Posts Tagged ‘fandom wank’

What’s hot on Fan History for June 14 to June 20, 2009

June 21st, 2009

More Fan History traffic information and looking at what is popular. This edition includes our most popular traffic sources outside search, our most popular articles and our most popular keyword based searches for the week of June 14 to June 20, 2009.

Most popular articles
11,909 pages were viewed a total of 43,428 times

  1. Draco/Hermione – 785 times
  2. Cassandra Claire – 359 times
  3. Race Fail 2009 – 338 times
  4. Sakura Lemon Fan-Fiction Archive – 329 times
  5. Russet Noon – 233 times
  6. AdultFanFiction.Net – 228 times
  7. Naruto – 200 times
  8. FanFiction.Net – 195 times
  9. Hurt/Comfort – 194 times
  10. Digimon – 175 times
  11. Laura – 144 times

Our most popular pages mostly had fewer views this month. Some of this is probably because we had 600 fewer article views this past week.

Top non-search referrers
Referring sites sent 2,435 visits via 337 sources

  1. animenewsnetwork.com – 301 visits
  2. chickipedia.com – 233 visits
  3. community.livejournal.com – 147 visits
  4. journalfen.net – 126 visits
  5. fanfiction.net – 96 visits
  6. twitter.com – 84 visits
  7. partly-bouncy.livejournal.com – 80 visits
  8. fanpop.com – 78 visits
  9. tvtropes.org – 63 visits
  10. deviantart.com – 47 visits

200 fewer visits this past week from referrers. A lot of this can be attributed to getting less traffic related from fandom_wank. There were a few sources that moved up or down. There was only one site that dropped off and one new one appearing.

Search key phrases
Search sent 11,657 total visits via 8,264 keywords

  1. emo porn – 87 visits
  2. galbadia hotel – 66 visits
  3. naruto wiki – 59 visits
  4. restricted section – 47 visits
  5. adult fanfiction – 46 visits
  6. gosselins without pity – 46 visits
  7. adultfanfiction – 39 visits
  8. draco hermione – 38 visits
  9. sakura lemon – 36 visits
  10. fanhistory – 34 visits

Our search traffic was a bit down this past week. This was by about 400 visits and 300 key phrases. Some terms moved up and other terms moved down.

Top referrers for the first week of June: Fan History Wiki

June 8th, 2009

It’s been a while since we looked at our referrers so here is a list of our top referrers for the period between June 1, 2009 and June 6, 2009. There are a few more referrers not on this list that provided less traffic. These are just our major ones.

Referrer Visits
livejournal.com

302

animenewsnetwork.com

213

chickipedia.com

211

bing

125

journalfen

121

twitter

73

fanfiction.net

67

tvtropes.org

54

deviantart

51

wikipedia

45

fanpop

38

wikia

30

inuyasha-fanfiction.com

28

jumptags.com

25

answers.yahoo.com

18

boards.endoftheinter.net

16

hogwartsnet.ru

15

imdb.com

11

therethere.net

10

wiki.fandomwank.com

10

dearauthor.com

9

savekp.proboards.com

9

cassandraclaire.com

8

encyclopediadramatica.com

8

i-newswire.com

8

identi.ca

8

russet-noon.com

7

wishluv.blogspot.com

7

insanejournal

2

answers.com

1

cwanswers.com

1

There are sites that don’t appear there where we’ve done a fair amount of link building including Mahalo. If you’re looking at them for link building and getting referrers? It probably isn’t worth the time. orkut, bebo, Quizilla, MySpace, Facebook aren’t on there.  We haven’t really done any link building on those sites.  We do have a fair amount of links on FriendFeed but as we are not actively engaged on there, we just don’t get traffic as a result.  Our Yahoo!Answers traffic are from past questions we’ve answered: We’re still getting traffic from them months later.  DeviantART links are all organic and weren’t us engaged in link building activities.

Top articles on Fan History for May 2009

June 1st, 2009

Another month ends and it is time for another list of some of the most popular, most viewed articles for May 2009. There have been some notable shifts in what is on here from last month.

Articles

  1. Draco/Hermione
  2. Russet Noon
  3. Race Fail 2009
  4. Cassandra Claire
  5. Sakura Lemon Fan-Fiction_Archive
  6. Twilight
  7. AdultFanFiction.Net
  8. Digimon
  9. FanFiction.Net
  10. Naruto

Fandoms

  1. Cassandra Claire
  2. Twilight
  3. Digimon
  4. Naruto
  5. Supernatural
  6. Star Trek
  7. Jon and Kate Plus 8
  8. Gundam Wing
  9. Harry Potter
  10. Sailor Moon

Ships

  1. Draco/Hermione
  2. Sesshoumaru/Kagome
  3. Snape/Hermione
  4. Kirk/Spock
  5. Michael/Maria
  6. Harry/Draco
  7. Harry/Hermione
  8. Max/Liz
  9. Takari
  10. Draco/Ginny

Kerfluffles

  1. Russet Noon
  2. Race Fail 2009
  3. Cassandra Claire
  4. Dreamwidth Studios
  5. Race wank
  6. LiveJournal
  7. GreatestJournal
  8. Cassandra Claire’s Plagiarism
  9. Fandom Wank

Fans

  1. Cassandra Claire
  2. LadySybilla
  3. Maya
  4. Caito
  5. Msscribe
  6. Bhaalspawn
  7. Heidi8
  8. Ithilien22
  9. Dot-chan
  10. Minisinoo

Fan Fiction Archives and Blogging Services

  1. Sakura Lemon Fan-Fiction_Archive
  2. AdultFanFiction.Net
  3. FanFiction.Net
  4. Dreamwidth Studios
  5. LiveJournal
  6. GreatestJournal
  7. FanWorks.Org
  8. RestrictedSection
  9. FanLib
  10. FanDomination.Net

Race Fail 2009/Mammoth Fail 2009

May 19th, 2009

We’ve largely been watching Race Fail and Mammoth Fail from the sidelines, trying to document what is going on and provide a good resource for people who want information about the topic in as neutrally as possible. We’ve occasionally been checking our search referrer keywords to know where to focus on adding links and out of curiosity as to what people interested in the situation were really interested in. We were intrigued and thought that our blog readers might be too. The chart below includes keyterms related to Race Fail and Mammoth Fail for the period between April 19 and May 18, 2009.

Things that kind of surprised me:

  • People were looking for information on Cassandra Claire‘s involvement in race fail. (I don’t think she’s participated.)
  • Interest is still high regarding Elizabeth Bear’s involvement in race fail, despite the precipitating event being several months old.
  • Interest is not higher in regards to Patricia Wrede and Lois McMaster Bujold.
  • People are still interested in Will Shetterly‘s involvement in race fail.
  • There is interest in finding out more about a boycott of Tor as a result race fail.
  • People don’t seem as interested in what members of the fan community like vee-ecks are saying so much as they are about the professional authors.
  • From the keyword vault… 2

    May 7th, 2009

    I really loved doing the last post. We got a few more visits with interesting keywords to our blog.  (The wiki is much better optimized.  We get few hits based on these sort of keywords.)

    what to do after wank

    When I first read these, I thought that these were related to wank, the fannish term.  I had a mental block and didn’t realize that people were visiting the blog looking for masturbation advice.

    Given that, on with the question! If we are talking actual masturbation, when you’re done, you clean yourself up.  Then, if you like Fan History, you visit pages like fandom_wank and slash.  If you’re talking about wanking of the fandom sort, when you’re done, you take a fandom break for a couple of days.  wanking is frequently high stress.  When you’re done, you need time to think, to cool down to re-evaluate, to assess what steps you need to take after that to protect yourself in fandom.

    neil patrick harris icons livejournal

    We’ve got information about a couple of Neil Patrick Harris LiveJournal communities.  We don’t have any icons on the wiki.  You could probably upload a few if you wanted to illustrate information relevant articles.  You’re probably better off searching on LiveJournal for that, rather than using Google.

    dreamwidth greatestjournal

    Dreamwidth Studios and GreatestJournal have nothing to do with each other, other than both having core fandom audiences, being run by one or two volunteers, being run with the intention of living off the money earned from the sites and using modified versions of LiveJournal’s open source code.    The people who run it are not the same.  They have different cultures.  GreatestJournal was populated early by role players.  Dreamwidth Studios was populated by metafans.

    wanking race

    Seriously?  Do people actually have races where two or three people get together to see who can get it off first?  I don’t have advice for that.  I haven’t seen any sort of race to wank to make fandom_wank or metafandom.  If people know of any bets to see who could make one or the other in a wankfest, let me know as it would be enlightening and educational.

    livejournal stats

    If you’re looking for LiveJournal statistics, check out LiveJournal community size.  Sadly, these numbers haven’t been updated in a while because of a problem with our bot but there are three month months worth of data that still make it useful and interesting.

    There are a couple more that I really would like to do.  They require a bit more extensive answers like “why twilight is so big?” and “how do you communicate if service users are upset” so I’m putting that off for a bit.

    The problems FanLore faces are not unique: Learning from Fan History’s experience

    April 10th, 2009

    At Fan History, we are always looking for ways to improve our content, increase contributions, and improve outreach to the greater community. As such, it is often useful to reflect inward on our own practices and to look outward, to look at other wikis, to see how they tackle these issues, as well as how they are perceived by the public.

    Related to this continual practice of self-reflection and outward examination, Sidewinder recently brought a portion of this LiveJournal post regarding FanLore to our attention. It was instructive to go through and compare the problems that the two wikis have in common, and to enumerate the ways Fan History has been trying to deal with those problems ourselves. In some cases, the challenges are quite similar indeed, though our approaches to dealing with them differ. In other cases, the issues were ones we had confronted before and have worked hard in the past two years to improve upon.

    http://nextian.livejournal.com/263577.html?format=light

    To quote:

    “On the one hand, Fanlore has a number of excellent, well-researched articles that are resources for discussions, fanworks, and historical projects. It is easy to edit, comes in multiple decent-looking skins, and has gardeners who are fantastically on the ball. On the other hand…

    These are some of the things that FanLore has in common with Fan History. Both are excellent resources for the history of fandom, with some fandoms better represented than others on both. Fan History and FanLore have a number of different skins; Fan History has them available to registered members. Both wikis are easy to edit; Fan History’s templates are designed to give new editors a boost on organizing their materials. And both have “gardeners” or administrators who are involved and easy to contact.

    My chief issue with Fanlore is that it is not, as it stands, a community project. There’s very little crosstalk,

    Crosstalk takes effort and a commitment from those who are editing. It is why Fan History uses talk pages. It is why we ask people if they need help. It is why we create active talk pages to converse on how things are organized. These things need to be done openly, so that users can have input. We’ll admit that we aren’t always excellent at it… but we do try, and this is one area we have worked hard on improving. We know this is important to the success of a wiki.

    Sometimes, crosstalk can be hindered on a wiki. We’ve found this to be a problem at times as some members of the fan community have had limited exposure to wikis. They don’t understand how wikis work. They might not understand the purpose – or even the existence – of a talk page. They might be used to a certain wiki or another project which doesn’t have the same idea of constantly sharing, constantly asking questions, constantly editing, constantly revising. There is a learning curve. As wiki administrators, we need remove those barriers to create crosstalk, to make the users aware of crosstalk. On Fan History, we’re still working on that.  Both FanLore and Fan History need to improve by using methods such as welcoming members, following up with one time contributors, and even changing the text on our talk tab – easy, since we’re using MediaWiki.

    no central LJ comm,

    We don’t have an LiveJournal community, either. We do have one on InsaneJournal that we use mostly for information sharing. The content, though, tends to be mirrored from our blog. Our recent changes are shown on our Twitter and identi.ca accounts. Our admins are also found on Twitter and they sometimes discuss organizational efforts with a wider community there. But neither our microblogging presence, nor our InsaneJournal presence are in any way really comparable to an off-wiki version of wikiHow’s New Article Boost.

    We also have this blog on a subdomain of our wiki. You don’t have to be a member to read it. If you want to comment, you can, just by filling out the form with your name and website address. You can carry over your disqus presence when you comment. It’s our way of bringing our work to a greater fandom audience than the one found on LiveJournal.

    We feel it is important that major news, discussions and policy matters are discussed on Fan History itself instead of on an off-site community such as LiveJournal. We try to keep those conversations on the wiki, announcing discussions and events on our main page, and then posting about them on the blog to make finding the conversation easier. Wikis need fewer barriers to help fans get involved.

    Other wikis have different means of discussing their organizational and content objectives. wikiHow does their organizing with the wikiHow Herald . On it, they talk about projects they are working on. They highlight featured contributors. They encourage the general community through that and through wikiHow’s forums . A few other wikis on Wikia also have forums where they discuss policy issues, plan article and category improvements, and build a community for their wiki. AboutUs doesn’t really have forums, but they have a GetSatisfaction account where you can ask about policy issues, for article help, and find out how you can get involved in an off-wiki manner.

    the chat has been empty every time I’ve gone in,


    Fan History recently changed its chat server to
    chat.freenode.net in #fanhistory. Unfortunately, it seems that the chat at Fan History is nearly empty, too. But chat can really help with community development. AboutUs, Wikia, wikiHow and EncyclopediaDramatica use it extensively. ED has their own server where people occasionally break out of the main room to work on side projects. wikiHow folks use their chatroom on chat.freenode.net to coordinate patrolling Recent Changes, for writing parts of the Herald, and for discussing improving projects like wikiArt. AboutUs has staff members and community members in their chatroom, ready to help people out who have questions or who are looking for information on how to contribute. It just takes a few dedicated regulars to make it workable.

    and the Issues page is a masterpiece of passive-aggressive “well you
    may be correct but I feel that possibly your face is stupid.”

    Fortunately for Fan History, we seem to have fewer of those issues. We have certainly had articles and sections of the site which have been subject to edit wars and bias concerns, but we have tried to work with the parties involved to create as unbiased a history as possible in these cases. And when a administrator feels personally too close to a subject, that administrator will ask that others with a more neutral stance get involved.

    Among other things, this means that there’s no clear outline of what needs work;

    Well, they are wikis. If you understand wikis, you can’t really outline what needs to be done as this constantly evolves as a wiki grows. You can begin to outline what needs to be done on talk pages, or on how to lists, etc. The trick is less outline, more “How do you communicate with contributors outside the core to understand what their goals and intentions are for contributing to the project? How do you foster them and work them into your existing wiki work?” If someone comes in and makes an edit, you welcome them and ask how you can help them. Or say something like “Hi! Thanks for your edit on Lord of the Rings. We’ve been wanting to see it improved for a while. If you’re planning on sticking around for a while, we’d love for you to help the category structure there. It could benefit from some one who knows the fandom really well making it more fandom specific. [How does your fandom organize ships and what are the standard ship names? We've not touched those articles because we're not sure.]“

    there’s no reward system for putting up a good page,

    This is hard. Most bigger wikis like Wikipedia and wikiHow do BarnStars. But when there are just a few regular contributors, doing that becomes difficult. Depending on who is doing the editing, BarnStars can end up looking like a lot of self-congratulatory work.

    What Fan History tries to do is to thank really great contributors on our main page and on the blog. We’ve also considered doing an extended featured article on the main page as a reward for the editors who do a lot of work on their own People article. There are other ways of giving those who create good articles and make good edits the feedback that keeps them coming back and continuing.

    especially since (as yet) no one is using it as a resource;

    This is a battle Fan History faces all the time: demonstrating our relevance. Something like wikiHow, AboutUs, Wikipedia, PoliceWiki even wikiFur and EncyclopediaDramatica have built-in audiences. Or the wikis have done a great job of demonstrating their relevance. wikiFur pretty much made themselves into THE furry portal through content selection and organization. They’ve worked with the community and created standards for writing articles about members. This has made it easier for the the wiki to serve their community peacefully. AboutUs has developed relationships with sites that provide domain information – to the point where you almost can’t get whois information without stumbling across them. PoliceWiki has done a lot of outreach to photographers and musicians to get permission to use their images and content on the site. Through the years, they have also worked to get those directly involved with the band to contribute material themselves as a way of presenting the most accurate resource for the fandom possible–and building good professional relationships. Getting a wiki recognized as a good resource takes concentrated effort, time and marketing. People need to know you’re there before anything else!

    policy remains unclear in a number of important areas,

    Making policy clear, and changing it when it becomes necessary is important in a collaborative effort such as a wiki. Fan History has been willing to do this, and has opened up policy changes for public discussion on talk pages, linking those pages to the main portal. It is vital to have clear policy on many issues in a wiki, such as privacy, deletion of articles, content relevancy guidelines, overall organization, and these things are best resolved then made clear to the public sooner rather than later.

    such as cross-platform work with Fancyclopedia and the Fandom Wank wiki

    In the past, we’ve cited the Fandom Wank wiki, but that in itself caused a lot of wank, so we’ve discontinued using it as a main source for information on new and existing articles. On a plus side, Fan History is “working” with FanLore by ?]" href="http://www.fanhistory.com/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/FanLore">linking to their articles and citing them as a source in more articles. We have relationships with a few fandom specific wikis such as PoliceWiki and RangersWiki to “mirror” articles relevant to both sites, helping to build cross-community work and traffic to both wikis as a result. We also allow some mirroring of articles with AboutUs. We talk extensively to others in the wiki community, developing positive and beneficial relationships so where we know we can turn for help when needed. This includes having open communications with people who run AboutUs, EncyclopediaDramatica, wikiHow, wikiindex, Richmond Wiki, Wagn, wikiTravel, Kaplak Wiki, Wikimedia Foundation and Wikia. They’ve provided us with assistance on things such as advertising issues, content development, policy creation and letting us use extensions they’ve developed. A lot of this is about becoming a good wiki neighbor, finding areas where projects compliment each other but don’t compete. It fosters the whole idea of the wiki Ohana that is a favorite subject at RecentChangesCamp.

    – and, to my deepest dismay, it is not currently a wiki for all of fandom.

    This may be an unrealistic goal for any overall wiki on “fandom”–at least if fandom is being defined as covering all aspects and types of fandoms, from sports to television to music to video games. Fan History currently has over 4,000 fandoms represented on our 595,000 plus articles. We don’t even begin touch all of fandom. Truthfully, we don’t think that it’s possible to reach and represent every little corner, every tiny fandom. But we’re trying, oh, we’re trying, and trying to make it easier for people to add those fandoms that aren’t there yet. We’re doing a lot of aggressive outreach, building a lot of stub content and getting people invested. The outreach part is critical but frequently, for many good projects outreach doesn’t get done. It takes a huge amount of time away from content development, and from working on the core goals of the wiki. It can be loads of no fun and requires the kind of commitment that people invested in only a small subcomponent of the wiki might not want to do.

    Fanlore is, as it stands, a chronicle of the fannish experience of an extremely small subset of media fans. Have you seen the current incarnation of the Who page? The Harry Potter page? Compare that to the Due South page or the Sentinel page. Though the fandom sizes of Doctor Who and Harry Potter remain enormous, no one is working on them.

    Fan History faced much of the same criticism early on, and still does. Some of our fandom pages and categories are great, and have received a tremendous amount of work–often from one or two very dedicated people. But our own Doctor Who and Harry Potter articles could use some work, too. Still, they are a nice representation of what is possible. It is also why we have “Move; don’t remove” as our mantra because as you develop a history, you learn that things must be placed into context, especially when you have large amounts of data.

    Some of our administrators and regular contributors spend time building up stub articles and categories in fandoms that we know are popular, to try to make it easier for new users to add their knowledge and experience. But it all takes time and effort and only so much can be done in each day.

    And I think that is self-perpetuating. I’ve stubbed out a number
    of pages in large fandoms, including the Who version I linked
    you to above, but it is not rewarding to do some work on a
    collaborative project and receive no … collaboration.

    Fan History, wikiHow, RichmondWiki and AboutUs all have a structure that makes it easy for people to come in and figure out how to add content. We try to have a structure on Fan History where people can easily slot things in with out having to worry about writing and editing large tracks of prose. As a result, creating article stubs that can be filled in more fully later isn’t as big of a problem as it could be.

    As for collaboration, it’s definitely something that smaller wikis have problems with, but when it happens, it can be fantastic to see. We loved watching this happen with articles such as the Rescue Rangers article, the Shota article, the Draco/Hermione article, the Race Fail article and others. And if one or two people are creating content, they end up learning a lot about fandoms outside their own, which is always a plus. Because in the case of Fan History? A lot of what we are about is sharing knowledge with others.

    I am not castigating the other editors for this — that would be somewhat absurd — but I do wonder why I have not seen Fanlore more widely linked to other communities, outside of the one that the founders of the OTW are members of.

    This is not hard to figure out. People will link to an article organically if they see a need to or think contributing will benefit themselves. Fan History’s Draco/Hermione gets a lot of views because it has become a resource for finding old and influential fics. People also link to articles about themselves because they’re excited to see themselves mentioned in a wiki. It is another way that they can promote themselves and their work. One of the published authors on our wiki has seen twenty visits a month on the article about herself, which is an incentive to keep it updated and to contribute to our community. Other people contribute in order to control how outsiders view them. That can be seen on Fan History most clearly with the case of AdultFanFiction.Net and Rescue Rangers. Still others contribute to Fan History in order to promote conventions they are involved with, to try to up the standing of those authors and artists they love, or just for the LULZ. That latter one, we think, ends up indicating a certain amount of success if they think that Fan History is worth trying to get LULZ from.

    We’ve also developed a large amount of links by linking them ourselves. AboutUs?  bebo? Chickipedia? Delicious? Facebook? FanPop? identi.ca? InsaneJournal? Last.fm? LinkedIn? LiveJournal? MySpace? Orkut? Plurk? Twitter?  Wikia? wikiidex? All of these are linked at Fan History. We also developed content that people would want to link to. Articles about the ordinary fan and fleshed out content on topics or relevant content that can’t be found elsewhere. And it is why our desire to get a few interns (are you interested in interning with us? Contact Laura!) is less for the wiki itself than the community outreach because we know doing that will lead to edits.

    Fanlore should have extensive entries on “slan” and “Victoria Bitter,”
    not just Laura and Bodie from
    The Professionals.

    Interesting that FanLore’s most edited article, the last time one of our admins bothered to check, was about Fan History and/or its owner. Here are our top ten most edited articles that didn’t have bot contributions:

    1. Harry Potter

    2. Draco/Hermione

    3. Bandfic

    4. Beauty and the Beast

    5. Supernatural

    6. Digimon

    7. CSI

    8. Rescue Rangers

    9. Doctor Who

    10. X-Files

    We’ve been working to make certain our most edited articles are not our personal loves or the people we dislike. Why? It’s not conducive to building a community. We’ve learned this the hard way, admittedly, so it is not surprising to see that another wiki may be encountering the same issues. That said, being seen as a personal “grudge” site with too narrow a focus is not good for building positive public relations. It takes a tremendous amount of time and effort to rebuild trust after working the bias out of your more problematic articles.

    I know the only answer to this is “edit it yourself,” but I feel that a stronger sense of community among Fanlore editors would make new editors more comfortable and allow a broader range of articles to arise.”

    That’s a problem every wiki faces. But you have to learn from both your own mistakes and the mistakes of others. Learn what makes other wikis successful and adapt them for your own purpose.

    We wish FanLore nothing but the best of luck in their endeavor. It is a long a bumpy road but one that be filled with tremendous personal satisfaction in creating a great tool for the greater fan community.

    Race!Fail: Search terms generating visits

    March 15th, 2009

    Over at Fan History, we’ve mostly been reading about Race!Fail. Our reading has been helped along because another admin and a contributor have been developing a list of links related to Race!Fail.  I first noticed a few search visits a few days ago as a result of the articles and so I was kind of curious as to what people were interested in Race!Fail as it pertained to Fan History’s content and how they interacted with it.  So we took a poke through Google Analytics and the following table should give you a good idea.  We thought it was interesting.  (Coffeeandink?  Not so interesting.  Patrick Hayden? Much more interested.  Will Shetterly? Not as fascinating as Elizabeth Bear.)

    Fan History's Race!Fail related keywords as of March 15 2009: bear eliazbeth novel race bear poc elizabeth blood and iron   racefail coffeeandink coffeeandink outed elizabeth bear   writing the other   elizabeth bear + racism elizabeth bear cultural appropriation elizabeth bear debate elizabeth bear literary elizabeth bear open apology elizabeth bear other elizabeth bear race elizabeth bear race fail elizabeth bear racism elizabeth bear racist elizabeth bear racist character elizabeth bear wank elizabeth bear writing the other elizabeth bear   blood iron racist elizabeth bear   racism elizabeth bear   racist elizabeth bear   wank elizabeth bear, racism elizabeth bear's racist comments fandom wank elizabeth bear fandom wank race fail fandom wank race fail 09 higher races doctor who wiki kerfuffle doom cultural bear livejournal race wank livejournal racewank neilsen hayden race wank nielsen hayden race fail patrick nielsen hayden bear elizabeth patrick nielsen hayden deleted journal patrick nielsen hayden race fail patrick nielsenhayden wank patrick nielson hayden bear racism race and fandom race fail race fail 09 wank race fail nielsen haydens race fail wiki race fail   + nielsen hayden race in fandom race wank race wank meta livejournal racefail 09 racefail 90 bear racefail fandom wank racefail fandomwank racefail patrick nielsen hayden racefail wank racefail, patrick nielsen hayden racefail/wank09 racewank race-wank racewank 09 racewank 2009 racewank hayden stargate race fail teresa nielsen hayden  teresa nielsen hayden racist teresa patrick race nielsen hayden the doom race wank theresa nielsen hayden race science fiction theresa nielsen-hayden   wiki coffeeandink wiki race fail will grace list wiki will shetterly race fail writing the other elizabeth bear writing the other   elizabeth bear writing the other, elizabeth bear

    The most commonly searched for phrase getting here was Elizabeth Bear Racism.  The most pages per visit?  Race-Wank.  Interesting stuff.

    Fan History is optimized for strange key phrases… like incest wiki.

    January 9th, 2009

    Over on twitter, I’ve been having some conversations with SEO non-fandom folks about key phrase optimization. The major question I’ve had is would a site rather be optimized to have one keyword as the top search result or ten keywords which appeared as number ten in the search results? The answer tends to be context specific. I’d love to get more opinions on that. What are your thoughts?

    As a result of these conversations, I went looking through Fan History for phrases where we’d been optimized near the top. One phrase that I see about once a day is “incest wiki” which Fan History ranks number 2… right behind Wikipedia. (And ahead of Fandom Wank, and FanLore which are both fandom wikis. And ahead of wikitionary, simple English Wikipedia.) This phrase that we’re optimized for gets us an average of 4 visits a day. (Where the average visitor for that keyphrase visits 2.5 pages per visit.) It isn’t one we were looking for optimization wise but we’ll take it because there is a huge community of incest fan fiction fans around and there have been some large discussions about it that have had an impact on fandom.

    The incest article could use a lot of work because it really isn’t as good as it could be. If you’re knowledgeable about the subject, please contribute.

    Generating traffic for your fansite? Use a method that generates positive metrics!

    December 22nd, 2008

    Over the past year, I’ve spent a lot of time learning the ins and outs of generating traffic for websites. A lot of this learning happened because I have some great friends on Twitter, some awesome friends in the wiki community, and met people at two Chicago area barcamps. They’ve given me advice directly, and linked to blogs and sites that give advice. This advice has been one of the major reasons that Fan History has changed the way that we do some of our promotions.

    When you’re generating traffic for a fansite, you should have three goals:

  • Increase repeat visits to your site;
  • Increase the time spent on your site; and
  • Increase the number of pages visited per visit.

    When you’re link building, you want to spend more time on links which will bring in a higher quality visit. Pure visitors are great but they aren’t the most useful metric around. Would you rather get 10,000 visitors who spend 10 seconds on your site and view one page? Or 1,000 visitors who spend 10 minutes on your site and visit 20 pages? The second one is the type of visit that builds value for your fansite. It means people are more likely to come back, more likely to register, more likely to contribute to your site, and more likely to refer people to your site.

    Ever heard of digg? A lot of fandom people I know aren’t that familiar with it but it is a hugely popular site. If you can get your site on the front page of digg, you can probably get in the neighborhood of 10,000 to 40,000 unique visitors. Ever heard of StumbleUpon? More of my fandom friends have. StumbleUpon, if your site is stumbled right, can get you a few hundred visits a day. A lot of fansites would kill for that. (If the increased traffic didn’t kill their sites.) Those stats make it seem like it would be a no brainer: use both to try to increase your traffic! Lots of visitors!

    Another way to generate traffic is by wanking. Make fandom_wank or sf_drama and you can probably see another 1,000 to 3,000 visitors. If you’re linked through metafandom for being controversial, you can expect between 500 and 2,000 visitors depending on how many posts you’re linked on, how controversial you are and what day of the week it is. But like digg and Stumbleupon, these are cheap visits. Most of the visitors you get through wanking are wank navel gazers. They come in, view one page, spend between 10 seconds to 1 minute on your site, then go. They generally don’t repeat. In fact, because of the tie-ins to wank, they are less likely to be repeat visitors than if you had been linked through Digg. This is because your reputation ends up getting smacked around and you become known as a wanker. And once the wank winds down, your traffic levels off to prewank levels. The high in increased visitors doesn’t hold. You’ll get a massive drop off. So using wank to generate traffic, unless you’re specifically running a wank-type site like fandom_wank or EncyclopediaDramatica, isn’t a good idea. It doesn’t help build value by increasing the visits to your site, increasing time spend on the site, or increasing the number of page views per visit. (It is why Fan History mods don’t intentionally go around wanking; it doesn’t help our more important and valuable metrics. Quality over quantity of visits. And when we have wanked, our traffic tends to fall off a cliff about two days after the wank dies down. We’ve known this for over a year now when we first got the numbers to demonstrate it.)

    Want some real numbers for that? Fan History’s numbers:

    Average digg visitor to Fan History views 1.76 pages and spends 35 seconds on the site. Stumblers view an average 2.27 pages per visit and spend 1 minute 25 seconds on the site. It is harder to separate the wank traffic but the metrics are pretty similar because wank happens all over. But we were mentioned on ranty-rie‘s LiveJournal recently. The average visitor viewed one page, spent less than 10 seconds on the site and didn’t come back.

    If you’re trying to build valuable traffic, what are valuable ways to link build to get visitors who come back, spend time on your site and view multiple pages? Personal e-mail. We have a couple of people on hotmail that we’ve e-mailed who ended up spending over an hour on the site and viewed more than 20 pages in their visit. On gmail? The average visitor views 21.77 pages and spends 21 minutes on the site. Positive mentions with attached discussion. Sidewinder blogs about Fan History on her LiveJournal pretty regularly. Our referrers through her? They view 21.5 pages and spend 11 minutes and 52 seconds per visit on average. (And most of them come back and view the site again.) Another good way to get traffic is to link to sites where the sites are small enough to watch and view every referrer. Fan History does that and people who come in with a referrer of a stat counter, they spend nearly 27 minutes on the site and view an average of 20 pages in their visit. Plugs on message boards also work really well if the message is about the site and the comment invites other comments or discussion about the site. We got mentioned on fannation.shades-of-moonlight.com and the average visitor spent 7 minutes on the site and viewed 13 pages.

    What does that mean? You want to build high quality links where you invite people to participate and be involved. You want a link where the discussion, overall, will have a positive tone. Doing that increases the time spent on the site, increases the number of pages viewed per visit and increases the amount of times a visitor visits your site.

    Don’t go for a cheap route of wanking or using services like digg. They don’t help your increase the value in your metrics.

    For information on Fan History’s metrics in general, see Quantcast, Alexa and Compete.

  • Fandom sized samples… how big?

    December 6th, 2008

    I’ve been bouncing off the walls for a bit now as we’re supposed to be getting a new bot for Fan History that is similar to Fan Fiction Stat Bot.  (It won’t probably be ready for another three weeks to a month.  I’m not in that much of a hurry and I’d rather the developer do it right.) The major difference is that this one will look at LiveJournal, its clones and the growth/size of fandom on them by monitoring the number of new posts and total comments to a selection of communities, which will then sorted by fandom so as to be able to compare the sizes of different fandom groups.

    The sample community list is about 2,500 different communities.  It represents probably about 750 different fandoms.  The list isn’t 100% comprehensive because you can’t find every LiveJournal community based on a fandom and you can’t list every fandom.  And that’s what leaves me flummoxed.  How much time should be spent building a more comprehensive list of LiveJournal communities?  And InsaneJournal communities?

    The thing with the sample is that I know going in that it won’t cover everything.  It isn’t possible.  It isn’t feasible.  The communities need to be manually vetted to make sure that while they might actually say list Twilight as a fandom, the community is actually about Twilight.  (And not say a community of pictures of sunsets.)   This list takes a lot of time to compile.  I’ve probably spent in the neighborhood of 24 hours compiling the list that was used for LiveJournal bot.  The updated list which will be used for this bot I’ve probably spent an equal amount of time compiling as I’ve needed to develop lists for InsaneJournal, JournalFen, Inksome, Scribbled, Blurty, DeadJournal and ivanovo.ru.  I could easily spend another week adding to the list beyond that, bringing the LiveJournal list to 5,000 communities and the InsaneJournal list to 1,000.  The other services have much less activity and fandom communities are much harder to find.  To a degree, it takes much more time to find those fandom communities for a much smaller list.  Two or three of those services are lucky to have five communities on them.

    There are other issues. A lot of communities are long abandoned, not having been updated in years in some cases.  (This feels like it the case for smaller fandoms.)  They are never going to appear on any list of active fandoms as a result.  Including them feels necessary but also counterproductive because of the sparse amount of activity related to them.  Still, if we don’t have them in our list, how good of a sample do we really have?  And what is the cut off point?  I know for Fan History, we’ve posted to communities which haven’t had activity in more than a year… so new posts, new members, new comments are always possible.  Except probably in the case of role playing communities.  Those pretty much feel dead once the players have quit the game.

    Another issue is sample size. How many communities is enough?  When do you stop the list?  Is it better to have fewer fandoms represented but to get a more communities represented for that fandom?  Or should we find one or two communities which we can have represent the whole of the fandom?  More fandoms or more communities per fandom?  I look at the Harry Potter and Twilight fandom lists and go ZOMG! Those huge fandoms only have about 20 communities in that sample!  They are HUGE! They should have at least 100!  Naruto, Inuyasha! Same deal! But we are still missing a whole slew of actors and television shows and anime and manga!

    The dataset we are going to develop is going to be really, really interesting, and really, really useful.  It will help provide some data which can give a quantitative picture to exactly what is happening in parts of LiveJournal fandom.  It will help give a picture as to the size, comparitive size of various fandoms on LiveJournal.  You’ll also be able to examine the effect of certain events in the fandom to the size and amount of activity in fandom.  For instance, does a community being features on Fandom Wank lead to posting and membership spikes or a membership drop?  Does the release of canon cause an increase in posting volume, create a membership spike or both?  I’m really excited about getting this bot developed and up and operating.

    In the meantime, you’ll see me over there busy working on adding to that list…

    Fan History: August 2008: Traffic sources in the world of social networking

    September 1st, 2008

    It’s September 1. It feels like a good time to talk about traffic again and issues in getting traffic. Once again, I’m looking at Fan History’s traffic. This time, it is for August 2008.

    I spend a lot of time on Twitter. I love twitter. I love the community. I love reading about the business end of running a startup, running a blog, running a website. Lots of time is spent talking about the whole traffic issue, linking to people’s blog posts about getting traffic. They tend to emphasis breaking traffic down into several areas and then talk up promoting your project in various areas. I’ve broken these categories down into the three following areas: Microblogging, social networking and social bookmarking. You’re supposed to interact on these spaces to help build up an audience who will be interested in what you have to say. I’ll explain how Fan History does that below each chart.

    Have I mentioned I love Twitter? I do love Twitter. (And you can find me on Twitter at purplepopple.) I’ve set up various accounts on Twitter to aggregate Fan History’s recent changes page for the English version, and the Spanish version. I get some traffic from Twitter because I mention Fan History once a day. It would probably be more if I had more followers or if our recentchanges twitter account was promoted more. Unlike a number of other services, I am an active participant on twitter because I love the community and I learn a lot from it.

    pownce is a newer service. I post to pownce from ping.fm but I’m not checking it or following it much. Not much of a surprise then that I’ve gotten one hit from them. It doesn’t necessarily feel like a service I want to invest my time in with the goal of generating traffic.

    friendfeed is about community to a degree. I have my friendfeed set up with pretty much every service I use. I have probably five friends on it. If you follow me, I follow you. I check it once a day. If you’re following my friendfeed, you inevitably get slammed with links on some days when I’m busy promoting Fan History. I’m just not involved with it the community that much. I get more hits from there than I do from Pownce though.

    I used to be a big fan of identi.ca. There appeared to be a great wiki community that looked like they were going to use it because the creator was a big name in the wiki community. People’s usage of identi.ca seems to have trailed off, with folks going back to twitter or trying out different services. I post there because of ping.fm and check it once a day. My followers list is pretty small. I’m not surprised at the lack of traffic from the service.

    Social bookmarking is something I don’t really do. I’m kind of locked into the whole traditional bookmarking thing. I love mine. And I love sage, a Firefox plugin.

    Still, it seems to be everyone’s goal to hit it big on digg as a way of generating a traffic spike, pushing down less then desirable mentions on search engines and making people more familiar with your site. So I and others affiliated with Fan History use digg to promote Fan History. We don’t really advertise digg submissions, don’t ask that people digg our submissions. Rather, we tend to go for bulk quantity submissions as we have over 475,000 articles on Fan History. When we’re actively doing bulk submissions on Digg for fandom oriented articles, we can get some digg traffic but those 10 to 20 hits take a lot of work. It sometimes doesn’t feel worth it.

    FanPop is almost a social networking site for fandom. I used to promote Fan History on it a lot. I didn’t do that much in August because in July, digg traffic made it not seem worth the effort of doing that. Unlike digg, we couldn’t submit everything and the kitchen sink. We had to submit in very specific categories after finding the right spot. Still, it was a pleasant surpise of sorts to find that FanPop seemed to consistently give us three to eight hits a day. It is something worth looking at and going back to and adding more links to our content there.

    delicious is a popular personal social bookmarking tool. It is a really popular social bookmarking tool inside fandom, where Fan History operates. There are probably over a thousand links to Fan History content on the site. It just doesn’t generate much traffic for us. A lot of times, it feels there really isn’t much of a community behind the site and bookmarks are trapped behind locked doors of people’s own links. We seem to get the occasional hit if we add a hundred or so links but on the whole, it really isn’t worth our time to use as a way to generate traffic.

    stumbleupon. One day in August, we got 68 visits as a result of stumbleupon. A friend e-mailed me to tell me we made it after he stumbled across Fan History on stumble. We submit there but the stumble bump had very little connection to our attempts to use stumble to promote our content.

    LiveJournal is one of the major homes to fandom on-line where people frequently refer to other content located elsewhere. As such, Fan History spends a lot of time using LiveJournal to promote our content. We’ve also found that using LiveJournal helps with our SEO and, unlike digg, we can get traffic from LiveJournal months after the initial plug. It’s fabulous. When I get together with other people, I tend to plug LiveJournal as an awesome source for traffic because of that. Our traffic looks pretty consistently high as a result of LiveJournal referrers. That happened with us plugging Fan History on LiveJournal a total of maybe only eight days out of the thirty-one. LiveJournal is also a place where, unlike many of the services mentioned in this post, I’m actively involved. I use LiveJournal. I post regularly on LiveJournal for my own private use. I engage others on the service. It’s like twitter for me. … Only as opposed to discussing the business end of what I do, I discuss the fan end.

    InsaneJournal and JournalFen are LiveJournal clones. JournalFen has an established community of fan fiction and fandom people over 18. I’m not really involved there these days. It just isn’t my community. When we get traffic from JournalFen, it tends to be connected to Fandom Wank. As Fandom Wank can be a major reputation hurter, we’re not generally aiming to be mentioned there.

    We use InsaneJournal like we use LiveJournal. It just isn’t used that much because it doesn’t have the depth of communities that LiveJournal has, doesn’t have the audience that LiveJournal has and doesn’t generate comparable traffic. Those things limit the usefulness of InsaneJournal.

    MySpace generates a few hits for us here and there. Fan History mostly gets plugged on MySpace groups and in my profile. We’re not expecting it to be a major traffic source. It would be nice to get a bigger audience there but just not sure how to do it. And I’m not that interested in slogging through the service to become involved.

    FaceBook is similar to MySpace. I promote it on my profile. It gets fed my comments from ping.fm that also go to twitter. The lack of a good search tool probably hurts our potential to get more traffic as a result. I use FaceBook to keep track of my friends, for occasional wiki things, for event finding. I’m not involved in the fan community located there.

    We occasionally promote Fan History on bebo and orkut. Neither has been a particularly useful traffic driver and the fan community tends to fall outside my comfort level. So while that community is large, I don’t know it well enough to try to capitalize off of it.

    LinkedIn gives us a few hits. Most of these are off my profile page. LinkedIn is another one of those sites I don’t always understand so trying to leverage it for more traffic can be a bit confusing. I’m not really involved in the community there either.

    blogspot links are not ones that we create. We tend to get them after we plug Fan History on LiveJournal or after we e-mail a blogger and ask for a plug. blogspot doesn’t offer an easy way to contact people. That makes it hard to ask for plugs for Fan History. If it was, we’d probably spend a lot more time making such requests.

    Conclusion
    The services where I’m most active as a community participant are the ones where we get the most traffic. It is probably why LiveJournal will continue to be our primary tool to promote Fan History.

    Canonical URL by SEO No Duplicate WordPress Plugin