in bumper sticker?
Gee Britt, I copped that lame-o line IRONICALLY from jimmy, who leans on "mouthbreather, "credulous", "slackjawed", (and "nuance") in virtually every one of his unhinged anti-American screeds.
He often challenges his betters as "lips moving" readers, so touche, I suppose.
Never noticed your estimation of those missives as "gratuitous crap".
Huh.
Oh well, dig those Timberwolves!
BJr: "He often challenges his betters as "lips moving" readers, so touche, I suppose."
Actually, it was just the "anonymous" poster who mewled about my posts being too much reading for him and then followed up by whining to Brybak for censorship. If a post exceeds your attention span or some other limitation, hey, don't bellyache about it. Just skip it. It's the "internets" where column inches are not an issue.
Mr. Leinfelder: I am the "anonymous" who was the recipient of your schoolboy "lips" comment. And I didn't complain to Rybak about censorship. So besides being an over-stuffed, arrogant abnoxious jerk who likes to hear his head rattle, you have now demonstrated yourself to be the consummate liar. Why am I not surprised?
Your blatherings continue to demonstrate why you have never made it beyond the fringes of big-time media work. I've seen clowns such as you come and go many times during my +40 years as an editor at several major metropolitan news organization.
Anonymous, I didn't say you whined about censorship but FOR censorship. Take away Leinfelder's crayons, I believe was your condescending demand.
Perhaps it's a difficult habit to break after 40 years in harness as an editor, but it's really no longer up to you to edit what anyone says here or anywhere. And yet with all your haughty fulminations, you lack the courage of your own convictions to sign these little ad hominem attacks.
I'm really having trouble following what it is that has you whipped into such a swivet of sputtering dudgeon. I was merely defending your peers at the Stribune against the attacks against them for aggressively doing their jobs on behalf of me, one of their readers. If you disagree, fine. But kindly stick to making a counter argument rather than mounting these personal attacks directed at me while cowering behind "anonymous."
Mr. Leinfelder:
Try and get your act together and get your facts straight. I did not make the "crayons" remark earlier.
(sigh) Explain to me, Anonymous, just how you expect me to keep you sorted out from all the other "anonymous" weenies on here, Anonymous? Hmmmm, how would you recommend I manage that, Anonymous? What am I, Uri Geller? The Amazing Kreskin?
Here's a tip: Try using your own name if you don't want to be mixed up with everyone else's anonymous flame jobs. Or, do just as you have been. But then spare us all this pathetic mewling.
That should be "Brybak" not Rybak.
In other words, you unilaterally resurrected a nasty partisan debate from a previous thread while adding absolutely nothing of substance to either the current post or that previous debate. And since you obviously have such a low opinion of Leinfelder's writing style, your claim of emulating it is pretty weak sauce when it comes to self defense--stated "ironically" or otherwise.
But I duly note your methodological purpose and will take it into consideration on your future posts.
Congratulations for sussing out the fact that I'm a basketball fan. Perhaps that observation was somehow meant to be a zinger. But I find the commenters over at On the Ball to be interested in the topic at hand and respectful of each other's opinions.
Nope, just baiting jimmy again.
I'll look forward to your thoughtful counterpoint to his next off the rails screed.
Good to know jimmy has another ally in the anti-America liberal loony 'journalist" ranks.
And they say "journalists" really aren't biased!
Can't even come up with his own material. As Ross Perot would say, "now, that's just sad." I guess years of parroting talk radio instills bad habits. The ability to form original thought atrophies and, eventually, ceases altogether like the functioning of a vestigial limb. A cautionary example for you kiddies.
People have just gone into shock from the Denny Hecker ads. It takes awhile to recover from that.