Google Analytics? Yes please! Danny and I and TTAG’s web guy have been deeply smitten by Google’s new live analytics stat; we can now see how many people are on the site at any given moment and who’s reading what in real time. During this recent Analytical upgrade, the number of unique visitors per month disappeared. And now it’s back. As you can see TTAG’s readership has crested the 700k mark. Foghorn will offer some perspective on our numbers soon. Meanwhile, I want to celebrate this milestone with our faithful readers To reward you for your patronage, we will keep on keeping on and provide you with our evolved design, complete with way cool WP plug-ins and even easier navigation. Later soon. Meanwhile, thanks for reading.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

17 COMMENTS

  2. Way to go! Keep up the good work. TTAG is my favorite gun related site. You allow comments and discussions about viewpoints you do not agree with (keeping it polite and not flaming). When I grow up I want to be Mr. Farago.
    Did I do a good job? Do I get my TTAG coffee mug now?

  3. Very cool about the “real time” data. I didn’t even know about it! And, I use Analytics to monitor about a dozen websites. Congrats on your success. Those are some mind-boggling numbers!

    • Thanks for the kind words, and the years of patronage.

      For real-time data, register with Google Analytics (obvs). Choose the new version. Click on the Home tab > Real-Time Beta > Overview. Full of win.

  4. I like this website. Really. But I’m pretty tired about reading about how you have high readership. Every now and then I could see, but this is crossing the line of professionalism.

    • There are lots of reasons why we post regular updates on TTAG’s site traffic. Suffice it to say we have more than ten times the readership of Guns & Ammo and less than 1/10th its advertising revenue. A lot less than a tenth. Reminding our advertisers and potential advertisers of the size of our readership and growth is a necessary part of generating enough money to keep the lights on and, as soon as humanly possible, compensate our writers for their time and talent. I apologize for seeming like we’re gloating. We are, in fact, shilling (without sacrificing our editorial integrity)/ And that’s the truth (about the truth about guns).

      • Gloat! You deserve it. As one who has built a number of websites and has a fledgling blog, I understand the effort. And, I am duly impressed with your accomplishment.

        I’m a big believer in tooting your own horn (and ignoring those who want to rain on your parade). 🙂

        • I don’t see it as gloating or unprofessional. I find it fascinating and I enjoy very much these fairly regular updates on the readership.

  6. More gun reviews please! They help me know what i’m getting into. That 22lr philosophy article back in october persuaded me to buy a ruger 10/22 later that day! and i used the gun review to get info on it and i was very pleased.

  7. I found your site over the summer while i was googling Chicago gun laws so glad i found it keep up the good work!

  8. I have one bone to pick with your new stats.

    You say that you had over 700,000 “unique” visitors. Not only do I question how you could know this, but I’m insulted by your saying this at all, whether or not it’s true.

    We all know how language works in conjunction with political correctness to ensure that we not “offend” anyone with our word choices. We know that we don’t refer to mental whackjobs as mental whackjobs anymore. No, now we have to be polite and call them “sanity-challenged” or some such rot. We don’t call sufferers of mental defects from birth “retarded”; now, they’re “special.” Vicious psychotic killers are now “disturbed.” Schoolyard shotgunners wearing Marilyn Manson tees who giggle as they reduce the herd are now “victims of bullying.” Really, really fat women? “Plus-sizers.”

    But this PC era doesn’t change anything. We all still know exactly what’s being said. When the newsies talk about the “unemployed metal-worker”, we all know they mean the homeless guy who steals copper wire from police cars. We understand that the “unlicensed sex therapist” is actually a whore, and the ones that are “chemically challenged” are crack whores.

    Knowing all of this to be true, you still go ahead and call over 700,000 of your visitors “unique.”

    We all know what “unique” means today. It’s like the new “special.” That’s the guy busted for stealing women’s panties from clotheslines. He’s “unique.” It’s the mass murderer who buries his prepubescent victims under his cellar floor. “Unique.” It’s the guy you see standing on the same corner every day for five hours handing out pamphlets about the impending invasion from Mars, or the people who believe that tinfoil hats will keep them sane. * Divine, in every movie he ever made with John Waters? “Unique.”

    And now, you label us – your visitors – “unique.”

    It’s your web site, I know, but I’d suggest very strongly that you treat your visitors – your bread and butter, as it were – with a bit more respect. Unless you know each one of us personally and can back this accusation up with some hard facts, you need to lay off the “unique” bs. It’s demeaning and insulting, and it makes us less willing to click on your URL in the future.

    I’d suggest, maybe, something like “over 700,000 normal, regular, everyday, non-incontinent visitors.”

    ————–

    * With even a smidgeon of historical research, one would find that “tin foil” was the lazy-man’s substitute for the more complex, harder-to-work quarter-inch-sheet tin that made up the original, functioning wave interferer hats. Tin foil hats are just stupid nonworking copies of the original-design tin hats which really do work. Even though they get really hot to wear in the summer. And always take your tin hat off before bringing a cell phone up to your ear. The hat’s shape and its metal composition make it a perfect parabolic range extender, which would normally be a good thing, but its focus is in the middle of your head, which turns out to be surprisingly bad.

Comments are closed.