September Stats

Growth in hits at the blog continued in September, though not at the unsustainable rates of previous months. Instead of a growth rate of nearly 100%, the growth rate came in at about 12%.

Total hits for the month: 20,025.

One notable development for the month. I track the number of visitors to the site each month, and cumulatively (so if you visit once during the month or a thousand times during the month, you get counted as one visitor for the month). The number went from about 1000 in previous months to 2493 in September. This shows, not surprisingly, that with the start of school, more people are visiting, but the visitors are not viewing the site as often as during the summer. Seems some people have some duties during the school year that they don’t have in the summer…

Here’s a list of the top-read posts for the month, including all that were read at least 100 times, with the number of times read listed first:
282 Williamson, Contextualism, and Value-Driven Epistemology
253 Three most important developments in epistemology over the last quarter century
178 Testimonial knowledge
148 An issue for propositional evidentialists
148 Philosophers’ fallacies
137 Polls Show that the Skeptic Is Right
133 Epistemic Noncogitivism and Minimalist Truth
131 Ethical Internalism in Epistemology
128 Two kinds of pragmatic enroachment
119 Knowledge as an indefeasible norm of assertion?
111 Disagreement, Rationality, Epistemic Dilemmas, and Buridan’s Ass
105 Openmindedness
104 A Little Meta-Theory on Sellars’ Problem
102 The Truth Connection
101 Evidence and two-dimensional belief
100 basing and arbitrary actions


September Stats — 2 Comments

  1. Jon,

    This may have little to do with the stats per se, but I’d be curious to know how many people are reading who, like me, aren’t philosophers or philosophers-to-be. Are there other non-specialists reading who find the subject fascinating and (I dare say) vital?

    Besides Don Rumsfeld, of course. Perhaps Senator Kerry would like to join, too, judging from his comments at the debate:

    But this issue of certainty. It’s one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong. It’s another to be certain and be right, or to be certain and be moving in the right direction, or be certain about a principle and then learn new facts and take those new facts and put them to use in order to change and get your policy right.

    What I worry about with the president is that he’s not acknowledging what’s on the ground, he’s not acknowledging the realities of North Korea, he’s not acknowledging the truth of the science of stem-cell research or of global warming and other issues. And certainty sometimes can get you in trouble.

  2. Chris, good to have you here! I wonder, too, about your question, but have no way of tracking that information, though I wish I could.

    I noticed the pithy and precise epistemological distinction in Kerry’s remarks as well. Having taught in Texas for nearly 20 years, I didn’t expect much of a response in kind from the favorite son. And, of course, my expectations were confirmed….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *