These are the last 10 additions to Gangleri.nl. On the right you can see what is new per section and the latest comments sitewide. You can click the button to subscribe to the news feed.
Monas.nl is registered per March 20 2002. Gangleri.nl took over in May 2007. That means that in 2017 I will have been owner of the domain for 15 years, but it has been inactive for 10 years. For many years I had the idea to keep Monas.nl for possible future projects. The only such project was the short-lived Traditionalism Discussion Group. For the other years the domain has just been forwarding to Gangleri.nl. There are a few links on the internet to Monas.nl, but not many. However I still like the domain, I decided to let go of it. Why hold on to something that has been out of use for a decade? Per March 20 2017 I have discontinued the ownership. It may be interesting to see if somebody else will pick up the domain and what kind of website it will be.
It has been over two years since I had a look at the statistics. Why do I even bother collecting them? Perhaps they are usefull in a way. More about that later.
I do not even remember when, but the previous plugin that I used for statistics was no longer maintained and a while ago it actually stopped working. I had to look for another simple stats plugin, but the results are quite different from before. Did I misinterpret the previous plugin or do I misinterpret the current one? Do they work much different from eachother? One thing is for sure, the new plugin is hard on me.
The current plugin allows me to pick a period and then gives me a few numbers. I used the period “this year so far” and come to the following numbers:
- Main website, 384 pageviews, that is 3 average daily pageviews over a 120 day period. In this period 233 unique IPs visted either the index page or the website intro. Many people come to the index by following a link to an old website (for example Monas.nl). With the previous plugin I came to almost 40 unique visitors per day. Now just below 2. Quite a difference! Which would be most credible?
- Articles, 2804 pageviews, that is 23 daily average. 1791 Unique IPs. The previous plugin came at 73 unique visitors per day two years ago. When I have a look at the download counter for my ‘downloadable’ articles, I can see that two years ago the counter for the “Traditionalism vs Tradiotionalism” article stood at 307, now I have 337 for the PDF; the Epub went from 31 to 141 (!). “Traditionalistic Asatru” went from 115 to 261 for the PDF and from 45 to 133 for the Epub file. That does not sound too bad;
- Book reviews, 1091 pagesviews in 2016, 9 per day, 535 unique IPs. Those were 85 unique visitors with the other plugin two years ago.
- Film reviews, 415 pagesviews, 3 per day, 70 unique IPs; 38 unique visitors per day two years ago;
- Music reviews, 805, 6 and 276; 86 unique visitors two years ago, 6 now;
- News, 31, 0 and 14. I have not listed the news section previously.
This immediately tells me that close to nobody is going to see this message, since I posted it in the “news” section, which is visited by 14 people in 2016. Thank you for reading this when you are one of those. I am going to share this little text on Facebook and see what happens.
Like two years ago, I am quite surprised that the film reviews section has so few visitors. It is the section with the most updates. Almost every week I review one or two films, while music reviews go a lot slower, books even more and articles especially so. I suppose people have other channels to get ideas for films to watch or the films that I review are boring.
There seems to be more demand for the book reviews. So what are the most popular ones?
- Index, the index of the book reviews section gets 14,64% of the pageviews;
- De Geestelijke Wereld van de Germanen attracted 4,03% (44 hits). A Dutch title on an English website. Below, when I talk about Facebook, you will see how this comes;
- The archive got 3,02% of the visitors, 33 hits;
- The Faulkes translation of the Edda comes next with 2,10% (23 hits) in 2016.
Not really whopping figures. Next are books with 10 to 20 hits in 2016 and two tags.
What about the articles. What are people looking for when they find this website?
Actually, the popular articles are the same as always:
Top search terms list must be taken with a grain of salt, since the top search term “Freemasonry” had 8 hits in 2016 and can never have resulted in any of the articles mentioned above. What is different that most people come with from Google nowadays (or according to the new statistics plugin) 766 in 2016, while Wikipedia brought me 115 hits. Facebook 24, so that is not exactly a visitor attractor even when the counter currently stands at 195 “likes”.
Speaking of Facebook, Facebook has statistics of its own. Let me have a look at these. Facebook, for example, tells me how many people I “reached” with the links to new reviews, etc. that I post. A few numbers to give you an idea. Like I said, there are 195 people who “like” the Facebook page. That does (by and far) not mean that a post reaches 195 people. Perhaps a “reached” person has to click on my message in his or her wall?
I posted the Thorofon review 6 days ago. This post “reached” 36 people. I posted the last film review on the same day, but this one only reached 8 people. On 16 april I “shared” a link to the latest Idehall cd review, 11 people. The latest book review is of the latest Acta Macionica which reached 23 people. Then follow a few posts with 20 to 30 people and the next ‘peak’ is a track that I shared of the new noise project Ausströmen which reached 37 people. That is better than most of my own stuff.
Earlier I mentioned my review of De Geestelijke Wereld van de Germanen, a popular book review. The post linking to this review was “shared” by three people, thus reaching a whopping number of 191 people. It is very clear that Facebook is a social medium and that to reach an audience, that audience has to cooperate without “likes” and “shares” I “reach” usually around 25 people, sometimes a bit more, sometimes less.
As for Facebook’s statistics page. It tells me that in the last week I had one “action” (I suppose this is a “like” or a “share”), six “pageviews” (is that how many times the Facebook page is visited?), 41 “reached persons” (for different posts) and five “involved”s, whatever that may mean.
I am sure that the above was exactly what you have wondered about for years?
Oh, it could be that the website looks different for you. More about that here.
A couple of times I was annoyed when I was reading a longer text on my own website at work. I have a very wide screen at works and sentences and alinea just kept going which makes a tiring read. I decided to make a maximum width of 1350 pixels. When your monitor is less wide than 1350 pixels the website will just scale back normally. When you have a much wider monitor like myself, you will have two bars or nothing on both sides. This looks a bit funky but I think it reads better myself.
What do you think?
A Lithuanian fellow finds my review of his book. We exchange a few Facebook replies and he asks if he can interview me. A first time for everything, right? Radikaliali!
A couple of years ago there was this new, hip feature for WordPress: custom post types. Actually, they already existed, but it became easier to use them. What you see for -for example- reviews is a default post type called “posts”. When I want to write something that will not be presented along with the reviews, I can make a category that I exclude from the reviews-view, but I can also make a custom post type. I started to experiment with them in….. what? 2007?!? I wanted to add “blogs” to the other sections so I could just present novelties or whatever. In the book reviews section I added quotes, in the music reviews section ‘stories’. All went well. I had to code a little to present these custom post types below eachother as with the default post types, but I managed in the simple theme that I used in those days.
To be more ‘up to date’ I switched to a theme that is actually maintained and is flexible without me having to code. This was a couple of years ago. It was soon clear that these ‘custom post type’ ‘archives’ were going to be a pain to get working. Thinking I would figure it out, I had links to these archives in the menus on top, but many a frustrating hour later, these archives still did not work. Due to other activities this little project remained on the shelve until today.
Well, indeed this did not work easily! I have to use yet another plugin, settings in two plugins and my theme from which the logic eludes me, but for the moment you can again visit the ‘blogs’ of each section, page through the quotes in the book reviews section and page through the stories of the music reviews section. Now I only have to start writing things there…….
And I wonder how long all this will keep working.
Always risky, a theme-update. The author did something with the sidebars, so I lost them all. I rebuild these sidebars and have not found any other hickups. Should you see something weird or different from before, please let me know through the comment function.
I have a growing dislike towards Facebook and their ever increasing tracking business. I use FB as little as possible and block (Firefox has a nice Ghostery addon) their tracker. Did you know that when you are logged in, Facebook indexes the websites you visit? BUT! I used that tracker myself on this very website with the ‘like’ plugin. I decided to ditch that plugin and just make a link to the Gangleri.nl Facebook page for people who want to get the news on their walls. (Theoretically) Facebook will no longer know you are here.
There was another tracker on this website: Gravatar. Gravatar is a service of Automatic, who also write WordPress, the software this website runs on, for “globally recognised avatars”. When using Gravatar WordPress contacts the Gravatar servers even when you are not reading or writing a comment. Annoying! So I disabled Gravatars too.
Douglas P. sings: “Paranoia is an icy start, but a start nonetheless”. Now the world wide web today certainly brings some paranoia, but my intention is to keep this website not only free, but also free from adds (heck, I pay for it all myself so you do not have to), yet even when I do not want to, I give companies ways to track you. No longer (I hope).
From time to time I start working on a new design, only to strand when going live on the complexity of the live site(s). After a comment in the music reviews section from someone who told me to not review music that I do not like, I started thinking again. The music reviews section already had a ‘blog’ for information that are not reviews, but I have no idea if people actually find these messages. Consequentally, when a label sends me promo material and I only make a blog-post to not have to write a review about a release that is not my taste, will anybody see it and did the label not spend money and effort on me for nothing? Then I figured that in a new design with two ‘sidebars’, I could use one of those sidebars for ‘other information’.
I have been working on that idea for a couple of weeks, found a flexible “theme” that I can use to have just one sidebar where just one is needed and two when two is convenient and style it quite a bit like I want it to be. The layout is not entirely perfect, but I did find a relatively easy solution for the ‘custom post types’ (I will not tire you with the details), so I decided to finally replace my stone-age “theme” with a modern one. I can now make room for larger parts of texts, such as in the articles section, a ‘blog bar’ for the music reviews and quotes accompanying the book reviews.
Of course I have been testing thoroughly, but should you find something that does not work (properly), please let me know. There are a few details that I want to have another look at, but the large changes are ‘live’ from on.
It has been a while, but let me fill you in a bit more about the statistics of this website.
The main site has had 39.7 unique visitors per day in the last week. The last time I checked (a year ago), this was 37 visitors. the main referrer is still Hex Magazine, all the rest is spam.
The most popular searchword are obviously used by people looking for this very website. Gangleri, Gangleri.nl, monas.nl, that sort of search terms.
A year ago I had 90 unique daily visitors on an average day for the articles section. This time I come to 92.7. Taking that nothing much happens there, that is not too bad. Popular articles remain Christian Cabala, Angel Magic and Rune Calendars, but also Germanic Concepts Of Fate and Nine World Of Nordic Mythology. Top referrers remain Wikipedia and Google. Popular search terms “Babylonian calendar”, “nordic mythology”, “cabala” and “nine worlds”.
A new statistic makes the articles that I offer for download in PDF and Epub. “Traditionalism vs Traditionalism” has the counter on 307 for the PDF and 31 for the Epub version, Traditionalistic Asatru respectively 115 and 45. Did anybody hear of download spam? The high number of the first article it a bit weird. Today, it has been downloaded numerous times, three times per minute. I hope my server can handle that. Also I wonder what is the use of this. (Further investigation showed that this file was accessed three times per minute about every half hour. Because I did not like the idea of somebody using so much of my server load, I created a new download package and reset the counter to something fictitious, but more credible.)
On to more happy events. The book reviews section comes to 85 unique visitors per day, which is substantially higher than the 63 visitors of a year ago. Top referrer Google, the rest is mostly spam. The popular search word list looks like the previous, Galdrabók, Peryt Shou, De Tuin Der Goden, Dumezil Loki. Popular entries in this section are a quote about the tripartite soul and two Dutch titles (Tussen Wodan en Widar and Godenschemering). The most popular English title is The Journal For Contemporary Heathen Thought.
Film reviews then. 37,6 Unique visitors per day, 45 a year ago. This is a little strange, since this is the section where most happens. I suppose I do not review popular enough films! The only non-spam referrer in the top referrer list is the Facebook page of this website. Popular reviews remain Tideland, c’Est Arrive Pres De Chez Vous, In The Name Of The Rose and Be With Me.
To close off with the music reviews; 85,6 against 74; Google and Facebook do well. The feed is extraordinary popular, so are general pages like the alphabetical list, the blog and the stories. The awfull World End Broadcasting remains the most popular review (2546 hits) followed by the old album “Mandragora” by Orchis.
I have not noticed much of it myself, but my host keeps Twittering that they suffer DDOS attacks on their servers. They say things are under control, but just in case you experience any downtime, that could be due to this.