It has been some time since I engaged in a most unscientific analysis. The first time I compared two articles each time and drew extremely questionable conclusions. The second time I tried to unravel the psychology of the average Thailand blog reader based on the top 10 postings. That exercise also produced highly questionable conclusions.
Today I want to delve into September 20, because never before has the moderator been so busy as on that day. The number of responses, which normally averages 70, shot up to around 150, which may be a record – but he couldn't say for sure. That top crowd was remarkable, because September 20 was a Friday, while Sunday is usually the busiest day on Thailandblog.
The explanation is quickly drawn - you don't need to have followed a scientific study or written a learned dissertation for that: on that day three subjects scored like crazy. I will list them first in order of the number of responses and then in order of the number of page views: Calling Thailand from the Netherlands (49), Tourists should avoid attractions with animals (47) and Why do Thais swim with their clothes on (38). Swimming Thais: 1896 page views, the callers: 1260 and the animals: 827.
What I remember from my school days – if I didn't skip school to play a game of billiards with fellow truants in the pub on the corner – is the concept of correlation. What is Correlation? Wikipedia brings a solution: In statistics people speak of correlation if there appears to be a more or less (linear) relationship between two series of measurements or the possible values of two random variables. The strength of this relationship is described by the correlation coefficient: from -1 to +1. Wikipedia warns: A (significant) correlation does not suggest causation.
And that is true in our case. The conclusion 'A posting with many reactions is because it has been read a lot' cannot be drawn, because then the second row should be identical to the first row, which it is not. The swimmers with the most page views had the fewest responses, and the other two topics were reversed.
Unfortunately I cannot give the correlation coefficient, because Wikipedia does not write how to calculate it and my textbook from the time is with De Slegte (if it is still there). But yes, dear readers, that's why I call my analysis 'extremely unscientific', so you can't blame me.
The extremely unscientific analysis of some blog visits appeared on March 12 and of the top 10 postings on April 28.
Hi Dick,
I think it is easy to explain, it depends on the topics that were read on the blog that day.
These were all recognizable topics that, as a tourist or expat, often quickly have an opinion or advice about.
Because these are subjects, propositions, reader questions that people often have to deal with as a farang.
Such as calling, swimming with clothes on, avoiding the animals, can I ride my girlfriend's moped, visas, food, etc.
It's pretty easy to give an opinion on these sorts of topics, and coincidentally these bits and bobs were all posted on the same day, hence the many responses I think.
It's a different story if you put topics like the rubber farmers, the dam walkers, or the lead poisoning in Kanchanaburi on the same day.
I'm sure the number of comments will be much less then, because they are really Thai topics, I mean what is really going on in Thailand.
Most of us then drop out because people simply don't know enough about it to comment on it.
Agree with Farang tingtong's response, the most popular statements are those that cut corners or that deal with the "strange" behavior of the Thai people.
Furthermore, we are all experts on Thai women and relationships with these women, oh yes, the annoying behavior of Russians also works well.
Hi Dick,
1 – Of course, first the topics that attract / stimulate attention.
2 – How does a commenter feel that day??? Does he feel like responding or not?
3 - If you've read some of the comments from (sorry) vinegar pissers, which come with the wrong
leg got out of bed and so a number of others
attacks, then many people have already been.
Or not, but then you have a chance that the moderator will throw in the blunt axe.
4 – I'll keep this one to myself, because an eraser will be used over it.
But I think the above also has a lot of influence on the reactions.
Sometimes I also want to respond, but when I read all those yes and no stories, then I've really already been there.
But Dick, chapeau how you keep translating all those stories from BP for this blog.
Only the story of those farmers who do or do not own their own seed, sorry, I thought I had a little more intelligence, but I don't get it.
But yes, you already wrote that yourself, so I feel relieved.
Greetings,
Louisa.
We love statistics. It has also influenced society in such a way that we spend a lot of time collecting and disseminating the data.
Statistics about air accidents, satisfaction surveys and yes, the number of page views of Thailand blog.
So the data is total on a busy day as it displays 4117 page views on a busy day.
extrapolated to a month this would be 123.510 page views.
However, it is indicated on the site that there are 230.000 visitors per month.
If the numbers are correct, then there is a difference.
Visitors commit multiple page views.
Reversed if each visitor visits 5 pages is the number of page views
230.000 X 5=1.150000 page views.
Reversed 230.000/5 = 46.000 visitors.
Who will help me out of this confusion.
@ Henk JU juggles with figures, but that is precisely the attractiveness of an unscientific analysis. I have not given the total number of page views for that day, but only for the three postings. Indeed, the number of visits per month (230.000) is not identical to the number of unique visitors per month. That is 75.804.
You're making it too difficult, Dick, by looking for a correlation factor that isn't there.
There is no correlation between the number of views and the number of responses. it ranges from 1 in 18 to 1 in 50. As an analysis I would say:
The subject of swimming with or without clothes had a spicy touch and therefore attracted a lot of interest, but apparently it was not that interesting, so few responses.
Calling from the Netherlands received a lot of attention because there might be some money to be made and the number of responses I think matched the number of views (1 in 26).
Finally, the Animal Attractions: Not an exciting subject, especially interesting for animal activists and they are willing to respond. So a high score of responses.
Still, such an unscientific analysis.