From the Web Site Report Archive (2009)

For a long, long while, starting in 2002 when I could finally get reliable web stats about this site, I obsessed about “my” web analytics. How many visitors?  What browser did they use?  What were they looking for?  I published monthly summaries (which wasn’t all that obsessive, given how it led me to regular site improvements) and provided commentary.  I stopped in late 2010, when it became more of a chore than a fun thing to do.

By 2018, the site reports were cluttering the site with low-value content, and (after making a backup) I decided to clean up and delete those old reports.  Still, there were a few snippets worth preserving here, either for historical value, a few chuckles or a glimpse at old-school webmastering.  Here it goes, copy-and-pasted more or less chronologically from 2009

 

January 2009

Ready for another look at the dull routine of an obscure web site? Here are the monthly highlights for christian-sauve.com:

 

1. Mmm. Numbers…

My prickly “Urchin” web stats engine tells me that…

Report for: christian-sauve.com, January 2009 Total Visitors        6,657   Total Pageviews      20,673   (Corrected total   13,292) Total Hits           23,211   Total Bytes Transferred   447.0MB   Average Visitors Per Day  214.74   Average Pageviews Per Day 666.87   (Corrected average   429) Average Hits Per Day      748.74

The “corrected” numbers take out the CSS, robots.txt, PDFs, mis-filed graphic files (ICO, GIF, JPG) and other non-public files mistakenly considered “pages” by the statistics pre-digestion engine. All numbers are oh-so-slightly higher than last month, but well within .

Meanwhile, Google Analytics slams my head in a snowbank and twists by pointing out that I only really managed 702 visits and 1,069 page views, both slightly above December. You suck, Google.

 

According to Urchin, our top ten most popular pages are

 /index.html                    952 /reviews.html                  246 /texts/free-movie-tickets.htm  246 /about.html                    231 /cdtac6t.html                  226 /writings.html                 198 /reviews/index.html            196 /search.html                   195 /links.html                    192 /texts/solaris-explanation.htm 188

Little change here. Meanwhile, Google Analytics says…

1. /index.html 142
2. /texts/solaris-explanation.htm 113
3. /reviews.html 56
4. /francais/index.html 37
5. /about.html 36
6. /search.html 25
7. /reviews/2004/reviews-2004-08august.html 23
8. /reviews/1999/books99f.htm 20
9. /reviews/2007/reviews-2007-11november.html 19
10. /writings.html 19

…which is roughly consistent with the usual results.

 

If you care about such things, (Oh boy! Oh boy!), here’s a look at browser statistics for the month (by visitors), as provided by the clever gerbils at Google Analytics:

Browser This Month Last Month
1. IE 7.0 252 219
2 Firefox 238 206
3 IE 6.0 81 105
4 Safari 55 (new)

Same as usual, although I’m finally seeing some movement from IE6 to IE7. People with new computers, maybe?

 

2. Where do these people come from?

According to Urchin, our top five sources of referrals (in visitors) were

 google.com/search     535 (484) live.com/results.aspx 118 (51) www.google.ca/search  110 (104) google.co.uk/search    55 (44) google.com/books       34 (new)

As you may expect by now, Google Analytics has a slightly different view of the situation:

Source This Month Last Month
1. google / organic 474 438
2. en.wikipedia.org / referral 19 17
3. yahoo / organic 18 21
4. books.google.com / referral 9
5. twitter.com / referral 7

(Lingo key: “Organic” is Google’s way of saying that no one has paid for links leading back to christian-sauve.com on those search engines. “Referral” is supposed to be a direct link to this site.)

As the “twitter.com” source above suggests, there were a few new links to this site this month: I attended an event in a semi-professional capacity, presented a few thoughts regarding what I do at work and found my presentation twittered and subsequently blogged, with quite a few links back to this site. All good: I was able to send the blog report to my bosses as independent validation for my own event report.

Google now lists about 3550 links for “Christian Sauvé”, slightly down from last month.

 

3. Ohh! Visitor comments!

It may be a new year, but the spam just keeps on piling up. One of those days, I’ll have time to implement my anti-spam plan.

But there were other things worth noting in the mailbox besides the spam. A few comments regarding the presentation mentioned above, plus a few anonymous words of encouragement:

wow i love how you critique these novels. I agree with you on hidden talents.

(Here’s my review of David Lubar’s Hidden Talents. It’s a clever YA novel.)

Plus Alain Miguelez, author of the definitive history of Ottawa-area movie theaters, A Theater Near You, wrote in to say that he has appreciated my review. Hurray!

 

4. Search Queries Oddities

According to Google Analytics, here are the month’s most popular search keywords:

Keywords Visits
1 solaris ending 15
2 solaris explanation 11
3 christian sauve 10
4 sauve.com 10
5 solaris explained 9
6 christian sauvé 6
7 solaris movie ending 5
8 solaris movie plot 5
9 www.sauve.com 5
10 glenn kleier 4

Same old.

 

Other odd, special or amusing search keywords:

  • “the departed” caprio spank
  • assassin “science fiction novel” -atwood -moorcock -vatican -vogel
  • baen tacky book covers
  • canadian fantasy writer/janitor 2005
  • clive cussler is a curmudgeon
  • detectives solving mysteries with magnets
  • post-apocalyptic domestic drama

February 2009

Ready for another look at the dull routine of an obscure web site? Here are the monthly highlights for christian-sauve.com:

 

1. Mmm. Numbers…

My prickly “Urchin” web stats engine tells me that…

Report for: christian-sauve.com, February 2009 Total Visitors        6,001   Total Pageviews      19,320   (Corrected total   12,091) Total Hits           21,836   Total Bytes Transferred    414.4MB   Average Visitors Per Day   214.32   Average Pageviews Per Day  690   (Corrected average    431) Average Hits Per Day       779.85

The “corrected” numbers take out the CSS, robots.txt, PDFs, mis-filed graphic files (ICO, GIF, JPG) and other non-public files mistakenly considered “pages” by the statistics pre-digestion engine. This being February, total numbers were down, but per-day numbers were up slightly.

Meanwhile, Google Analytics says I ain’t all that nor a bag of chips by pointing out that by their numbers, I had a pathetic 637 visits and 959 page views, again down by total number but up on a daily average compared to January. Oh thanks a lot, Google.

 

According to Urchin, our top ten most popular pages are

 /index.html                    732 /reviews.html                  221 /texts/free-movie-tickets.htm  201 /writings.html                 190 /about.html                    187 /links.html                    174 /search.html                   163 /cdtac6t.html                  161 /texts/solaris-explanation.htm 140 /reviews/index.html            133

Little change here. Meanwhile, Google Analytics says…

1. /index.html 101
2. /texts/solaris-explanation.htm 74
3. /reviews.html 58
4. /francais/index.html 47
5. /writings.html 37
6. /reviews/index.html 29
7. /about.html 26
8. /texts/100films.htm 25
9. /search.html 21
10. /reviews/2003/books03i.htm 19

…which is roughly consistent with the usual results.

 

If you care about such things, (Oh w00t! Oh joy!), here’s a look at browser statistics for the month (by visitors), as provided by the clever gerbils at Google Analytics:

Browser This Month Last Month
1. IE 7.0 233 252
2 Firefox 215 238
3 IE 6.0 78 81
4 Safari 41 55

Not much movement this month.

 

2. Where do these people come from?

According to Urchin, our top five sources of referrals (in visitors) were

 google.com/search     478 (535) www.google.ca/search  91  (110) live.com/results.aspx 70  (118) google.co.uk/search   67  (55) google.com/books      47  (34)

As you may expect by now, Google Analytics has a slightly different view of the situation:

Source This Month Last Month
1. google / organic 418 474
2. yahoo / organic 20 18
3. en.wikipedia.org / referral 11 19
4. anticipationsf.ca / referral 6 (new)
5. aol / organic 6 (new)

(Lingo key: “Organic” is Google’s way of saying that no one has paid for links leading back to christian-sauve.com on those search engines. “Referral” is supposed to be a direct link to this site.)

Google now lists about 3240 links for “Christian Sauvé”, down from last month. A look at the top-100 results showed no important new links.

 

3. Ohh! Visitor comments!

More, more, more spam. Multiple times a day. Don’t they ever learn?

But the strangest spam I’ve received in months is this:

MISS [name] [familyname] MISS [name] [familyname] MISS [name] [familyname] [street address] WHITBY ANTARIO CANADA KANADA ONTARIO [postal code]

The [brackets] are mine and replace what could be personal information. Straaange.

 

4. Search Queries Oddities

According to Google Analytics, here are the month’s most popular search keywords:

Keywords Visits
1 solaris ending 13
2 christian sauve 11
3 christian sauvé 11
4 glenn kleier 7
5 solaris movie plot 7
6 sequel to the teeth of the tiger 6
7 alternate hugo 5
8 100 good films 4
9 solaris explained 4
10 that bringas woman 4

Same old.

 

Other odd, special or amusing search keywords:

  • asian movies: nerdy girl meets sauve guy
  • author ayn rand may have been a great fan of you number 1s, to have modelled her iconic characters like howard roark on you
  • christian places to stay in boston
  • i got simplified by loblaw

March 2009

Ready for another look at the dull routine of an obscure web site? Here are the monthly highlights for christian-sauve.com:

 

1. Mmm. Numbers…

My prickly “Urchin” web stats engine tells me that…

Report for: christian-sauve.com, March 2009 Total Visitors        7,433 Total Pageviews      23,939 (Corrected total   13,795) Total Hits           27,171 Total Bytes Transferred    506.5MB Average Visitors Per Day   239.77 Average Pageviews Per Day  772 (Corrected average    445) Average Hits Per Day       876.48

The “corrected” numbers take out the CSS, robots.txt, PDFs, mis-filed graphic files (ICO, GIF, JPG) and other non-public files mistakenly considered “pages” by the statistics pre-digestion engine. All numbers were significantly higher than last month, which I can’t explain. (Sunspots?)

Meanwhile, Google Analytics destroys my dreams and leaves me a quivering husk of lost illusions by pointing out that I really had only 806 visits and 1,300 pageviews. Oh Google; I liked you so much better when you just gave me good search results.

 

According to Urchin, our top ten most popular pages are

 /index.html                   993 /texts/free-movie-tickets.htm 282 /reviews.html                 267 /contact.html                 219 /about.html                   215 /writings.html                208 /links.html                   189 /search.html                  179 /francais/index.html          147 /reviews/2002/books02d.htm    146

Little change here. Meanwhile, Google Analytics says…

1. /index.html 145
2. /reviews.html 78
3. /texts/solaris-explanation.htm 78
4. /francais/index.html 57
5. /about.html 25
6. /contact.html 23
7. /reviews/2004/reviews-2004-08august.html 22
8. /reviews/1999/books99f.htm 20
9. /texts/100films.htm 20
10. /reviews/2009/reviews-2009-01january.html 19

…which is roughly consistent with the usual results.

 

If you care about such things, (Oh w00t! Oh joy!), here’s a look at browser statistics for the month (by visitors), as provided by the clever gerbils at Google Analytics:

Browser This Month Last Month
1. IE 7.0 267 233
2 Firefox (all) 250 215
3 IE 6.0 77 78
4 Safari (all) 50 41

Not much movement this month.

 

2. Where do these people come from?

According to Urchin, our top five sources of referrals (in visitors) were

 google.com/search     589 (478) www.google.ca/search  121 (91) live.com/results.aspx 112 (70) google.com/books       76 (47) google.co.uk/search    53 (67)

As you may expect by now, Google Analytics has a slightly different view of the situation:

Source This Month Last Month
1. google / organic 507 418
2. yahoo / organic 23 20
3. en.wikipedia.org / referral 18 11
4. aol / organic 10 6
5. google.com / referral 8

(Lingo key: “Organic” is Google’s way of saying that no one has paid for links leading back to christian-sauve.com on those search engines. “Referral” is supposed to be a direct link to this site.)

Google now lists about 3170 links for “Christian Sauvé”, down from last month. A look at the top-100 results showed no important new links.

 

3. Ohh! Visitor comments!

Spaaaaam.

Otherwise, the biggest mailbox story of the month was a renowned SF writer writing to me to continue a decade-long feud with a renowned scientist. The details are elsewhere if you’re interested, because I’m not.

 

4. Search Queries Oddities

According to Google Analytics, here are the month’s most popular search keywords:

Keywords Visits
1 christian sauvé 13
2 christian sauve 11
3 solaris ending 11
4 solaris explained 7
5 solaris explanation 7
6 solaris movie plot 6
7 that bringas woman 5
8 “what the bleep” sauve 4
9 100 good films 4
10 100 good movies 4

The usual.

#8 isn’t as stange as you think; I’m responsible for at least one of those hits.

 

Other odd, special or amusing search keywords:

  • “acapella” christian submarine
  • darkly masterpiece happy feet
  • old montreal road and trim road+shotgun murder+sauve

(it wasn’t a good month for odd, special or amusing)

 

 

April 2009

Ready for another look at the dull routine of an obscure web site? Here are the monthly highlights for christian-sauve.com:

 

1. Mmm. Numbers…

My prickly “Urchin” web stats engine tells me that…

Report for: christian-sauve.com, April 2009 Total Visitors      6,985   Total Pageviews    19,658   (Corrected total   11,294) Total Hits         22,016   Total Bytes Transferred   393.6MB   Average Visitors Per Day  232.83   Average Pageviews Per Day 655.26   (Corrected average    376) Average Hits Per Day      733.86

The “corrected” numbers take out the CSS, robots.txt, PDFs, mis-filed graphic files (ICO, GIF, JPG) and other non-public files mistakenly considered “pages” by the statistics pre-digestion engine. All numbers were significantly lower than last month, which I blame on fibre-eating badgers.

Meanwhile, Google Analytics slaps me on the head by using its sophisticated algorithms to prove that I really had only 883 visits and 1,464 pageviews. This may be a downer, but Google, at least, thinks my stats are up from last month.

 

According to Urchin, our top ten most popular pages are

 /index.html                     804 /texts/solaris-explanation.htm  323 /texts/free-movie-tickets.htm   219 /reviews.html                   210 /about.html                     179 /contact.html                   178 /links.html                     174 /writings.html                  168 /search.html                    162 /francais/index.html            114

Little change here. Meanwhile, Google Analytics says…

1. /texts/solaris-explanation.htm 257
2. /reviews/index.html 197
3. /index.html 116
4. /francais/index.html 42
5. /reviews.html 41
6. /contact.html 22
7. /reviews/2004/reviews-2004-08august.html 22
8. /links.htm 21
9. /reviews/2003/books03j.htm 18
10. /search.html 17

…which is roughly consistent with the usual results.

 

If you care about such things, (And you should!), here’s a look at browser statistics for the month (by visitors), as provided by the clever gerbils at Google Analytics:

Browser This Month Last Month
1. IE 7.0 310 267
2 Firefox (all) 265 250
3 IE 6.0 79 77
4 Safari (all) 73 50

Not much movement this month, although the surge in Safari visitors may or may not mean anything.

 

2. Where do these people come from?

According to Urchin, our top five sources of referrals (in visitors) were

 google.com/search     688 (589) www.google.ca/search  104 (121) live.com/results.aspx  75 (112) google.com/books       74 (76) google.co.uk/search    53 (53)

As you may expect by now, Google Analytics has a slightly different view of the situation:

Source This Month Last Month
1. google / organic 595 507
2. yahoo / organic 22 23
3. en.wikipedia.org / referral 13 18
4. aol / organic 6 10
5. books.google.com / referral 6

(Lingo key: “Organic” is Google’s way of saying that no one has paid for links leading back to christian-sauve.com on those search engines. “Referral” is supposed to be a direct link to this site.)

Google now lists about 3130 links for “Christian Sauvé”, down from last month. A look at the top-100 results showed no important new links.

 

3. Ohh! Visitor comments!

Spaaaaam. It just never stops.

 

4. Search Queries Oddities

According to Google Analytics, here are the month’s most popular search keywords:

Keywords Visits
1 solaris ending 13
2 solaris movie plot 11
3 solaris explained 11
4 solaris explanation 7
5 christian sauve 7
6 christian sauvé 6
7 glenn kleier 5
8 solaris movie ending 4
9 solaris 2002 plot 4
10 solaris movie explained 4

So… do you think SOLARIS was shown at least once on TV this month?

 

Other odd, special or amusing search keywords:

  • is “who am i” the most asked question on web
  • what does a christian man with a computer science degree do?
  • what was the point of the movie solaris

 

 

May 2009

Ready for another look at the dull routine of an obscure web site? Here are the monthly highlights for christian-sauve.com:

1. Mmm. Numbers…

My prickly “Urchin” web stats engine tells me that…

Report for: christian-sauve.com, May 2009
Total Visitors     6,972
Total Pageviews   19,592
(Corrected total   11,537)
Total Hits        22,417
Total Bytes Transferred    399.4MB
Average Visitors Per Day   224.9
Average Pageviews Per Day  632
(Corrected average    372)
Average Hits Per Day       723.12

The “corrected” numbers take out the CSS, robots.txt, PDFs, mis-filed graphic files (ICO, GIF, JPG) and other non-public files mistakenly considered “pages” by the statistics pre-digestion engine. All numbers are slighly (and by that, I mean “nearly identical”) lower than last month.

Meanwhile, Google Analytics wastes its prodigious intellect by telling me that I really only had 708 visits and 1002 pageviews. Adding insult to downer, Google adds that this is considerably lower than last month. Then it kicks me for good measure.

According to Urchin, our top ten most popular pages are

/index.html                     966
/reviews.html                   316
/about.html                     241
/texts/free-movie-tickets.htm   225
/writings.html                  208
/links.html                     204
/search.html                    199
/texts/solaris-explanation.htm  170
/contact.html                   146
/francais/index.html            138

Little change here. Meanwhile, Google Analytics says…

1. /texts/solaris-explanation.htm 119
2. /index.html 105
3. /reviews.html 47
4. /reviews/index.html 38
5. /francais/index.html 37
6. /about.html 25
7. /reviews/2007/reviews-2007-11november.html 22
8. /texts/100films.html 18
9. /writings.html 18
10. /search.html 17

…which is roughly consistent with the usual results.

If you care about such things, (And it’s important that you do!), here’s a look at browser statistics for the month (by visitors), as provided by the clever gerbils at Google Analytics:

Browser This Month Last Month
1 Firefox (all) 230 265
2 IE 7.0 212 310
3 IE 6.0 67 79
4 Safari (all) 47 73

Not much movement this month. You would think that I would make a fuss about Firefox being on top, but I won’t even do that.

2. Where do these people come from?

According to Urchin, our top five sources of referrals (in visitors) were

google.com/search      486 (688)
live.com/results.aspx   94 (75)
www.google.ca/search    80 (104)
google.co.uk/search     64 (53)
google.com/books        51 (74)

As you may expect by now, Google Analytics has a slightly different view of the situation:

Source This Month Last Month
1. google / organic 430 595
2. yahoo / organic 26 22
3. en.wikipedia.org / referral 18 13
4. live / organic 11 6
5. anticipationsf.ca / referral 8 6

(Lingo key: “Organic” is Google’s way of saying that no one has paid for links leading back to christian-sauve.com on those search engines. “Referral” is supposed to be a direct link to this site.)

Google now lists about 3070 links for “Christian Sauvé”, down from last month. A look at the top-100 results showed no important new links.

3. Ohh! Visitor comments!

Spaaaaam. It just never stops.

4. Search Queries Oddities

According to Google Analytics, here are the month’s most popular search keywords:

Keywords Visits
1 solaris explained 13
2 christian sauve 8
3 christian sauvé 8
4 solaris explanation 8
5 solaris ending 7
6 solaris 2002 plot 6
7 solaris movie plot 6
8 glenn kleier 5
9 solaris 2002 ending 5
10 sauve 4

That’s a whole lot of Solaris…

Other odd, special or amusing search keywords:

  • “how to convert a conservative”
  • “il faut blamer le canada” south park en francais
  • a movie in las vegas with a wanna be formula driver gigolo
  • explain how to win a small breakthrough in thirty days
  • is it okay to watch the rocky horror picture show if you’re christian?

June 2009

June 2009 was a huge month for www.christian-sauve.com, probably its single most important month since the site became a dot-com in 2002.  In a manic blaze born out of boredom, I completely redesigned the site, not simply updating the sorely-outdated visual look, but crammed about nine megabytes of flat HTML content into a WordPress-powered dynamic architecture.  (While, in the process, going from about 250 static pages to 2,700 dynamically-generated ones.)  The more curious among you will find a summary of the process in the last section of this report, but in the meantime do enjoy the last Web Site Report of the non-dynamic era, since I’m completely updating the methodology of those reports next month to reflect the new architecture of the site: Goodbye Urchin, hello Google Analytics!

1. Mmm. Numbers…

One last time, my prickly “Urchin” web stats engine tells me that…

Report for: christian-sauve.com, June 2009
Total Visitors      7,147
Total Pageviews    25,812
(Corrected total   12,155)
Total Hits         32,295
Total Bytes Transferred    477.8MB
Average Visitors Per Day   238.23
Average Pageviews Per Day  860
(Corrected average    405)
Average Hits Per Day       1,076

The “corrected” numbers take out the CSS, robots.txt, PDFs, mis-filed graphic files (ICO, GIF, JPG) and other non-public files mistakenly considered “pages” by the statistics pre-digestion engine. All numbers are up from last month, but a good chunk of that is a consequence of the architecture switch and my own testing of the site.

Meanwhile, Google Analytics is a bit savvier in telling me that I only had 650 visits and 1,471 pageviews.  Visits down; pageviews up, in keeping with the expected consequences of the redesign.

According to Urchin, our top ten most popular pages are

/index.html                     966
/texts/free-movie-tickets.htm   316
/reviews.html                   241
/about.html                     225
/writings.html                  208
/texts/solaris-explanation.htm  204
/links.html                     199
/search.html                    170
/contact.html                   146
/francais/index.html            138

Little change here, just some re-ordering. (My redesign took place on June 27, too late to have an impact on the rankings.) Meanwhile, Google Analytics says…

1. /index.html 192
2. /reviews.html 139
3. /texts/solaris-explanation.htm 126
4. /francais/index.html 38
5. /the-contact/index.html 32
6. /essays/index.html 29
7. /the-reviews/index.html 28
8. /the-about/index.html 20
9. /writings.html 19
10. /reviews/2003/books03k.htm 17

This is a bit different from the usual results, and I can already see some of the new-template files sneaking onto the top-10, not so much as evidence that new visitors are flooding in, but as a consequence of the top-level site testing.

If you care about such things, (and it is fascinating stuff!), here’s a look at browser statistics for the month (by visitors), as provided by the clever gerbils at Google Analytics:

Browser This Month Last Month
1 Firefox (all) 212 230
2 IE 7.0 127 212
3 IE 8.0 65 (not counted)
3 IE 6.0 63 67
4 Safari (all) 68 47

The sudden jump in IE8 numbers is heart-warming, but I won’t rest until IE6 disappears from this list.  (Since the new site looks really really weird in IE6, the process may accelerate next month.)

I should mention once again that as of next month, I’m going to use Google Analytics are the primary source of data, and maybe look at the Urchin stuff for fun: With the new dynamic architecture, Urchin is becoming more technically useful than analytically valuable, and trying to extract useful data out of it is going to be just too time-consuming.  Fortunately, I have used Google Analytics for long enough that I won’t be too disturbed by what I’ll be seeing.

2. Where do these people come from?

According to Urchin, our top five sources of referrals (in visitors) were

google.com/search	474	(486)
live.com/results.aspx	109	(94)
www.google.ca/search	104	(80)
google.com/books	49	(51)
google.co.uk/search	47	(64)

As you may expect by now, Google Analytics has a slightly different view of the situation:

Source This Month Last Month
1. google / organic 410 430
2. yahoo / organic 12 26
3. bing / organic 10 11
4. books.google.com / referral 9 8
5. en.wikipedia.org / referral 9 11

(Lingo key: “Organic” is Google’s way of saying that no one has paid for links leading back to christian-sauve.com on those search engines. “Referral” is supposed to be a direct link to this site.)

Google now lists about 2980 links for “Christian Sauvé”, down from last month. A look at the top-100 results showed no new links of significance.

3. Ohh! Visitor comments!

Plenty of activity in the mailbox this month.  Let’s have a look:

1. Chris from Boston wrote to say…

About 2002 Solaris- a new interpretation which also reveals Andrei Tarkovsky s Solaris (1972) to be genius, and not so self-indulgent! The faux Rheya, and the other “visitors”, are presented as projections of the Crew’s unconscious– but as such they symbolize film itself! These non-human creatures who do not die; who are imperfect copies of actual memories; who are sometimes rejected violently, sometimes loved irrationally; artificial products of advanced technology (moviemaking). Soderbergh, like Tarkovsky before him, is writing about our relationships to film itself (and by extension to the actors, etc, etc) I’m not sure if Lem’s book has the same self-conscious self-references to creative writing and reading- but this idea really opened up a new appreciation for me. I’ve also discovered a ’68 Soviet made-for-TV version- great stuff!

Interesting!

2. Sofie from Belgium says…

Hi! My name is Sofie, I’m 15 years old and I’m from Belgium. We watched  the movie “Solaris” during English class, but I didn’t understand the movie well, especially the end. I was wondering if maybe you could help me to understand the several possible endings, because I already read a lot of different ones. And I have to explain them on my final, but the teacher doesn’t want to explain it to us. My final is the 18th of Juin. Thank you!  Sofie

and then, moments later:

It’s sofie again… 🙂 Where can I see your answer?

I really wanted to help, Sofie, but you didn’t include a return email address.  Given the date of your final, I doubt you’re reading this, but that’s just as well: Everything I’ve thought about the film is in my Solaris Explained article, and I’m not holding anything back. To anyone else: please re-read the article, it’s all there.

3. An anonymous drive-by:

Your interpretations are not scholarly.

Well, as a way of saying “You suck!”, that’s more polite than usual.  Poking around at the server logs to figure out what had so provoked my anonymous correspondent,  I discovered (without any surprise) that a disappointed review of a right-wing political thriller (Vince Flynn’s Term Limits) had once again earned me some nameless name-calling.  For the record, I note that whenever I get a nasty anonymous comment, it’s almost always about a not-entirely-positive review of a right-wing thriller.  What really makes me laugh is that the review essentially says “someone smarter than me will have to review the political implications of this.”  Anonymous commentator’s reading comprehension: Poor.

4. Finally, a chance real-time encounter with a former local SMOF earned me the first real message handled by my new technical infrastructure…

For your SF reading, I suggest that you add Hal Clement and Harry Harrison.  Harry’s Stainless Rat series and “Star Smashers of the Galaxy Rangers” constantly bring tears (of laughter) to my eyes.  And for complete obsure – look for Charles R. Saunders…

They may not have been reviewed at length, but I have read plenty of Hal Clement (Mission of Gravity and others) and Harry Harrison (both works mentioned, and more).  On the other hand, Charles R. Saunders was a new name I should have known!

4. Search Queries Oddities

According to Google Analytics, here are the month’s most popular search keywords:

Keywords Visits
1 solaris explanation 17
2 solaris ending 13
3 christian sauvé 9
4 solaris explained 9
5 the runaway jury john grisham thesis synopsis 8
6 christian sauve 6
7 explain solaris 6
8 solaris movie explanation 6
9 dale brown american holocaust 5
10 solaris 2002 plot 4

Much Solaris again…

Other odd, special or amusing search keywords:

  • “plenty of cleavage” cleavage movie review
  • a movie about a bartender who becomes a hero and is hunted by a past
  • how edible is the book from the christian writer mary backster to hell and back?
  • review of symbolic, technical and audio codes used in the devil wears prada
  • when you trust a person’s word only, is this wrong

Until next time, my name is Christian Sauvé and I remain… obsessed by web statistics.

X. Special section: Site Redesign Notes

I woke up in mid-June with a few new priorities: I was pretty much caught-up in what I had to do, was giving a speech to a few dozen people at the end of the month, and couldn’t stand looking at my current web site.  Taken together, those three elements forced me to do something I had thought about since at least January 2008: Not only redesign the site visually, but convert the content to a database-driven Content Management System.

Picking WordPress was easy given the amount of experience I had with the system, and the just-right capabilities it offered.  But converting 250+ files of HTML code totaling about nine megabytes of data isn’t the find of thing you do in a lazy afternoon.  It’s pathetic to do elementary project management for a personal site redesign, but that’s what I ended up doing, with a real schedule on paper, deliverables, day-by-day objectives and critical paths.  All the HTML data had to be concatenated, then meta-tagged, corrected, normalized and exported to a format that could be automatically imported in a WordPress database.

I ended up doing things I wasn’t planning on doing, in ways I hadn’t even imagined.  I never could have finished the project without the industrial-strength text editor NotePad++ and the latest version of Microsoft Excel: Both applications covered for the other, but it’s Excel’s string-manipulation capabilities and ability to combine data in an XML template that really saved the day.  I ended up reverse-engineering the WordPress XML format and then generating files to import 2,500+ items back in the system.  The really dull stuff?  Adding the date meta-data that was until then implicit in the HTML filenames, and converting my MOVIE TITLES to semantically-rich Movie Titles.  There weren’t many programmatic ways of solving those issues.  Also annoying?  Finding out that being 90% accurate in entering meta-data over a dozen years is far from being good enough when that means hundreds of corrections over a thousand-items database.

It’s fair to say that my ambitions for my visual design were much, much higher than what I ended up applying.  But the bulk of the redesign time budget went to the data formatting, with the “fun” visual design ending up “good enough” early on.  There was a lot of tweaking (save for the commenting module code blatantly taken from the default Kubrick template, most of the template for this site was written from scratch), but it sort of came together.  I only tested with last-generation browsers: this is my personal site, and I don’t really care if IE6 blows up for visitors sad enough to be stuck with it.

Overall, the project took about forty-to-fifty hours, spread over four-hours weekdays and twelve-hour weekend days.  As an occasional web designer, I would have turned down that particular commission if it had come from an outside client.  On the other hand, there’s little in WordPress that scares me now that I’m done.

I have opened comments on nearly all items: I wonder how long it’s going to take until I regret it.

Very little content didn’t make it from the old to the new architecture.  What disappeared were usually essays I now strongly disagreed with (including one explaining why this site wasn’t a blog!), or collections of mini-reviews I couldn’t fit in the new site architecture, necessarily more rigid than the old one.  I really wanted to review my older reviews to remove the more embarrassing ones, but simply didn’t have the time.

I felt pretty proud of myself for finding a way to automatically integrate posters and book covers to my reviews, but plans to provide scans of all book covers and movie posters quickly disappeared once I realized how many of them there were (2,500+) and how long it would take to generate every graphical item even if I was on a fully-automated process.  (Basically: five minutes per book cover, two minutes per movie poster. If everything went well.)  I compromised by including full imagery for everything reviewed since January 2008… and will provide images from now on.  I hope, though, that my server space and bandwidth will be able to accommodate all of that new data.

What else should I note?  Well, XAMPP worked superbly as a local development web server. Facebook was useful to send a “new site” announcement to my usual network. I’m still learning The GIMP –now that’s another full-time project not to attempt in the middle of a major redesign!  I had some trouble with my host in installing WordPress, but nothing we weren’t able to handle after a few emails back and forth.  I had a lot of trouble sleeping during the twelve days of the project: Hot temperatures, heightened stress, lots of sugar and a head boiling with ideas.  But the site was more or less ready on-time, the speech went well and the project management worked more or less as planned.  Hopefully, future redesigns won’t be so difficult!

Expect a lot of changes in the statistics next month: More pages, but smaller pages: I can’t really predict what will be the impact on Google referrals, especially since I won’t remove the majority of the old static pages until August 1st.  We’ll see…

 

July 2009

July 2009 was the first full month of operation of christian-sauve.com as a fully-dynamic database-powered web site. As such, this report also marks a transition to a new way of counting the site’s activity metrics.  Don’t be afraid, and have a look at the stats below…

1. Mmm. Numbers…

This report used to depend on straight web-log statistics to estimate its number of visitors and page views.  This isn’t such a good idea with a database-driven engine such as WordPress: Modern content-management systems use a lot of support files, even for the simplest humblest page views.  Simple page counts don’t work well when each page requires about fifteen hits…

Fortunately, there’s Google Analytics, which crunches a lot of the numbers for me.

According to Google, the central metrics for the month are…

Metric This Month Last Month
Visits 741 650
Page Views 1,425 1,471
Pages/Visits 1.92 2.26
Bounce Rate 81% 84%
Average Time on Site 2:15 1:47
New Visits % 81% 88%

There’s no sense pretending that those are good numbers, but a few good metrics are, at least, improving.  This being said, much of this improvement is artificial: to help people poke around the site after its redesign, I have kept much of the old static site active even as Google and everyone else come to grip with the new dynamic one.

At the same time, my old-school Urchin stats are still around, and here’s what they are telling me, groos hit over-inflation and all:

Metric This Month Last Month
Total Visitors 8,196 7,147
Total Pageviews 32,393 25,812
(Corrected Total) 17,967 12,155
Total Hits 42,860 32,295
Total Bandwidth 621.2MB 477.8MB
Average Visitors/Day 264 238
Average Pageviews/Day 1,044 860
(Corrected average) 580 405
Average Hits/Day 1,382 1,076

The (Corrected) numbers I used to depend upon now makes little sense: How can you tell when a page request is a legitimate page request when there are tag pages and category pages and feed URLs?

Otherwise, well, the number are more or less as expected: a lot more activity (mostly from search engines) a staggering increase in bandwidth and all the other hallmarks of a site with a sudden ten-fold increase in pages.  This is the new normal.

According to Google, here are our ten most popular pages:

# Page Requests
1 /index.html 191
2 /reviews.html 140
3 /texts/solaris-explanation.htm 121
4 /francais/index.html 34
5 /reviews/index.html 28
6 /about.html 21
7 /the-reviews/index.html 19
8 /texts/100films.htm 18
9 /the-about/index.html 17
10 /links.html 15

There’s some cold irony, I suppose, in seeing that my old pages are still dominating the top-10.  That will change once Google catches onto the new site structure.

If you care about such things, (and it is fascinating stuff!), here’s a look at browser statistics for the month (by visitors), as provided by the clever gerbils at Google Analytics:

Browser This Month Last Month
1 Firefox (all) 223 212
2 IE 7.0 113 127
3 IE 8.0 105 65
3 Safari (all) 76 68
4 IE 6.0 70 63

The faster IE 6.0 dies, the better everyone will be. Yes, even you.

2. Where do these people come from?

According to Google Analytics, here are our main sources of visitors:

Source This Month Last Month
1. google / organic 436 410
2. books.google.com / referral 46 9
3. fractale-framboise.com / referral 24
4. en.wikipedia.org / referral 17 9
5. bing / organic 15 10

(Lingo key: “Organic” is Google’s way of saying that no one has paid for links leading back to christian-sauve.com on those search engines. “Referral” is supposed to be a direct link to this site.)

There’s an interesting rise in hits from books.google.com; I wonder if this is SEO in action now that my books reviews have prominent meta-data.

Google now lists about 3150 links for “Christian Sauvé”, up from last month. A look at the top-100 results showed no new links of significance.

3. Ohh! Visitor comments!

A bit of activity in the mailbox this month.  Let’s have a look:

1. Jeff from the UK had something to say about SOLARIS (2002)…

I would like to touch on the confusion about the higgs machine and the final warning from phantom-snow.

Firstly the higgs field is a theory which gives rise to mass throughout the universe. Gordon and phantom-snow decide that the phantoms are stabalised atomically by this field, and create a machine to unstabilise the particles of the phantoms, dispersing their matter into the universe. Playing with the higgs field distured the mass distribution and caused the ship to increase in mass thus the gravity acting on the ship increased, causing them to plumit to the surface of solaris.

I think this film may have something to do with parrallel universes and solaris somehow allows the crew members to dip in and out of this alternate universe. One theory behind alternate universes is that everytime a desicion is made multiple universes branch from ours with every possible out come of the desicion occuring in each new universe. This would give rise to the child and rheya still being alive but not having the same memories (she remembered taking the pregancy test, chris wasnt there to “pass” the memory to phantom-rheya, the choice of aborting the child resulted in the splitting of the universes). its a possibility 😛

Intriguing!

2. Dana from Oklahoma asked…

I would like to offer my review of a new Christian DVD coming out (…)

No, I don’t accept review copies.

4. Search Queries Oddities

According to Google Analytics, here are the month’s most popular search keywords:

Keywords Visits
1 solaris ending 15
2 solaris explained 15
3 christian sauve 12
4 christian sauvé 12
5 “crazy navy” site:christian-sauve.com 11
6 solaris movie plot 9
7 solaris movie explanation 8
8 solaris explanation 6
9 explain solaris 5
10 glenn kleier 4

Much Solaris again. Kind of wondering about the site-specific “crazy navy” thing, though…

Other odd, special, amusing or unexplainable search keywords:

  • csi blooper cats cradle eric george
  • bite me, bitch” harlan ellison
  • “for every timeless” zomby
  • gloria fluffy novelty
  • lighting cigars with dollar bills
  • sex at conventions worldcon
  • what 2002 movie was marketed with the tagline:the only way he can stay pro, is to play (like) a girl.
  • what happened in the book brasyl

August 2009

After a summer of changes, August 2009 was more business-as-usual for the site.  While remnants of the old static site are still kicking around the server like dusty underpassages to appease the Google, christian-sauve.com is settling down in its new CMS routine.  Let’s look at how this is shaking out numerically…

1. Mmm. Numbers…

According to Google, the central metrics for the month are…

Metric This Month Last Month
Visits 859 741
Page Views 2,057 1,425
Pages/Visits 2.39 1.92
Bounce Rate 83% 81%
Average Time on Site 1:55 2:15
New Visits % 84% 81%

The first three numbers are better; the last three are worse.  That’s the way it goes, right?

At the same time, my old-school Urchin stats are still around, and here’s what they are telling me, for comparison’s sake:

Metric This Month Last Month
Total Visitors 9,470 8,196
Total Pageviews 33,824 32,393
(Corrected Total) 14,987 17,967
Total Hits 45,755 42,860
Total Bandwidth 616.5MB 621.2MB
Average Visitors/Day 305 264
Average Pageviews/Day 1,091 1,044
(Corrected average) 500 580
Average Hits/Day 1,476 1,382

There’s a little bit of everything here, but compared to last month’s changes, it looks as if everything is stabilizing.  Bandwidth, most notably, seems to have stayed the same.  I expect the next few months to be roughly similar, as I delete more of the old static pages, refine my search engine exclusion directives and start having a presence on blog search engines.

According to Google, here are our ten most popular pages:

# Page Requests
1 /index.html 226
2 /texts/solaris-explanation.htm 217
3 /reviews.html 158
4 /the-reviews/index.html 44
5 /francais/index.html 38
6 /reviews/index.html 38
7 /reviews/2008/index.html 30
8 /reviews/2006/index.html 29
9 /reviews/2007/index.html 27
10 /texts/alternate-hugos.htm 24

There’s a mixture of old-static and new-dynamic content here, which is to be expected as I slowly phase out the old material.

If you care about such things, (and boy it is mesmerizing!), here’s a look at browser statistics for the month (by visitors), as provided by the clever gerbils at Google Analytics:

Browser This Month Last Month
1 Firefox (all) 278 223
2 IE 7.0 179 113
3 IE 8.0 144 105
3 Safari (all) 77 76
4 IE 6.0 66 70

Excellent news across the board: Every browser increases its numbers… except for you, IE6.

2. Where do these people come from?

According to Google Analytics, here are our main sources of visitors:

Source This Month Last Month
1. google / organic 540 436
2. yahoo / organic 30
3. bing / organic 26 15
4. en.wikipedia.org / referral 17 17
5. fractale-framboise.com / referral 14 24

(Lingo key: “Organic” is Google’s way of saying that no one has paid for links leading back to christian-sauve.com on those search engines. “Referral” is supposed to be a direct link to this site.)

Urchin, meanwhile, pegs the number of people coming in from bing as being much higher. Eh, who cares: Google remains on top no matter how you slice the data.

Speaking of which, Google now lists about 18,700 links for “Christian Sauvé”, up by almost one order of magnitude from last month. Since my own newly-redesigned site accounts only for 4,000 of those hits, I’m guessing that something has changed in the way Google indexes results.  (In fact, if you try to get to the end of the list, it chokes out at something like 550 entries) There’s little of significance in the new links, although I got name-checked a few times for this I did at or around the Montréal Worldcon.

3. Ohh! Visitor comments!

Just one tiny whisper of activity in the mailbox this month. Let’s have a look:

1. An anonymous complaint:

Hi..I can’t see what the prickly urchin is doing because your site reports aren’t working. (404 File not found).  I’m interested in what people search to get your site.

This is either because our anonymous visitor is still hanging in the static catacomb of the site, or because I hadn’t updated the links on the dynamic page. Oops. I have fixed the second and am working on the first.

4. Search Queries Oddities

According to Google Analytics, here are the month’s most popular search keywords:

Keywords Visits
1 solaris ending 28
2 solaris explained 17
3 solaris movie explanation 16
4 christian sauvé 15
5 solaris movie plot 14
6 christian sauve 9
7 torcon3 emerald city 9
8 solaris explanation 8
9 solaris movie ending 8
10 solaris movie summary 8

the torcon3 thing is a bit of an outlier, but the rest is depressingly in-line with the usual. When I pass away, I hope they don’t stick “he explained Solaris okay” on my tombstone.

Other odd, special, amusing or unexplainable search keywords:

  • @www.jesus sauve.com
  • an animated movie where the main characters have to avoid hammers in order to keep their memories
  • christian le suave
  • is surrogates based on altered carbon?
  • leelee sobieski aristocratic polish last name
  • what fictional modern day vampire hunter use a +mathematical equation to track vampires?

September 2009

As christian-sauve.com slowly settles into its new dynamically-driven profile, September 2009 doesn’t stand out as a particularly note-worthy month.  Let’s see the numbers…

1. Mmm. Numbers…

According to Google, the central metrics for the month are…

Metric This Month Last Month
Visits 1,056 859
Page Views 1,887 2,057
Pages/Visits 1.79 2.39
Bounce Rate 82% 83%
Average Time on Site 1:03 1:55
New Visits % 83% 84%

Most of the numbers are worse.  Oh well…

At the same time, my old-school Urchin stats are still around, and here’s what they are telling me, for comparison’s sake:

Metric This Month Last Month
Total Visitors 10,820 9,470
Total Pageviews 35,868 33,824
(Corrected Total) 14,987
Total Hits 52,324 45,755
Total Bandwidth 679.2MB 616.5MB
Average Visitors/Day 360 305
Average Pageviews/Day 1,195 1,091
(Corrected average) 500
Average Hits/Day 1,744 1,476

Well isn’t that just cute: Better numbers all the way down.  Oh, Google, you suck when you tell me bad news.

According to Google, here are our ten most popular pages:

# Page Requests
1 /index 225
2 /texts/solaris-explanation.htm 128
3 /reviews.html 61
4 /reviews/1996/books96b.htm 44
5 /francais 38
6 /the-reviews 38
7 /2009/09/the-lost-symbol-dan-brown 30
8 /category/reviews/bookreview 29
9 /being-canadian 27
10 /the-about 24

For the first time, dynamic content takes a top spot, with a surprise appearance by a single review.  I never thought I’d say this, but they ya go: Thank you, Dan Brown!

If you care about such things, (and I do!  I do!!), here’s a look at browser statistics for the month (by visitors), as provided by the clever gerbils at Google Analytics:

Browser This Month Last Month
1 Firefox (all) 338 278
2 IE 7.0 205 179
3 IE 8.0 198 144
3 Safari (all) 120 77
4 IE 6.0 86 66

Not much movement there.

2. Where do these people come from?

According to Google Analytics, here are our main sources of visitors:

Source This Month Last Month
1. google / organic 640 540
2. yahoo / organic 82 30
3. en.wikipedia.org / referral 55 17
4. bing / organic 24 26
5. fractale-framboise.com / referral 17 14

(Lingo key: “Organic” is Google’s way of saying that no one has paid for links leading back to christian-sauve.com on those search engines. “Referral” is supposed to be a direct link to this site.)

Google now lists about 17,600 links for “Christian Sauvé”, down almost 1,100 hits from last month.  Most of that number seems illusory (this site itself only accounts for 4,300 results, and there aren’t more than 550 results shown in the paged list.

Now that I have a Google Alert on my name, it’s easier than ever to note the various new links to the site.  Certainly, those alerts have clearly demonstrated how quickly the web can move now that I’m part of the blogosphere: Not much more than 24 hours after posting the review of a particular book, I received a notice that the book’s author had linked back to my site in noting the review.  For those of you taking place at home, it means that the following had occured in barely a day:

  • I post a review
  • Google indexes review
  • (I presume) Google sends an alert to the author
  • Author writes, posts mention
  • Google indexes mention
  • Google sends me an alert

Whew!

Otherwise, those alerts were goodenough to notify me about another Christian Sauvé taking up residence on Facebook, and (probably) another another 15-year-old Christian Sauvé taking up MMA.  Good luck to him… and I hope he grows up to become a feared competitor who will make the name “Christian Sauvé” interchangeable with “fierce fighter”.

3. Ohh! Visitor comments!

There wasn’t anything in the mailbox this month, but the spam is certainly picking up on the blog.  Most of it is forgettable, but there’s one that I particularly liked:

“Chicken” writes to say

I used to have money but after 6 months of a 10 Roosters per day habit I am now broke

I know it’s spam because I can Google that exact same sentence (and also because it links back to a US chicken fast food chain), but it still made me laugh.

4. Search Queries Oddities

According to Google Analytics, here are the month’s most popular search keywords:

Keywords Visits
1 torcon3 emerald city 27
2 solaris ending 16
3 christian sauvé 15
4 christian sauve 14
5 solaris explained 11
6 solaris movie explanation 9
7 glenn kleier 8
8 solaris movie plot 7
9 what part of canada’s political system is uniquely canadian and what shows influence of british governance? 7
10 sauve 6

The christian sauve and solaris stuff I understand; the rest, not so much.  Sometimes, I think of Google Analytics are the brilliant PhD guy who occasionally goes on absinthe benders and ends up ranting profanely about telepath geckos in the middle of his thesis.

Other odd, special, amusing or unexplainable search keywords:

  • how to build a crate
  • big screen vs small screen at ottawa’s world exchange theatre
  • poissonnerie christian sauvé
  • postmodern struggle in dude wheres my car
  • what does dan brown have against christians?

October 2009

Not much to say this month, as we settle into the fall season.  Let’s see the numbers…

1. Mmm. Numbers…

According to Google Analytics, the crucial metrics for the month are…

Metric This Month Last Month
Visits 1,109 1,056
Page Views 1,771 1,887
Pages/Visits 1.60 1.79
Bounce Rate 86% 82%
Average Time on Site 0:45 1:03
New Visits % 85% 83%

For the second straight month, numbers are generally down from all across the board.  Oh, woe.

At the same time, my old-school Urchin stats are still around, and here’s what they are telling me, for comparison’s sake:

Metric This Month Last Month
Total Visitors 11,022 10,820
Total Pageviews 35,117 35,868
Total Hits 54,867 52,324
Total Bandwidth 713.8MB 679.2MB
Average Visitors/Day 356 360
Average Pageviews/Day 1,132 1,195
Average Hits/Day 1769 1,744

Doesn’t look so catastrophic from that angle, so let’s put Urchin and Google in a ring and shout fight! fight! fight!

According to Google, here are our ten most popular pages:

# Page Requests
1 /index 184
2 /texts/solaris-explanation.htm 137
3 /2009/09/the-lost-symbol-dan-brown 45
4 /reviews.html 42
5 /being-canadian 33
6 /reviews/1996/books96b.htm 30
7 /the-reviews 30
8 /francais 25
9 /san-california-2009/index.php 24
10 /category/reviews/bookreview 22

Very nice showing here by Dan Brown. If I learned anything from this, it would be to post more reviews of topical content.  Hmmm…

If you care about such things, (and even if you don’t, I do!), here’s a look at browser statistics for the month (by visitors), as provided by the clever gerbils at Google Analytics:

Browser This Month Last Month
1 Firefox (all) 372 338
2 IE 7.0 206 205
3 IE 8.0 204 198
3 Safari (all) 155 120
4 IE 6.0 77 86

Not much movement there. IE8 is now within spitting distance of IE7 and IE6 can’t stop dropping, so there’s hope out there for all of my web designer peeps.

2. Where do these people come from?

According to Google Analytics, here are our main sources of visitors:

Source This Month Last Month
1. google / organic 709 640
2. yahoo / organic 88 82
3. en.wikipedia.org / referral 44 55
4. bing / organic 24 24
5. books.google.com / referral 22

(Lingo key: “Organic” is Google’s way of saying that no one has paid for links leading back to christian-sauve.com on those search engines. “Referral” is supposed to be a direct link to this site.)

Google now lists about 17,750 links for “Christian Sauvé”, up from last month. Most of that number seems illusory: this site itself only accounts for 6,100 results, and there are less than 1,000 results shown in the paged list.

The big new link of the month is a re-tweet of my review of Logicomix, which was another one of those “I get a Google News Alert of the author’s mention of the review 24 hours after posting the review” deal.

Otherwise, not much.

3. Ohh! Visitor comments!

This month featured a particularly empty mailbox, except for the spam. Harumph.

4. Search Queries Oddities

According to Google Analytics, here are the month’s most popular search keywords:

Keywords Visits
1 solaris ending 20
2 what part of canada’s political system is uniquely canadian and what shows influence of british governance? 19
3 torcon3 emerald city 17
4 christian sauvé 12
5 solaris movie explanation 12
6 solaris explained 10
7 christian sauve 8
8 from the notebooks of dr. brain sauve 8
9 100 good movies 7
10 glenn kleier 7

It would worry me witless to think that my site is a source of information about the canadian political/governance system, but I have concluded a while ago that Google is just making things up when it comes to search keywords.  (Well, except for the “christian sauve” searches.  Those are legit, you hear me? Totally legit.)

Assorted popular topics of search keywords this month included Hunter S. Thompson, Dan Brown and his Lost Symbol and the “Nikola Tesla Rockstar Scientist” poster I mentioned in my review of Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs.

Other odd, special, amusing or unexplainable search keywords:

  • “bon cop bad cop” slash fanfiction
  • “i’m not here to tell you how it ends”
  • “love being tortured”
  • the 100 most amusingly bad movies ever made
  • vancouver terminal yellow mound
  • what the hell happened at the end of solaris? movie
  • when will mutineer hunter thompson letters be published

Until next time, my name is Christian Sauvé and I remain… obsessed by web statistics.

7,147

2 thoughts on “Web Site Report – October 2009”

  1. Glenn Kleier
    Christian,

    May I ask, why does my name show up on your website report?

    Just curious.

    Thanks,

    Glenn

November 2009

Fall goes on, hits go down. Let’s see the numbers…

1. Mmm. Numbers…

According to Google Analytics, the crucial metrics for the month are…

Metric This Month Last Month
Visits 991 1,109
Page Views 1,472 1,771
Pages/Visits 1.49 1.60
Bounce Rate 84.7% 86%
Average Time on Site 0:50 0:45
New Visits % 87.4% 85%

Aaah, panic!  All numbers are down! Doom is upon us! What?  It’s just a web site? Well, okay then.

At the same time, my old-school Urchin stats are still around, and here’s what they are telling me, for comparison’s sake:

Metric This Month Last Month
Total Visitors 10,178 11,022
Total Pageviews 30,498 35,117
Total Hits 45,505 54,867
Total Bandwidth 622.8MB 713.8MB
Average Visitors/Day 339 356
Average Pageviews/Day 1,016.6 1,132
Average Hits/Day 1,516 1,769

What?  Urchin also agrees that my site is going down?  We’re dooooomed!

According to Google, here are our ten most popular pages:

# Page Requests
1 /index 151
2 /texts/solaris-explanation.htm 119
3 /being-canadian 44
4 /reviews/1996/books96b.htm 33
5 /francais 32
6 /san-california-2009/index.php 31
7 /2009/09/the-lost-symbol-dan-brown 29
8 /the-reviews 27
9 /reviews.html 26
10 /2009/07/in-defense-of-food-michael-pollan/ 25

It’s more and more interesting to see recent individual reviews of topical books rank highly in the top-10.  If I was smart, I’d write even more of them.

If you care about such things, (and even if you don’t, I do!), here’s a look at browser statistics for the month (by visitors), as provided by the clever gerbils at Google Analytics:

Browser This Month Last Month
1 Firefox (all) 377 372
2 IE 8.0 193 204
3 IE 7.0 161 206
3 Safari (all) 105 155
4 IE 6.0 63 77

IE8 takes over from IE7 (something I’ve noticed elsewhere as well) and IE6 keeps dropping on.  This is all very sweet.

2. Where do these people come from?

According to Google Analytics, here are our main sources of visitors:

Source This Month Last Month
1. google / organic 643 709
2. yahoo / organic 72 88
3. en.wikipedia.org / referral 49 44
4. bing / organic 16 24
5. fractale-framboise.com / referral 11

(Lingo key: “Organic” is Google’s way of saying that no one has paid for links leading back to christian-sauve.com on those search engines. “Referral” is supposed to be a direct link to this site.)

Google now lists about 17,900 links for “Christian Sauvé”, up from last month. I’m not sure where they all go.

According to Google Alerts, there weren’t any new major links this month.

3. Ohh! Visitor comments!

Not a whole lot fit to be shared with you, constant reader, in the mailbox this month.  A lot of spam, mostly.

4. Search Queries Oddities

According to Google Analytics, here are the month’s most popular search keywords:

Keywords Visits
1 christian sauvé 20
2 christian sauve 19
3 solaris ending 17
4 solaris explained 12
5 sex hunter 12
6 “the john varley reader” review 10
7 solaris movie explanation 8
8 torcon3 emerald city 8
9 what part of canada’s political system is uniquely canadian and what shows influence of british governance? 7
10 “i’m not here to tell you how it ends” 7

The “sex hunter” stuff worried me until I realized that all those queries were going to my review of Hunter S. Thompson’s political essay Better than Sex.

Other odd, special, amusing or unexplainable search keywords:

  • “why be original when you can be good”
  • christian sauve facebook
  • meow mix tracie thoms
  • what is the readership of malicious intent
  • what christian has to say about dan brown’s ‘lost symbols’

December 2009

End of the year! Let’s see the numbers…

1. Mmm. Numbers…

According to Google Analytics, the crucial metrics for the month are…

Metric This Month Last Month
Visits 1,241 991
Page Views 1,984 1,472
Pages/Visits 1.60 1.49
Bounce Rate 87.3% 84.7%
Average Time on Site 0:51 0:50
New Visits % 90.9% 87.4%

The number look better, but there’s something wrong with them.  Keep reading to find out what.

At the same time, my old-school Urchin stats are still around, and here’s what they are telling me, for comparison’s sake:

Metric This Month Last Month
Total Visitors 31,325 10,178
Total Pageviews 37,729 30,498
Total Hits 75,030 45,505
Total Bandwidth 723.6MB 622.8MB
Average Visitors/Day 1,010 339
Average Pageviews/Day 1,217 1,016
Average Hits/Day 2,420 1,516

Definitely something wrong; my site just isn’t that popular.  Keep reading for the answer.

According to Google, here are our ten most popular pages:

# Page Requests
1 /texts/solaris-explanation.htm 497
2 /index 201
3 /reviews.html 50
4 /francais 38
5 /reviews/1996/books96b.htm 36
6 /the-reviews 27
7 /essays 24
8 /texts/100films.htm 23
9 /2009/11/kitchen-confidential-anthony-bourdain/ 18
10 /category/reviews/bookreview/index.php 18

Not too bad, although I wish the Solaris article didn’t outrank my index page. (Google tells me there was a hug spike on December 20th, probably due to another network TV showing of the film.)

But the answer to the grossly overinflated page view numbers are to be found in the unfiltered Urchin stats, which tell me that my Mimic review has been requested 2,519 times, that my Post Grad review has been seen 279 times and other bizarre results: Simply put, I got hammered by spammers.  Which I could tell from the spam itself.

If you care about such things, (and even if you don’t, I do!), here’s a look at browser statistics for the month (by visitors), as provided by the clever gerbils at Google Analytics:

Browser This Month Last Month
1 Firefox (all) 444 377
2 IE 8.0 236 193
3 IE 7.0 175 161
4 Safari (all) 158 105
5 IE 6.0 90 63

What you’re not seeing is that Chrome is within 25 points of taking over IE6 in 5th place.

2. Where do these people come from?

According to Google Analytics, here are our main sources of visitors:

Source This Month Last Month
1. google / organic 876 643
2. yahoo / organic 91 72
3. en.wikipedia.org / referral 42 49
4. alecospapadatos.blogspot.com / referral 19
5. bing / organic 16 16

(Lingo key: “Organic” is Google’s way of saying that no one has paid for links leading back to christian-sauve.com on those search engines. “Referral” is supposed to be a direct link to this site.)

The hits coming from alecospapadatos.blogspot.com are consequence of a mention of my review of Logicomix.

Google now lists about 13,700 links for “Christian Sauvé”, down from last month by almost a third, although at those numbers it doesn’t mean a lot.

According to Google Alerts, there weren’t any new major links this month.  A lot of blog-spam, but no new links worth investigating.

3. Ohh! Visitor comments!

Guess what?  A lot of spam.

Much of the spam comes in as blog post comments, by the truckload.  Much of it can be scapped without a moment’s thought, being identical and making no pretence at being anything but spam.  But from time to time, spammer get craftier.  Consider this:

I want to quote your post in my blog. It can? And you et an account on Twitter?

Intriguing… except that the attached link to a Twitter-spam blog, and that a quick search on “And you et an account” nets hundreds of identical results.  Deleted, mister spammer –you idiot.

There there are the people leaving asinine content-free comments in the hope of getting a link back to their site.  Not gonna happen!

4. Search Queries Oddities

According to Google Analytics, here are the month’s most popular search keywords:

Keywords Visits
1 solaris ending 55
2 solaris explained 51
3 solaris movie explanation 47
4 solaris explanation 23
5 solaris film ending 15
6 solaris movie plot 15
7 solaris plot explanation 15
8 solaris movie ending 13
9 christian sauvé 12
10 christian sauve 11

So, yeah.  Solaris.

Other odd, special, amusing or unexplainable search keywords:

  • “black actresses” and danger in action movies action movies for
  • drop the gun! and you, santa, drop the elephant” 2003 comedy
  • what is in gordons room? solaris
  • why are christian movies so bad?

Until next time, my name is Christian Sauvé and I remain… obsessed by web statistics.