Robert Scoble has a blog post entitled New audience metric needed: engagement where he writes
I was just reading Jeneane Sessum’s post about the latest Ze Frank/Rocketboom dustup
and she’s right, we need to measure stuff other than just whether a
download got completed or not. She says we need a “likeability” stat. I
think it goes further than that.
There’s another stat out there called “engagement.” No one is measuring it that I know of. What do I mean?
Well, I’ve compared notes with several bloggers and journalists and when the Register
links to us we get almost no traffic. But they claim to have millions
of readers. So, if millions of people are hanging out there but no one
is willing to click a link, that means their audience has low
engagement. The Register is among the lowest that I can see.
Compare that to Digg. How many
people hang out there every day? Maybe a million, but probably less.
Yet if you get linked to from Digg you’ll see 30,000 to 60,000 people
show up. And these people don’t just read. They get involved. I can
tell when Digg links to me cause the comments for that post go up too.
I've heard Frank Shaw state anecdotally that blogs are more 'influential' than traditional media websites. You get more click-throughs from being mentioned in a popular blog than from being mentioned in a more popular technology website. I'm interested in theories on why this is the case. Could it be that bloggers are more 'influential' over their audience than traditional media? Are blog readers more 'engaged' as Robert puts it?
I read Jeneane's Sessum's post to be quite irritating. The smug assumption that if you like something then it must be more popular or at least 'better' on some made-up axis than what everyone else likes is a hallmark of the blogosphere echo-chamber. You see the same kind of egotistical thinking in Stowe Boyd's post criticizing Yahoo! bookmarks in comparison to del.icio.us.