Does anything surprise me? A lot of my results are close to the composite. I was surprised that only 12.29% were lawyers or judges. I guess lawprofs check the "education" category (5.08%), and law students check the "students" category (7.63%). Adding all three categories, you get 25% (which includes nonlaw teachers and students). Not as much as I thought. I like having a mix of readers, so this is nice to know! I have more engineers than teachers, strangely, and quite different from the composite.
I guess the political breakdown is important:
Apolitical -- 1.75%More than half my readers are libertarian/independent? And Democrats do not love me. But I already knew that.
Democrat -- 10.92%
Republican -- 35.81%
Libertarian -- 25.33%
Independent -- 25.76%
Green -- 0.44%
ADDED: Am I low in the "teachers" category because Democrats do not love me?
Posts
36 comments:
Since I didn't take the survey, I report that I consider myself a left-leaning independent, and I am a lawyer and former teacher, and I am a faithful reader.
I did a post asking people to take the survey, so it's kind of an indicator of hardcore readers.
Definately methodologically flawed. I probably comment here as much as almost anyone, and wasn't polled. I supose that, given that I actually use my own name, they could have tracked me down, but that won't work for many here.
On the other hand, the political breakdown doesn't seem that out of line here. Ann probably never expected to pick up that many Republicans + Libertarians (over 60%) merely by coming out, after a lot of deliberation, for Bush in the last election.
Ann isn't like a lot of us. I had decided months, if not years, before hand, how to vote in the last election. The only Democrat running whom I would even have considered voting for was Joe Lieberman, and he was knocked out early.
I like the mix, because there is enough diversity to make it interesting, but Ann manages to chase off the trolls from both sides because of their incivility.
But one reason that I suspect the methodology is that if those responding are representative of her readership, I would expect more liberal readership. Maybe closer to 25% instead of less than half that. I suspect though that many whom I see as liberal, see themselves as independent.
And, yes, I am in the 12.29%.
I'm sure you get fewer lawyers than the more purely legal sites (e.g., Volokh).
It's your non-legal/cultural posts that keep a lot of your readers coming back, and may leave lawyers and judges to look for other sites.
But, who knows? I'm a lawyer, and I like your non-legal stuff. Except American Idol. Yuk (shiver).
I find it interesting that a majority of the commenters here to the post on the demographics of this blog are in the approximately 1/8 of those surveyed who are lawyers.
Could this be because lawyers like to talk more than most?
I'm not sure how to put this delicately, but you've pointed out yourself that Althouse is not a blawg, and that you have no desire for it to be a blawg. Why, therefore, would it be surprising that most readers are not in the legal profession? I mean, one would expect a site like Volokh to have a high level of readership from lawyers and academics, becasue it's a blawg; sure, it talks about other stuff, but its primary focus is law. Althouse is a blog, which happens to be written by a law prof, and which sometimes talks about law. If that's the goal, why is it surprising, then, that the number of legal types is closer to that which one would expect on a blog than on a blawg?
Simon: I think lawyers like a mix of things and are smart, broad-minded persons with lots of interests, not people who just follow law. (And, yecchh, I hate the word "blawg.")
Dave: That's why I inserted the "kind of."
I think it is interesting how your readers (at least the ones who responded) differ from the population who anzwered the survey. In addition to being more likely to be lawyers than educators or Republicans v. Democrats, your readers reported being more educated, read more blogs, and read them for better perspective.
I did respond to the survey, and I remember being struck by the list of magazines offered as choices - I subscribe to a lot of magazines, and not one of them was listed!
Dave is exactly right in saying that "Self-selected populations do not yield valid conclusions about the larger set of all blog readers." You'd need a random sample of readers, properly weighted to be reflective of the population you're trying to measure, before you could draw any meaningful extrapolations from the survey sample responses to that entire population.
It's odd that, even with a well educated readership, bogus conclusions become convincing if you just put them in numerical form (to two decimal places, no less) -- 12.29% are in category X. There is no reason to think that the figures in this survey provide an accurate snapshot of Ann's readership -- the truth could just as easily be 2%, 20% or 40%. If the figures in this survey are even close, it's just a function of dumb luck -- you'd do just as well by guessing based on intuition.
These points are all pretty obvious, and thus it's odd that a junk survey like this nevertheless still has the power to persuade people who know better. It seems that numbers just add their own powerful magic.
I think lawyers like a mix of things and are smart, broad-minded persons with lots of interests, not people who just follow law.
Yes, this liberal/independent lawyer appreciates the mix and finds highly-focused "blawgs" can get a bit tiring.
Richard: The most impressive numbers have $ in front of them, which is what BlogAds is really about. They are trying to get something that will convince people to advertise on blogs.
JOE: Thanks. Law is a great place for a smart person with general interests. You deal with all sorts of real-world problems. The facts of a case could be about anything, and you need to be able to jump in and get up to speed on something to work with it.
"Richard: The most impressive numbers have $ in front of them, which is what BlogAds is really about. They are trying to get something that will convince people to advertise on blogs."
Yes, of course. Three points. No one in this thread has such a financial interest, but the numbers from the survey are still being given some level of credence when they have none.
Second, I doubt that "people [who] advertise on blogs" are so numerically illiterate as to miss the obvious reasons why this survey is junk, Despite that, BlogAds must believe that putting bogus claims in numerical form works. At least here, the "willing suspension of disbelief" really describes one's reaction to statistics, not drama.
Third, anyone who uses junk surveys like this to sell anything had better be careful. A couple of years ago, I tried a false advertising case before Judge Jack B. Weinstein (EDNY, and a sharper judge one would be hard to find), where the case focused on the use of bogus statistical claims of usage that the defendant had incorporated into its sales and ad campaign to sell pages in a telephone directory. (Verizon Directories v. Yellow Book, 338 FSupp2d 422). The judge found liability, and along the way ripped into the witness from the Harris Organization for the really flawed surveys that they had conducted for the defendant to support the claims the judge found to be false.
So if BlogAds are using this survey as you say, they better watch out.
Dave said...
"How representative of your readers are these statistics? I, for example, and a regular reader and commenter, but was not aware of this survey until you chose to report on it."
Well, that you - and I think others, too - didn't notice this survey being advertised here is part of the challenge for companies trying to generate revenue advertising on blogs. I scarcely even notice that there are adverts on this site; my eye just skips over them, and I suspect I'm hardly alone in that. Of course, one is aware that they are physically present on the page, but I have no idea what they say, still less what they are advertising.
Ann,
I think your true political beliefs are not easily discernible. Nor are your views predictable. In my mind, I link the low # of Democrats back to an earlier observation you made about a certain amount of intolerance and vitriol that comes from some liberals against those who disagree with them.
Advertisers on blogs, as in other media, allocate their dollars based on readership information. BlogAds surveyed the readers of numerous blogs and the data is being used more in a comparative than absolute sense. From that point of view a lot of the sampling error drops out, as all the respondents share the same bias -- namely, a predisposition to respond to online "offers," which is just what the advertisers want.
I, for one, hope this kind of survey gives them data with sufficient accuracy for their purposes. The alternative is for blogs to start requiring registration with contact and demographic info, the same as other online media. Who wants that?
Dave: It wasn't an ad that took you to the survey. It was a link in a post, with me saying please take the survey.
I mean Simon, not Dave.
Oh please, what is different between blogad's methods and what any trade magazine does when you apply for your "free registration?"
Sure it's self-reported, sure it's skewed (I reported my occupation as CEO Amazon), but it is seen as a reasonable self-report of folks most-likely to click.
The only failing I see is the inability to breakdown politically independent or libertarian between:
a) I am Republican but embarrassed to admit it
b) I am a true independent, I vote however Rush tells me to vote
c) I am a libertarian but embarrassed to admit it.
Self-selection is a huge issue here. Dems will have been underreported since half of them believe the Facist [sic] Rethuglikkkaliburtoncons of Bu$hilerburton's Amerikkkaburton will ship 'em off in cattle cars to be gassed the minute they admit who they vote for.
Mind you, I'm not saying they're wrong. I already called Rovelerburton at the White Houseliburton and told him I want dibs on Quxxo for a lampshade (by the way, Q., Rovehitler can see you under your bed, too, so you may as well crawl out and sit upright for a change — your back will thank you). Gotta plan ahead, guys.
I want to emphasize a point MadisonMan made about the survey (which is self-selected and has all the issues noted): It's going to be used for COMPARATIVE purposes. That's the key concept.
I did self-select to take this survey, and I think it's sort of fun to look at the results of the entire self-selected group and compare.
Finally, am I the only one here who deliberately clicks through ads on sites I regularly visit, as a payback to the blogger for the work he or she does?
I mean, you know, after all ... .
I'm surprised that people are quibbling over the reader-politics stats here on the blog, for they seem pretty representative of the voting public. A relatively small percentage on the wings (both right and left) will vehemently proclaim themselves to be diehard and embattled Reps or Dems, while a majority of the country prefers to view themselves in some shade of "independent" or "libertarian", concerned about cross-party issues (the economy, security of the country, the environment, religious issues, family values, etc). As I travel, I'm often amazed how "liberal" I find Republicans in many parts of the country, and how "conservative" I find Democrats. The media (and pollsters) struggle to put us into these neat categories, but most Americans are more thoughtful, and intelligent, than the media believes.
And what I forgot to add above, is that Ann is an excellent representative of this "thoughtful and intelligent" middle group, and so it seems natural that a large cross-section of readers would be attracted to her blog.
"Law is a great place for a smart person with general interests."---Ann
Such a booster, cheerleader, our Ann is! She knows who butters her bread.
The truth: If one isn't going to go to med school, what else is there, but law school?
I wonder if there are any law professors with enough chutzpa to tell it like it really is:
Law School--A holding tank for those without other options----IMHO
(We can tell it like it is, here, right?)
P.S. Time to ditch the Podcast, Ann. All that work for nothin'!
Law school, a holding tank? Law school only takes 3 years and provides an extremely useful credential, with many options. You may have noticed that I never elaborate on the subject of how fabulous it is to be a law professor. I think it would disturb people! And let me say that, undergrad, I majored in fine arts.
Booster booster.
I want to hear about the edgy, dark side of law school/law.
There's a former law student, Cameron Stracher, who wrote a good memoir "Double Billing"....read it about 4 years ago, also read his other book...can't remember the title (It takes a lot to get me to read something that's not in large print)....
Anyway, he's on Blogger !!!!
www.dinnerwithday.blogspot.com
Compliment: What I love about Ann's is that it leads to other things......
Law Students:..... they all aspire to become the next John Grisham/David Kelley/Cameron Stracher ????....
Peace, Maxine
oooops.
wwww.dinnerwithdad.blogspot.com
Peace, Maxine
Remenmber that:
97.568 %
of stats are in error by 4.27 point in 45.89245 % of the cases
Verif : zzonmil
Damn, I'm sorry I didn't vote in this survey.
How are you doing, in the "talkative would-be medical student on sabbatical" category?
Gotta be better than the librarian percentile.
Cheers,
Victoria
Hint: Imagine how many more visits you'd get by ditching the American Idol blogging.
Peace, Maxine
Darn, I missed this post until just now. I wanna know who the four people are that read Soldier of Fortune!
That was quite the ironic/hip magazine to read when I was in college.
I discern two distinct populations of Althouse blog readers (surveyed). The 26% who regularly read a few blogs (5-7) every day, and the 60% who read MANY, MANY blogs every day (upwards of 25!!!).
The picture's a little murky when you look at the weekly hours of blog reading reported. People tend to pick multiples of 5; the histogram shows local maxima at 5, 10, 15, and 20 hours. That sounds dubious. Perhaps Althouse readers think in efficient, "round" numbers.
Although a few of us did a little calculation to get our numbers (9?).
Most interestingly, the larger prime numbers are strongly avoided--noone reported 11, 13, or 17 hours of weekly blog reading!
And RSS and podcasts clearly remain in the hinterlands of blog consumerism.
Yeah, if you check the Althouse results against the composite, you see the same embrace of 5x's and avoidance of 11, 13, and 17.
Neat.
And I love that so many people blog to keep track of their thoughts. Because what happens when you don't? They just slip away.
How can that interest be better exploited commercially? Because it looks like more and more people want to keep track of their thoughts every year.
Or maybe they don't. Maybe people just say they want to keep track of one's thoughts because it sounds better than the truth. Whatever that might be. "Yeah, keeping track of my thoughts. That's what I wanna do."
Post a Comment