contentious.com

(NOTE: This is part 4 of a series exploring the results of the 2004 CONTENTIOUS Reader Survey, which was completed by 157 respondents as of Aug. 18, 2004. See the complete index for more survey results. Additional results will be published in future entries.)

Question 4 on the 2004 CONTENTIOUS Reader Survey was:
How did you first find out about CONTENTIOUS?

Here’s how the 157 respondents to this question replied:

1. 44.6%: Link from another site or weblog
2. 26.1%: Not sure
3. 11.5%: Personal recommendation
4. 7%: Web search (Google, Yahoo, etc.)
5. 5.1%: Online discussion forum (e-mail or other)
6. 3.2%: Webfeed search or tool (Feedster, Syndic8, etc.)
7. 1.9%: Mentioned in a print publication or book
8. 0.6%: Trackback/pingback

Here’s what those numbers mean…
overed CONTENTIOUS via a link from another site or weblog – far more than by any other channel, even search engines (7%). This illustrates the overwhelming power of links, especially in the blogosphere.

In my experience, links from other sites tend to be the most important way to attract traffic in the long run. I’m not talking about those shallow “Hey, let’s trade links!” kind of links. I’m talking about when a site merits links (usually unsolicited) from other sites due to the quality and unique value of its content.

When links are merited, not merely traded, something wonderful happens to the web: meaningful context. The connections that weave the web become more about true relatedness of content and less about blind traffic-driving or various deals. This enhances the quality of the web overall – including, ultimately, the usefulness of search engine results.

This is why when I find content worthy of linking to, I usually make sure to mention where I found that content – whether it’s a web site, blog, discussion forum, newsletter, etc. I don’t bother doing this for search engine results, of course. Google already has enough traffic.

When I create these links,make them as specific as possible (not just to the home page) so that my readers can retrace my steps if they so desire. As a journalist I value citations of original (or at least previous) sources, so I like to provide that same value. I consider this strategy informational good karma – but ultimately this courtesy probably yields even more incoming links to CONTENTIOUS.

Interestingly, 11.5% of respondents reported discovering CONTENTIOUS via personal recommendation – that is, it was mentioned by a friend, colleague, or family member. People do talk – and in this case, that is even more valuable to my ongoing readership than search engine placement. Honestly, I was a bit surprised by that.

…I don’t mean to imply that search engines are inconsequential to traffic. Indeed, 7% of respondents discovered CONTENTIOUS through search engines. I would like to see if I could improve that in the future, but right now it’s not a high priority. Ultimately, I think referrals through links and personal recommendations tend to draw traffic which is more likely to convert into ongoing readership, rather than a one-time visit.

I was surprised that only 5.1% of respondents discovered CONTENTIOUS via an online discussion group, since my publication and its various contents have been discussed in various forums online a great deal over the years.

But I’m not surprised that more than one-fourth of respondents (26.1%) reported being not sure how they first discovered CONTENTIOUS. This publication has been around for awhile, since 1998. Many people have been reading CONTENTIOUS for years. I know I certainly don’t recall how I first discovered the BONG Bulletin (Burned-Out Newspapercreatures Guild, and its sister blog Newsgorilla). It’s been a long time.

I do want to continue to attract new readers, and I’ll be investigating some ways to make that happen – legitimately (on the merits of my content), not through spamming. More on that in future postings.

But in the meantime, if you like CONTENTIOUS please feel free to link to this blog and tell your friends. I appreciate your support.

(NEXT: The most popular CONTENTIOUS topics…)