Thursday, October 25, 2007
some statistics on the geographical distribution of those interested in Ron Paul
Due to my dissatisfaction with the MSM polls, I dug a bit more into google analytics today regarding the hits to my blog regarding Ron Paul. Here's the breakdown by state:
Pretty interesting. Fascinating how the 2nd largest total of unique reads (461) came from New York, the home state of the leading candidates of both parties. I also dug a bit more into where the blog hits came from:
| lewrockwell.com (referral) | 4,608 | 58.87% |
| google (organic) | 1,355 | 17.31% |
| (direct) ((none)) | 570 | 7.28% |
| gumstix.org (referral) | 323 | 4.13% |
| images.google.com (referral) | 128 | 1.64% |
I also found that over a third of my regular non-Paul reads this month came from a funny piece I'd written years ago about chair hanging sex. None of my other serious pieces come even close. I sure hope those readers go away satisfied, as that idea never turned into the career I'd humorously hoped for. Sigh.
The most interesting piece of data I've seen today regards the number of people that list their employer when making a campaign donation. What the author calls The Corruption Quotient is here.
And, if you care about the entire series of articles in this thread about the election, not just this little piece of it, click here
Labels: election 2008, hillary clinton, online polling, Ron Paul, Rudy Giulliani
¶ 1:27 PM
Comments:
<< Home
I followed your other serious pieces link. *sigh* I want to go back and spend a couple of hours...or maybe days. Alas, I have to leave for work in about 15 minutes.
Damn, you think good.
*hug*
Damn, you think good.
*hug*
This map doesn't appear to say anything in particular. The four darkest states are the four most populous states.
Thomas,
you make a good point.
Lacking tools, time, or data to do a detailed analysis of this self selected "poll", I didn't think very hard about correlating this chart with actual population figures.
It was - simply - the first time I'd got raw data I could trust to some extent on the Ron Paul supporters.
I'll keep working towards methods that are fair and truly scientific. Thanks for reading!
you make a good point.
Lacking tools, time, or data to do a detailed analysis of this self selected "poll", I didn't think very hard about correlating this chart with actual population figures.
It was - simply - the first time I'd got raw data I could trust to some extent on the Ron Paul supporters.
I'll keep working towards methods that are fair and truly scientific. Thanks for reading!
kitten:
thx.
I should really spend some time and sort out the good pieces from the trivial, the humorous ones from the merely sarcastic, the computer related ones from the political, etc.
I'd get more readers that way.
But it's a big job, and I'd rather write than sort.
Post a Comment
thx.
I should really spend some time and sort out the good pieces from the trivial, the humorous ones from the merely sarcastic, the computer related ones from the political, etc.
I'd get more readers that way.
But it's a big job, and I'd rather write than sort.
<< Home
