Thank you very much to the advertisers below who support UKClimbing.com and who have joined us recently or have renewed their commitment to the UK's number one climbing and mountaineering website. Most have signed up for 12 months.
Also for those interested, some recent UKClimbing.com traffic/readership information, below
- Average number of visitors to the site each day is hovering around 10,000. This is fairly constant with some visiting daily, some once a week and everything in between.
With monthly unique visitors at 136,00 looking at 7.7 million pages.
We rank higher than any mountaineering/climbing/walking website in the UK:"UKClimbing.com has a traffic rank of: 73,964."
In the UK we are the 2,736th most popular website.
At Alexa you can put any website in and it gives you a rank. And you can compare sites.
Bottom line is this, thanks to you and our advertisers, and our commitment to the forums, daily climbing news, weekly articles, the photos you upload, logbooks you fill in, and weekly gear reviews we are the most read climbing and mountaineering media in the UK.
Impressive but climbers being climbers many more read magazines than buy them and those of us afflicted UKC regulars, use many different PC's over the year to access here, which would count as mulitiple personalities. If I was you I'd say "we may well be" rather than "we are".
That's interesting, because we were wondering about the number of users a couple of weeks ago. By a simple process of binary search on user ID, I got to the latest registered user (12/06/08 19:19) as 82506. Which means there are nearly 36,000 'dead' users...
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Thanks Mick, And i Quick thank you to you too for having such a good ranking that has in turn helped my own littl e fledgling site reach its record number of unique visits this month exceeding 250 and the month is not over yet!
And i was looking out for you on sunday when i was mooching round a very wet Ambleside!
serously though. Good to know it's thriving and cheers for the service. Are you sure me getting banned and unbanned doesn't count as new users registering though? This could account for around 30,000 of them?
> You are, of course, assuming that user IDs are sequential.
True, but I think that it's almost certain that IDs are assigned sequentially. Certainly, when I was doing my search, they came to an abrupt end.
I can't see that anyone other than strange would do anything otherwise; a pseudo-random assignment based on a polynomial LFSR might be used, but to no real purpose...
What it means is that 36,000 users have been and gone. For whatever reasons.
"Yes I know all that. No, it's we are, by a long shot."
I'll give you some examples of why you might be wrong. You are not actually 100% certain as no one can be. Plus, just to make sure people dont get the wrong impression about my motives in this: UKC is my favourite climbing media by a big margin.
Tens of thousands of climbers go to my local wall annually and of the minority (but still a very big number) who browse mags in the cafe or that are for sale, very few actually buy.
I and most of my climbing friends used to look through every climbing mag that came out (and buy the few that looked good). Even now Id say I look at most issues (and haven't bought a mag for a few years)
A climbing magazine is a periodical, your site runs continuously. You are not comparing like with like.
Many magazines now come with web sites that should be added to the stats.
Anecdotal observation have there uses but also limitations.
Without full and public disclosure from a media, conclusions are hard to make, especially as regards 'readership' which is calculated in various ways and multiplied by a figure ranging from 1.75 to 4.
Honesty is only possible if you have a third party reporting and auditing and importantly that those figures are open to discussion. Ours are, we have nothing to hide. We want to give full value to everyone, in fact we are passionate about it.
Magazine websites, both print and online, are easy to track comparatively at http://www.alexa.com/
And yes we are comparing like for like, just a different method of delivery of content.... you are correct about availability however!
