A few months ago, I decided to try an experiment with this blog.  From May through July, instead of posting daily, I would only post once per week.  That way, rather than scrambling to say something relevant 5 times a week, I could invest my time in one good, solid post.

Here’s what I learned from my venture into minimalism.

1.  As predicted, my site traffic dropped off a cliff.

According to Compete, I had:

  • 9,900 unique visitors in April
  • 11,400 unique visitors in May
  • 2,600 unique visitors in June
  • July stats not yet available

According to Google Analytics, I had:

  • 7,500 page views in April
  • 7,491 page views in May
  • 3,583 page views in June
  • 4,877 page views in July

Finally, my Alexa ranking hovered around 162,000 when this experiment began; it’s currently at 245,546 as I type this.

This overall downward traffic trend is unsurprising, since I was only creating 20% of the content that I usually do.  (In fact, if anything, I should be surprised that my page views didn’t drop by a full 80%.)

2.  Posting once a week does not guarantee a high-impact read.

I initially thought that posting once a week would result in a heavy amount of traffic to each week’s single post.

I was wrong.

According to bit.ly, here are the number of first-week clicks on my bit.ly link for each blog post during the experiment.  (The numbers from my link are listed first, and the total clicks for all bit.ly links to that post are in parentheses.)

  • Apr 26 — 220 (1291)
  • May 3 — 50 (399)
  • May 10 — 72 (155)
  • May 17 — 99 (169)
  • May 24 — 81 (1671)
  • May 31 — 56 (59)
  • Jun 7 — 34 (182)
  • Jun 14 — 40 (115)
  • Jun 21 — 96 (109)
  • Jun 28 — 99 (197)
  • Jul 5 — 46 (51)
  • Jul 12 — 145 (194)
  • Jul 19 — 105 (624)
  • Jul 26 — 50 (273)

Granted, these numbers don’t reflect RSS subscribers, email subscribers, “walk-in” traffic, etc.  But it’s still worth noting that during the entire experiment only 5 posts got more than 200 clicks in their first week.

Now, let’s look a bit closer.  Here are the topics of the top 5 posts:

All 5 discuss social media, and since my audience is primarily social media-driven, the success of those posts makes sense.

Also, at least 3 of the posts were retweeted by Chris Brogan, Amber Naslund and other “influencers” on Twitter — which should make a huge impact.  And in these cases, it did.

But even a nod from an influencer doesn’t guarantee a traffic spike.  For example, neither my Jun 7 or Jun 28 posts cracked 200 click-throughs, even with lunchtime retweets from Chris Brogan.

In fact…

3.  There’s no obvious predictor of success.

Now let’s look at the 3 lowest-performing posts not published on a holiday Monday:

See the difference?

Me either.

The top 5 posts all discuss social media.  So do 2 of the bottom 3.

At least 3 of the top posts are written in a confrontational style.  So is one of the bottom posts.

And the ill-circulated pop culture post still generated 28 comments, which is a healthier discussion than some of the top posts engendered.

Evidently, I have not yet figured out the recipe for guaranteed traffic.  In fact, the only proven lesson I can extract from the low end of the spectrum is that holiday Mondays are disastrous for blog traffic.  (Nether May 31 nor July 5 cracked 60 clicks.)

However, while the cumulative traffic from these 14 posts would add up to a decent 3-week average, it’s a weak 3 month haul, compared to the stats from my daily blogging days.

Again, this makes sense.  When you blog 5 times a week, you have 5 opportunities to connect with readers.  If you only blog once a week, your post has to be stellar, or else your blog becomes a dead zone for a week.

4.  Withdrawal from Daily Blogging Is Survivable.

Although I really do enjoy blogging 5 times a week, and while I did initially experience “daily blog withdrawal” in the first month of the experiment, I quickly adapted to not having to be relevant 5 times a week.

I was also concerned that my drop in blog traffic would somehow hurt my personal brand, but my Twitter followers have risen in the interim (probably because I’m spending more time there), and so has my overall workload.

In fact, I’m busier now than I was when I was blogging 5 days a week — which, I think, may be the actual takeaway here:

Now that I’m blogging less, I actually have time for all the work I should be doing.

5.  So… NOW What Do I Do?

Continue blogging weekly?

Resume blogging daily?

Never blog again?

Well…

Actually, I’m trying another experiment.

For the next 2 months, I’ll blog 3 times per week (Monday, Wednesday, Friday).  My goal during that time will be to learn:

  • If I can maintain (or improve upon) my current workflow
  • If 2 extra weekly posts will satisfy my creative urges
  • If (presumably) increased traffic creates new opportunities, or if my business operates independently of my blog

And, luckily, I only see one holiday Monday on the calendar…

Dig this blog? Subscribe and you’ll never miss a witty insight again.


189 Comments

Coach Outlet · June 10, 2012 at 9:35 pm

  Coach Purses Outlet The market nowadays is experiencing a very Coach Factory difficult competition when it comes to selling designer bags. Although, there are tons of Coach Handbags Outlet new names in the business of bag manufacturing, the Coach  Factory Outlet Coach Factory Online Sale bag never misses their popularity and personal appeal to all women who desire to have fine looking bags that they can use anytime they want.

  A Coach Outlet Online Coach bag can be used for Coach Factory formal, semi-formal and casual event. Coach Outlet Online The strict completion in the market has lead Coach to the production and distribution of Coach Coupons that can give great rebate to a fortunate customer. Once your name has been picked out from the random order selection, you will receive an email or by hand at any Coach Outlet stores. It is not tough to see website on the web Coach Outlet Store Online that can give you the chance to hold a Coach coupon.
Ads by Google

  Coach Factory Outlet It is better if you will go to authentic Coach  Bags Outlet stores in order to make sure that you are only buying original Coach Bag. Coach is one of the best handbags producers all over the world. Individuals are becoming more conscious at the amount of money that they spent on a particular product. This is also the reason why designer bags like Coach are thinking of ways on how they can cope up with this strong change in the economy. One of the effective ways to still encourage people to purchase their bags is with the use of vouchers.  Coach Outlet Store Online

Ms Georgianna Blackburn · April 7, 2011 at 4:17 pm

Okay, so I’m late to this conversation, but I think the difference with the 3 lowest performing blogs, at least if tweeted, were the titles. Of the three, the only one that screams social media topic to me is June14th, but then it was the lowest performing of the three. Maybe not listening to your audience is a title that people fear?

Moscow Abe · January 14, 2011 at 1:06 am

Very useful and insightful post. I had no idea how such precision and calculation effects the outcome of site traffic. Nicennhttp://instant-apps.com/

Big Help Bill · October 5, 2010 at 12:29 am

Some good observations. I’m sure many of us were hoping (beyond hope) that your experiment would have shown a magic increase from only once-a-week.nnI’ll disagree with some of the notions about “good content.” In an ideal world good content would attract more and better traffic. I think the truth is that content simply has to be “good enough.” Anyone who disagrees is working with a different definition of “good” than I am.

Justin Kownacki · August 24, 2010 at 2:02 pm

Someone else suggested that, too, so I followed up with another post:rnrnhttp://www.justinkownacki.com/2010/08/18/ego-cynicism-and-bad-reviews-what-i-learned-by-peeking-at-my-bounce-rates/rnrnEvidently, for an loosely focused “media / biz” blog of this size,rnbounce rates are inconclusive — but there were a few interestingrntakeaways.

Justin Kownacki · August 24, 2010 at 2:02 pm

Someone else suggested that, too, so I followed up with another post:rnrnhttp://www.justinkownacki.com/2010/08/18/ego-cynicism-and-bad-reviews-what-i-learned-by-peeking-at-my-bounce-rates/rnrnEvidently, for an loosely focused “media / biz” blog of this size,rnbounce rates are inconclusive — but there were a few interestingrntakeaways.

Anonymous · August 24, 2010 at 1:59 pm

This is really fascinating!! Another point of interest might be to see see if perhaps engagement went up–i.e. more people read the fewer posts–by looking at bounce rates, time on site, etc. and see how it changed over time. If there’s less content coming out perhaps more are compelled to read what’s there instead of skimming? I have no idea if it’s true but it’d be a good thing to test.

taylormarek · August 13, 2010 at 5:50 pm

Sounds like the experiment brought up some interesting ideas. Thanks for writing it all down for us to read, I enjoyed learning from it! :)

taylormarek · August 13, 2010 at 10:50 am

Sounds like the experiment brought up some interesting ideas. Thanks for writing it all down for us to read, I enjoyed learning from it! :)

Justin Kownacki · August 13, 2010 at 2:46 pm

There’s never a “right” way, but there are “better” or “worse” ways,rndepending on:rnrn* your goalsrn* your reachrn* your audiencern* your timern* your skillsrn* how much you actually carernrnSo tinker. If it gets better, go forward. If it gets worse, go back.rn Experimenting is half the fun of blogging (or, I think, it SHOULDrnbe). Otherwise, it’s just pressing buttons, and we have enough ofrnthose jobs already.

Justin Kownacki · August 13, 2010 at 2:36 pm

Good question. Overall, I’d say the quality of the discussion hasrnremained high. At least, *I’ve* enjoyed the feedback I’ve beenrngetting, and that has to count for something.rnrnSince I was writing denser posts during this experiment, I should havernbeen seeing more comments because there’d be more to comment about inrneach post, even if the actual number of posts was down. Overall, I’drnsay that was true during the experiment, but only on days when I wroternsomething that commenters could find a handle on. For example, my poprnculture post –rnhttp://www.justinkownacki.com/2010/06/21/the-popularity-paradox-why-do-we-hate-pop-culture/rn– generated some great personal feedback, even though my non-biz andrnnon-social media posts tend to get fewer comments.rnrnThat said, the quality of the discussion also depends partly on howrnmany people leave engaging comments, which is (in part) determined byrnoverall traffic. If fewer people (and especially fewer new readers)rnare moved to comment, then the long-term quality of the conversationrnshrinks.rnrnSo far, so good.

Stephanie Schwab:Socialologist · August 13, 2010 at 2:24 pm

Justin, this is fascinating. As a fairly new “professional blogger” (though I’ve been blogging personally for years) I’m struggling with keeping a set calendar vs. getting all the other work done vs. selling services. Glad to know that there may not be a magic formula, I was starting to feel like I wasn’t doing it the “right” way (though I know, of course, that there is no “right way” in social media, ever). I’m encouraged by your post to try a few different ways to see what works best for me.

Anonymous · August 13, 2010 at 2:22 pm

Has the quality of the discussion gotten better, worse or remained unchanged?n

Lezlie · August 13, 2010 at 1:50 pm

Great, great info! Thanks so much for sharing this. I’m interested in finding out how the 3x weekly works out. Please share!

Justin Kownacki · August 13, 2010 at 7:46 am

There's never a “right” way, but there are “better” or “worse” ways,
depending on:

* your goals
* your reach
* your audience
* your time
* your skills
* how much you actually care

So tinker. If it gets better, go forward. If it gets worse, go back.
Experimenting is half the fun of blogging (or, I think, it SHOULD
be). Otherwise, it's just pressing buttons, and we have enough of
those jobs already.

Justin Kownacki · August 13, 2010 at 7:36 am

Good question. Overall, I'd say the quality of the discussion has
remained high. At least, *I've* enjoyed the feedback I've been
getting, and that has to count for something.

Since I was writing denser posts during this experiment, I should have
been seeing more comments because there'd be more to comment about in
each post, even if the actual number of posts was down. Overall, I'd
say that was true during the experiment, but only on days when I wrote
something that commenters could find a handle on. For example, my pop
culture post —
http://www.justinkownacki.com/2010/06/21/the-po
— generated some great personal feedback, even though my non-biz and
non-social media posts tend to get fewer comments.

That said, the quality of the discussion also depends partly on how
many people leave engaging comments, which is (in part) determined by
overall traffic. If fewer people (and especially fewer new readers)
are moved to comment, then the long-term quality of the conversation
shrinks.

So far, so good.

Stephanie Schwab:Socialologist · August 13, 2010 at 7:24 am

Justin, this is fascinating. As a fairly new “professional blogger” (though I've been blogging personally for years) I'm struggling with keeping a set calendar vs. getting all the other work done vs. selling services. Glad to know that there may not be a magic formula, I was starting to feel like I wasn't doing it the “right” way (though I know, of course, that there is no “right way” in social media, ever). I'm encouraged by your post to try a few different ways to see what works best for me.

JPersch · August 13, 2010 at 7:22 am

Has the quality of the discussion gotten better, worse or remained unchanged?

Lezlie · August 13, 2010 at 6:50 am

Great, great info! Thanks so much for sharing this. I'm interested in finding out how the 3x weekly works out. Please share!

Justin Kownacki · August 12, 2010 at 9:46 am

Good question. I just poked around in Analytics, and while it doesn't
look like search is driving very much of my current traffic, the
phrases that do bubble up (and one or two results in particular) are
worth a blog post all their own. (Maybe next week.)

Virginia Nussey · August 12, 2010 at 9:22 am

Hey Justin,

I shared your findings with my readers and one had a question, and I think the answer would open up this discussion in an interesting direction:

“any correlation between subject matter of posts vs. search trends/volume for those topics of the two time periods??”

Would probably be fascinating to see if what people were searching for lined up with your most-trafficked posts or not. :)

Justin Kownacki · August 12, 2010 at 7:27 am

Grant: Some blogs allow commenters to include HTML in their comments,
to help with style or links. Obviously, this is not to be abused,
although spammers often do.

Grant · August 12, 2010 at 12:33 am

can you help me with a small question? When I leave a comment on a blog sometimes it gives you the option 'acceptable code' what does this mean and how do you use it? Thanks Grant

Justin Kownacki · August 11, 2010 at 10:50 am

Factoring in guest posts would involve a whole new batch of variables,
and would probably be best tracked over the course of a year, with a
different guest post on the same day each week. Not a bad idea —
maybe something to consider in 2011.

As for me guest blogging more often on other people's blogs, that's
always in the cards, but two things stop me from doing it more often:

* Time (which, as you realize, I could have more of if I blogged less
for myself)

* A reason to do so

Guest blogging seems easiest among like-minded bloggers who share
complementary skills and goals.

If the goal of guest blogging is to interest someone else's readers in
what I normally blog about, I'm not sure I blog about anything
consistently enough that my “brand” would port easily (and
satisfyingly) elsewhere. And, if someone else's readers did start
following me home, what would I *do* with them?

(Not that I'd complain…)

Ironshef · August 11, 2010 at 10:20 am

This is awesome. As you continue the experiment, have you considered incorporating guest blogging into the mix? Possibly, writing one (or more) quality post(s) per week on your blog and two (or more) posts elsewhere?

It could provide an interesting combination of traffic, exposure to new audiences (and business opportunities) and creative release. Or at least it may provide an interesting twist on your existing test.

SamsonMedia.net · August 11, 2010 at 9:45 am

Justin, your article helped bring things full circle: It inspired me to create my own blog post: http://samsonmedia.net/blog/2010/08/blogging-ho

AnaRC · August 10, 2010 at 6:58 pm

the mysteries of traffic! thank you for sharing this post Justin. Very genuine and open. I wonder if there's a correlation between traffic and sales (new business). At the end of the day that's what matters most. I've gone to 3 posts a week and yes the traffic has gone down but my sales have increased because I'm dedicating more time to follow up with clients.

Michele · August 10, 2010 at 6:47 pm

Interesting indeed. I too have been running my own little experiment with post frequency.
I wrote an article a couple of weeks ago about content creation, quality vs quantity. At this point I was pretty much only writing one post a week and was holding position #23 for my main keyword.
A reader suggested I write more, so took the challenge on and decided to write 2-3 posts per week. In a weeks time, my blog went to position # 15 in google. Coincidence? Maybe. Definitely worth looking into more.
But I agree it's a give and take. My social networking interactions went down in the interim.
I think a happy medium is the best scenario. If you write 5x a week, that's what people are going to expect (and demand) of you. If you write 2x then they will get used to that as well.
At the end of the day if you continue to produce quality content, you will always have your loyal fans. ;-)
Thanks for sharing your experience Justin!

Justin Kownacki · August 10, 2010 at 5:06 pm

You're absolutely right. Quality-wise, I don't think I wrote anything
during my weekly experiment that I couldn't have written during my
daily phase. Some of my best posts have been knocked out at 3 AM when
I was under pressure to complete a dozen other things, so I know that
limiting my output has nothing to do with directly improving my
quality.

This reinforces the old adage, “If you want something done, give it to
a busy person.” And if you want something written well, give it to
someone who's writing all the time.

Ike Pigott · August 10, 2010 at 3:18 pm

Justin, I have found a paradox of sorts.

I wondered too if I could scale back quantity and shoot for greater quality. What I discovered is that when left to atrophy, my writing muscle withered. Some of my best posts have come in those periods where I was in rhythm and pounding away.

Now, you could say that I was driven to write because I had good content and the Muses were playing along, but it didn't work that way. When I am not writing often, it's hard to get started… and when I delay to meet an artificial schedule, I forget the very core of what I wanted to say.

Your mileage can and will vary, of course — but thanks for sharing the self-examination!

RickJensen · August 10, 2010 at 1:58 pm

Justin, we know 'meaningful content' is the key and presuming we find your less frequent posts even more meaningful, you're readjusting the bar. I doubt you'll lose your core followers with fewer, deeper posts; don't you suppose more consistent depth of content will expand your following given some time?

Analytics Evangelist · August 10, 2010 at 1:29 pm

Interesting post but it's important to contextualise the change that is happening.

By posting less, there is less new content. The number of posts drops to 20% but your visitors and page views drop by a much lesser degree.

Could you conclude that visitor engagement goes up? Perhaps…

It would be interesting to understand what happens to your secondary metrics during this period. For example, has bounce rate dropped, are people spending longer on the page, do they read the whole post now whereas they used to skim it, do they amplify-retweet/share/digg or otherwise engage more – you can tell all of this through analytics.

It's interesting that your twitter followers increased – perhaps the better quality of your post encouraged greater engagement and triggered the reader to follow.

You say that you were posting more solid content, I think you'll find this is reflected deeper in the numbers. Before deciding whether posting more or less is a good thing, you need to decide what you want the site to achieve and start measuring that – I've never found a site where the only goal is hits!

As your site appears to be a tool to connect to people and promote your skills, this may have been more of a success than it first appears :o)

Ricardo Bueno · August 10, 2010 at 1:25 pm

Justin: GREAT analysis of your writing and traffic patterns! A few months ago I subjected myself to a “one blog post (at least) per day challenge.” It was a great way to help me gain some traction but in the end, I found it a bit difficult to keep up (I still author content for my company blog after all and I found that this is what made it most difficult). So, I kept with the idea of writing shorter posts with one main point.

I'm not sure what mix works best: MWF or WTF. But I think that 2-3 days per week is a good consistent number. And ultimately, one should write as they see fit.

Thanks again for the analysis and for sparking some thoughts along my own writing. :-)

Justin Kownacki · August 10, 2010 at 11:28 am

Very true. A lot of people have raised the issue of “need,” as in,
“Do you NEED to blog every day?”

Obviously, no. In fact, you don't need to blog at all. None of these
traffic experiments takes into account the importance of blogging
within the experimenter's overall business plan (or, for that matter,
the experimenter's personal enjoyment of blogging).

I like your idea of fluctuating the publishing days. As others have
said, August is a dead zone for traffic, so maybe this isn't the
wisest month to start tinkering, but what the hell…

clintus · August 10, 2010 at 11:27 am

Nice work Justin.

SEOWebHelp · August 10, 2010 at 10:58 am

Unfortunately I have learned this lesson the hard way. Mine wasn't a test but yet a cause of being too involved in other projects.

Thanks for sharing your results!

Mack Collier · August 10, 2010 at 10:48 am

First, the only blogger I know who can create solid posts almost every single day is Valeria Maltoni. No idea how she does it.

Second, I think unless you are making some serious cash either directly or indirectly from your blog, that there's really no need to post everyday. I think your plan of posting once a week and then trying to work your way up, is a good one.

One piece of advice on your plan to go with MWF posts. Experiment by doing a couple of weeks with that format, versus a couple of weeks of Tues – Weds – Thurs. From my experience, Friday traffic is sometimes only marginally better than weekend traffic, and Monday traffic is about 20% better than that. Weds and Thurs seems to be the best days, then Tues.

jaybaer · August 10, 2010 at 10:44 am

Great stuff. Thanks for showing your work. Very helpful. Just to make it even more complicated, I have done some similar tests, and found that consecutive days helps gain traction and a multiplier effect. Also, M/F I don't love, because you get more people on vacation. That's why I almost invariably publish T, W, Th.

Jackson Wightman · August 10, 2010 at 10:08 am

Fascinating. You might enjoy this post by Adam Vincenzini – who surveyed his blog's readers recently on questions relating to content and frequency.

Thks Justin!

http://thecommscorner.blogspot.com/2010/08/what

Mary Alice Gilbert · August 10, 2010 at 10:02 am

Did the quality of your posts change in anyway? For instance, many of my customers using clp.ly as a way to create more frequent posts tend to use a combination of longer-form posts and very quick, curated stuff they find around the web using the clp.ly tools. I'm wondering if the length/content that's included has any greater impact than the frequency of posts. Frequency seems to be the driver.

    Justin Kownacki · August 10, 2010 at 10:37 am

    I guess I'm not the person to ask about the quality of my own posts. ;)

    However, during the weekly phase, I did lean toward longer 1,000 word+
    posts, because I felt like only posting once per week meant it should
    be as valuable (I would hope) as possible. Not that length
    automatically = value, but it does usually = depth, or at least
    nuance.

Tom Martin · August 10, 2010 at 5:42 am

Interesting. Question- did you promote your once a week blog post only on the day it posted or did you push it out (via twitter and other places) multiple times during the week? Also, what is your biggest driver of blog traffic to new posts? Twitter or some other platform?

Thanks for sharing. Look forward to hearing answers to above and to seeing the results of the next test. Finding that perfect balance of # of posts per week with maximum traffic would be ideal for me. Hoping you'll help find that point.

@TomMartin

    Justin Kownacki · August 10, 2010 at 6:42 am

    Normally I tweeted a link to a new post between 1 & 3 times on the day
    it published, and then once or twice thereafter. (Admittedly not a
    very controlled approach.) Nonetheless, even on weeks when I tweeted
    links to a post on multiple days, the vast majority of all but 1
    post's traffic happened on the post's launch day (because that's when
    it's new to other people, too).

    Going forward, I should probably conduct a more controlled Twitter
    experiment to measure the impact of various times and frequencies on
    the end traffic results. And also one comparing Twitter to LinkedIn
    to Facebook. (But that would require me to voluntarily use LinkedIn
    and Facebook. Hmm…)

Scott Saxby · August 9, 2010 at 10:58 pm

I'll definitely be incorporating this into my blogging strategies. It makes sense that every new post is a chance to connect with your readers. The three day a week blogging schedule sounds much more manageable than 5 days a week.

DJ Waldow · August 9, 2010 at 1:22 pm

Justin –

I nearly spit out my beer (errr…water) when I read, “Evidently, I have not yet figured out the recipe for guaranteed traffic.” Please let us all know when you figure that out. GUARANTEE! YES!

I love that you are experimenting. I love that you are adapting based on data and your personal style. However, I think Tom Webster (love that dude) has a great point. Are you using any tools to track which posts generate “leads” and new business? Just curious…

Looking forward to the next stage of this experiment!

DJ Waldow
Director of Community, Blue Sky Factory
@djwaldow

    Justin Kownacki · August 9, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    Funny you should ask. Of the last 5 leads I've received, here's where
    they came from:

    * 1 potential client saw me speak at #140conf DC
    * 1 new client attended my in-person Social Media 101 workshop
    * 1 new client was referred to me from someone who likes my blog / tweets
    * 1 recent client sought me out based on my blog / tweets over the past year
    * 1 potential client was referred to me by another client

    So, according to that breakdown, my blog was indirectly responsible
    for at least two of those leads. Did a specific post turn the tide?
    I have no idea; that may be worth investigating. But, by and large,
    I'd say the majority of my business over the years has been channeled
    through two resources:

    * People who've evaluated my composite body of work (blog, Twitter,
    Something to Be Desired, PodCamp Pittsburgh, etc.)

    * People who've been referred by existing clients or positive word of mouth

    In other words, as far as I can tell, I have yet to land a client
    because of any one post I did (or didn't) write.

Laurent Pfertzel · August 9, 2010 at 12:07 pm

Justin
Great post. I stumble on a similar article a year ago about dropping traffic significantly when dropping posting frequency.
I think 2 big criteria comes into play to keep an audience interested: 1) relevance (the brain is designed to filter on relevance) 2) time (the brain is designed to forget). The 2 are important. If time is a constraint for a blogger, there's a danger to post 'non relevant' stuff just because something needs to be posted. It's good for the time factor, bad for the relevance one.
Laurent

    Justin Kownacki · August 9, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    That's true, and it also illustrates a problem with the popular “only
    blog when you have something relevant to say” argument:

    Even if I had something relevant to say EVERY day, it doesn't mean my
    audience also has the time & interest in reading something relevant
    from me every day.

    Traffic is a result of:

    * quality
    * relevance
    * frequency
    * availability
    * interest

    and a dozen other intangibles. But if the goal is to reach more
    people, then understanding pieces of that puzzle is better than
    understanding nothing at all.

DrV · August 9, 2010 at 10:23 am

Here's a mindblowing idea: Why don't you blog when you have something really valuable to share? The concept of 'having' to post is so backwards.

Only In Italy · August 9, 2010 at 10:03 am

Ciao from Italy, Justin!

I too was a so called daily blogger. Back in mid February I started what I call “tri-posts” (posting 3 times a week, M, W, F) and I have to say I love it. I am more relaxed and able to give three solid posts every week. Plus, I had to consider the fact that there is too much information overload on the net (blogs, podcasts, feeds, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and the fear my stuff would not be read.

My traffic dropped off in the beginning but slowly came back. I have so far recuperated around 70% of the traffic I lost since March. I will never change this formula. Do it! You won't regret it.

Thanks again for the post! Pasquale

markwilliamschaefer · August 9, 2010 at 9:27 am

From my experience, the “drop off the cliff” comes from summer vacations. And if a good number of your readers come from Europe, expect about a big fat “zero” in the reader column for August, the traditional month for holidays. I'm quite sure vacations account for part of what you experienced, Jason.

Thanks for the great post. — Mark

    jaybaer · August 10, 2010 at 10:45 am

    Agree on that. My June traffic was really low, and it's since bounced right back as school starts (or approaches)

Betsy Hubbard · August 9, 2010 at 8:55 am

How does this summer's traffic compare to the same time period last year? Any chance that at least part of the decline is due to seasonal variation (I know I'm lazier in summer and don't make as much of an effort to keep up…).

    Justin Kownacki · August 9, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    Good question — and impossible to answer, because I launched this
    blog in July of 2009. Check back next year at this time and we may
    have a clearer picture. Although, technically, if my blog's overall
    reach expands from year-to-year, those annual totals should rise
    regardless of seasonal peaks and valleys.

Tamara · August 9, 2010 at 8:50 am

Love this post! I decided to do the same thing with one of my blogs, not as an experiment, but rather because I was too busy to maintain a daily or even 4-5x/week schedule. Like you said, it was a bit of a withdrawal at first, but then I got used to it and the shock of lowered stats went away.

Love this insight into your experiement!

Tamara
http://www.BlogConferenceNewbie.com

JGibbard · August 9, 2010 at 7:56 am

Great post Justin. Its something I struggle with all the time: “How often should I be blogging?” Your post definitely got me thinking especially with regards to comparing your own blog to others blogs. I always enjoy seeing prominent bloggers, blogging about their experiences with this medium.

My blog post inspired from yours: http://bit.ly/c3CNhb

Jeff

Tom Webster · August 9, 2010 at 7:54 am

Love this post, Justin. One thing I'd be keenly interested in, as much as you are willing to share, is how posting weekly vs. daily has affected your business, as opposed to your traffic. As a weekly poster myself, I have similarly noticed that which posts get picked up and which ones remain relatively ignored is largely a random walk. But “traffic,” when you don't get paid for impressions/clicks/etc., is a proxy for…what, exactly? If traffic doesn't serve as a derivative measure of some other key business metric, then what other key business metrics moved? If, despite the decline in traffic, other business metrics held steady – or even rose – then what does that say about the opportunity cost of blogging daily? I wouldn't go too far down that slope, obviously, but the one thing I would say is: thanks for challenging some of the “received wisdom” of blogging. If traffic is your goal, then you'd better get paid on traffic. If it isn't, then it's incumbent on all of us to find our own way with blogging.

Thoughtful stuff, Justin – thanks.

    Justin Kownacki · August 9, 2010 at 7:59 am

    Tom: Good point. I'll need some more time to evaluate where my blog
    stands in the bigger business picture.

    Since my blog and Twitter are my primary public-facing channels, I
    know each of them does play a role in how I land new business (and how
    much of it I land). But as for how *much* of an impact either of them
    has over time, or how much money I could be losing by blogging “too
    much,” I'm not sure. Maybe I'll figure out a way to measure that
    impact in the future.

Rafael · August 9, 2010 at 7:41 am

Nice read, I'm going in the opposite direction tho. I'm trying to post multiple times per day for the month of August to see what happens with my traffic. My personal blog originally had very negligible traffic, so I had nothing to lose and lots to gain. The results so far seem promising.

I really like how you broke down your stats, I think I'll emulate that in my analysis post that I'll put up in September.

Jamie Perkins · August 9, 2010 at 7:38 am

It makes sense that daily posts get more traffic- all things aside, NEW content is almost always more interesting than anything else by default. The quality of the article will determine if they stay on the site long enough to read it.

However you didn't mention anything about headlines- the headline you write has a huge influence on whether people read the post, whether they're coming from an rss reader, or twitter, or anywhere else. Which is why I sometimes tweet a grabbing headline like “Running a marathon is harder on your body than a night of binging on cocaine and wild turkey” with this link: http://bit.ly/6B3Qxd

Out of everything I tweet, this link gets the most hits. And if you clicked it, you know where it goes- to a page that says “Gotcha.” There's no content. The traffic came by the strength of the headline alone. So consider that next time you do a traffic test.

Thomas Baekdal · August 9, 2010 at 7:37 am

Interesting, but what is the “Absolute Unique Users” from your Google Analytics?

    Justin Kownacki · August 9, 2010 at 7:54 am

    My Analytics numbers and my Compete numbers tend to follow the same
    pattern, so I didn't originally post both sets. But since you asked:

    According to Compete, I had:

    * 9,900 unique visitors in April
    * 11,400 unique visitors in May
    * 2,600 unique visitors in June
    * July stats not yet available

    According to Analytics, I had:

    * 4,030 absolute unique visitors in April
    * 3,968 absolute unique visitors in May
    * 1,709 absolute unique visitors in June
    * 2,265 absolute unique visitors in July

    Why Compete and Analytics report such different numbers, I don't know,
    but the dip in traffic is generally consistent.

      Thomas Baekdal · August 9, 2010 at 9:54 am

      Thanks, and as you say, the trend is clear. Although the Google stats show a much less severe drop. 74% for Compete and 44% for Google Analytics.

      But more interesting, is when you compare Absolute Uniques with Pageviews (both via Google), your visitor are dropping faster than your page views. So less people visit your site, but they read more.

      You engagement and influence levels might be going up (but I cannot tell that by only looking at traffic and visitors)

      But very interesting experiment. I wonder what optimal post-rate. In some ways I think it is more than once per day, but it very much depends on the depth and value of each posts.

SHerdegen · August 9, 2010 at 7:34 am

Thanks for sharing these stats, very enlightening.

Sadly, I had just switched to weekly posts from daily posts myself due mostly to observing your posting frequency. Oops.

Cooley · August 9, 2010 at 7:32 am

This is really interesting. I started my own WordPress blog and tried to post daily…then weekly…then let it fall to pieces. My struggle is finding a way to be relevant everyday, so I give you high kudos for posting and being interesting every day. I think posting about three times a week is a good balance–that's what we do on my work blog (http://www.xtraxtra.com/blog)–but as others have said, content is key. One of my favorite bloggers, Hyperbole and a Half (http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/), blogs very sporadically, but I'd guess her analytics are always through the roof when something new and awesome is added to her site.

Sarah Wallace · August 9, 2010 at 7:28 am

Thank you for this post. I appreciate you sharing your experience, especially your numbers. At first I felt pressured to blog daily and now I'm so busy I blog when I'm inspired but I have found over the last few months that I'm getting continual traffic to my site even when I haven't posted anything.

David B. Thomas · August 9, 2010 at 7:26 am

Justin, this is great stuff and very valuable analysis. A lot of people struggle with this question and it's useful to see some numbers.

One thing you might glean from the lowest-performing posts: People don't read posts with the word “paradox” in the title.

    Justin Kownacki · August 9, 2010 at 7:31 am

    Quite true. Going forward, I'll have to dust off my thesaurus.

    Interestingly, this supports Dan Zarrella's observation that the word
    “vs.” is the least-shareable word on Facebook:

    http://danzarrella.com/the-least-shareable-word

    So, despite being a competitive society, we seem to reject explicit
    comparisons… Hmm…

Nathan Hangen · August 9, 2010 at 6:48 am

Cool post. Honesty is refreshing.

Unless you have a very specific need, I just don't see the reason to post daily. I know, Chris does it, but he's unique…most that I've seen do it burn out at some point.

Like you said, when not blogging daily, you adjusted and did more important work…that's huge. I'd like to know more about that part…the mental stuff and the new work that came with it.

    Justin Kownacki · August 9, 2010 at 7:05 am

    Once I wrap my head more fully around my new workflow, I'll be happy
    to sum it up in a post. Until then, it's still a jumble of loose ends
    and question marks. (But profitable ones…)

zoeDisco · August 9, 2010 at 6:34 am

“Evidently, I have not yet figured out the recipe for guaranteed traffic. “

It's good content. No tricks, no experiments; just good content.

z

Conor · August 9, 2010 at 6:33 am

Fantastic analysis. I have been involved in a (non-data-driven) process of thinking about how often to post to the blog. I have posted weekly since beginning – and not on a set day – I was driven more by posting when I have something quality to say than by deadlines. It is great to see a really data driven analysis of the difference between daily vs weekly.

Steve Haase · August 9, 2010 at 6:33 am

Thanks for letting us in behind the scenes, Justin. It's great to get a glimpse into how the blogosphere works, and what it takes to keep consistent traffic coming to the site. Interested to hear how 3 times a week works out for you.

nateriggs · August 9, 2010 at 6:22 am

Nice self-analysis, Justin.

Finding the balance of frequency versus killer content is all up for grabs. Thanks for working on this. It's interesting…

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Unfortunately I have learned this lesson the hard way. Mine wasn’t a test but yet a cause of being too involved in other projects.nnThanks for sharing your results!

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Nice work Justin.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Very true. A lot of people have raised the issue of “need,” as in,rn”Do you NEED to blog every day?”rnrnObviously, no. In fact, you don’t need to blog at all. None of theserntraffic experiments takes into account the importance of bloggingrnwithin the experimenter’s overall business plan (or, for that matter,rnthe experimenter’s personal enjoyment of blogging).rnrnI like your idea of fluctuating the publishing days. As others havernsaid, August is a dead zone for traffic, so maybe this isn’t thernwisest month to start tinkering, but what the hell…

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Justin: GREAT analysis of your writing and traffic patterns! A few months ago I subjected myself to a “one blog post (at least) per day challenge.” It was a great way to help me gain some traction but in the end, I found it a bit difficult to keep up (I still author content for my company blog after all and I found that this is what made it most difficult). So, I kept with the idea of writing shorter posts with one main point. nnI’m not sure what mix works best: MWF or WTF. But I think that 2-3 days per week is a good consistent number. And ultimately, one should write as they see fit. nnThanks again for the analysis and for sparking some thoughts along my own writing. :-)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Interesting post but it’s important to contextualise the change that is happening.nnBy posting less, there is less new content. The number of posts drops to 20% but your visitors and page views drop by a much lesser degree. nnCould you conclude that visitor engagement goes up? Perhaps… nnIt would be interesting to understand what happens to your secondary metrics during this period. For example, has bounce rate dropped, are people spending longer on the page, do they read the whole post now whereas they used to skim it, do they amplify-retweet/share/digg or otherwise engage more – you can tell all of this through analytics.nnIt’s interesting that your twitter followers increased – perhaps the better quality of your post encouraged greater engagement and triggered the reader to follow.nnYou say that you were posting more solid content, I think you’ll find this is reflected deeper in the numbers. Before deciding whether posting more or less is a good thing, you need to decide what you want the site to achieve and start measuring that – I’ve never found a site where the only goal is hits! nnAs your site appears to be a tool to connect to people and promote your skills, this may have been more of a success than it first appears :o)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Justin, we know ‘meaningful content’ is the key and presuming we find your less frequent posts even more meaningful, you’re readjusting the bar. I doubt you’ll lose your core followers with fewer, deeper posts; don’t you suppose more consistent depth of content will expand your following given some time?

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Justin, I have found a paradox of sorts.nnI wondered too if I could scale back quantity and shoot for greater quality. What I discovered is that when left to atrophy, my writing muscle withered. Some of my best posts have come in those periods where I was in rhythm and pounding away.nnNow, you could say that I was driven to write because I had good content and the Muses were playing along, but it didn’t work that way. When I am not writing often, it’s hard to get started… and when I delay to meet an artificial schedule, I forget the very core of what I wanted to say.nnYour mileage can and will vary, of course — but thanks for sharing the self-examination!

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

You’re absolutely right. Quality-wise, I don’t think I wrote anythingrnduring my weekly experiment that I couldn’t have written during myrndaily phase. Some of my best posts have been knocked out at 3 AM whenrnI was under pressure to complete a dozen other things, so I know thatrnlimiting my output has nothing to do with directly improving myrnquality.rnrnThis reinforces the old adage, “If you want something done, give it torna busy person.” And if you want something written well, give it tornsomeone who’s writing all the time.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Interesting indeed. I too have been running my own little experiment with post frequency.nI wrote an article a couple of weeks ago about content creation, quality vs quantity. At this point I was pretty much only writing one post a week and was holding position #23 for my main keyword.nA reader suggested I write more, so took the challenge on and decided to write 2-3 posts per week. In a weeks time, my blog went to position # 15 in google. Coincidence? Maybe. Definitely worth looking into more.nBut I agree it’s a give and take. My social networking interactions went down in the interim.nI think a happy medium is the best scenario. If you write 5x a week, that’s what people are going to expect (and demand) of you. If you write 2x then they will get used to that as well.nAt the end of the day if you continue to produce quality content, you will always have your loyal fans. ;-)nThanks for sharing your experience Justin!

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

the mysteries of traffic! thank you for sharing this post Justin. Very genuine and open. I wonder if there’s a correlation between traffic and sales (new business). At the end of the day that’s what matters most. I’ve gone to 3 posts a week and yes the traffic has gone down but my sales have increased because I’m dedicating more time to follow up with clients.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Justin, your article helped bring things full circle: It inspired me to create my own blog post: http://samsonmedia.net/blog/2010/08/blogging-how-much-is-too-much-or-not-enough/

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

This is awesome. As you continue the experiment, have you considered incorporating guest blogging into the mix? Possibly, writing one (or more) quality post(s) per week on your blog and two (or more) posts elsewhere?nnIt could provide an interesting combination of traffic, exposure to new audiences (and business opportunities) and creative release. Or at least it may provide an interesting twist on your existing test.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Factoring in guest posts would involve a whole new batch of variables,rnand would probably be best tracked over the course of a year, with arndifferent guest post on the same day each week. Not a bad idea –rnmaybe something to consider in 2011.rnrnAs for me guest blogging more often on other people’s blogs, that’srnalways in the cards, but two things stop me from doing it more often:rnrn* Time (which, as you realize, I could have more of if I blogged lessrnfor myself)rnrn* A reason to do sornrnGuest blogging seems easiest among like-minded bloggers who sharerncomplementary skills and goals.rnrnIf the goal of guest blogging is to interest someone else’s readers inrnwhat I normally blog about, I’m not sure I blog about anythingrnconsistently enough that my “brand” would port easily (andrnsatisfyingly) elsewhere. And, if someone else’s readers did startrnfollowing me home, what would I *do* with them?rnrn(Not that I’d complain…)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

can you help me with a small question? When I leave a comment on a blog sometimes it gives you the option ‘acceptable code’ what does this mean and how do you use it? Thanks Grant

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Grant: Some blogs allow commenters to include HTML in their comments,rnto help with style or links. Obviously, this is not to be abused,rnalthough spammers often do.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Hey Justin,nnI shared your findings with my readers and one had a question, and I think the answer would open up this discussion in an interesting direction:nn”any correlation between subject matter of posts vs. search trends/volume for those topics of the two time periods??”nnWould probably be fascinating to see if what people were searching for lined up with your most-trafficked posts or not. :)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Good question. I just poked around in Analytics, and while it doesn’trnlook like search is driving very much of my current traffic, thernphrases that do bubble up (and one or two results in particular) arernworth a blog post all their own. (Maybe next week.)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Great, great info! Thanks so much for sharing this. I’m interested in finding out how the 3x weekly works out. Please share!

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Has the quality of the discussion gotten better, worse or remained unchanged?n

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Justin, this is fascinating. As a fairly new “professional blogger” (though I’ve been blogging personally for years) I’m struggling with keeping a set calendar vs. getting all the other work done vs. selling services. Glad to know that there may not be a magic formula, I was starting to feel like I wasn’t doing it the “right” way (though I know, of course, that there is no “right way” in social media, ever). I’m encouraged by your post to try a few different ways to see what works best for me.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Good question. Overall, I’d say the quality of the discussion hasrnremained high. At least, *I’ve* enjoyed the feedback I’ve beenrngetting, and that has to count for something.rnrnSince I was writing denser posts during this experiment, I should havernbeen seeing more comments because there’d be more to comment about inrneach post, even if the actual number of posts was down. Overall, I’drnsay that was true during the experiment, but only on days when I wroternsomething that commenters could find a handle on. For example, my poprnculture post –rnhttp://www.justinkownacki.com/2010/06/21/the-popularity-paradox-why-do-we-hate-pop-culture/rn– generated some great personal feedback, even though my non-biz andrnnon-social media posts tend to get fewer comments.rnrnThat said, the quality of the discussion also depends partly on howrnmany people leave engaging comments, which is (in part) determined byrnoverall traffic. If fewer people (and especially fewer new readers)rnare moved to comment, then the long-term quality of the conversationrnshrinks.rnrnSo far, so good.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

There’s never a “right” way, but there are “better” or “worse” ways,rndepending on:rnrn* your goalsrn* your reachrn* your audiencern* your timern* your skillsrn* how much you actually carernrnSo tinker. If it gets better, go forward. If it gets worse, go back.rn Experimenting is half the fun of blogging (or, I think, it SHOULDrnbe). Otherwise, it’s just pressing buttons, and we have enough ofrnthose jobs already.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Sounds like the experiment brought up some interesting ideas. Thanks for writing it all down for us to read, I enjoyed learning from it! :)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

This is really fascinating!! Another point of interest might be to see see if perhaps engagement went up–i.e. more people read the fewer posts–by looking at bounce rates, time on site, etc. and see how it changed over time. If there’s less content coming out perhaps more are compelled to read what’s there instead of skimming? I have no idea if it’s true but it’d be a good thing to test.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Someone else suggested that, too, so I followed up with another post:rnrnhttp://www.justinkownacki.com/2010/08/18/ego-cynicism-and-bad-reviews-what-i-learned-by-peeking-at-my-bounce-rates/rnrnEvidently, for an loosely focused “media / biz” blog of this size,rnbounce rates are inconclusive — but there were a few interestingrntakeaways.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Unfortunately I have learned this lesson the hard way. Mine wasn’t a test but yet a cause of being too involved in other projects.nnThanks for sharing your results!

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Nice work Justin.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Very true. A lot of people have raised the issue of “need,” as in,rn”Do you NEED to blog every day?”rnrnObviously, no. In fact, you don’t need to blog at all. None of theserntraffic experiments takes into account the importance of bloggingrnwithin the experimenter’s overall business plan (or, for that matter,rnthe experimenter’s personal enjoyment of blogging).rnrnI like your idea of fluctuating the publishing days. As others havernsaid, August is a dead zone for traffic, so maybe this isn’t thernwisest month to start tinkering, but what the hell…

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Justin: GREAT analysis of your writing and traffic patterns! A few months ago I subjected myself to a “one blog post (at least) per day challenge.” It was a great way to help me gain some traction but in the end, I found it a bit difficult to keep up (I still author content for my company blog after all and I found that this is what made it most difficult). So, I kept with the idea of writing shorter posts with one main point. nnI’m not sure what mix works best: MWF or WTF. But I think that 2-3 days per week is a good consistent number. And ultimately, one should write as they see fit. nnThanks again for the analysis and for sparking some thoughts along my own writing. :-)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Interesting post but it’s important to contextualise the change that is happening.nnBy posting less, there is less new content. The number of posts drops to 20% but your visitors and page views drop by a much lesser degree. nnCould you conclude that visitor engagement goes up? Perhaps… nnIt would be interesting to understand what happens to your secondary metrics during this period. For example, has bounce rate dropped, are people spending longer on the page, do they read the whole post now whereas they used to skim it, do they amplify-retweet/share/digg or otherwise engage more – you can tell all of this through analytics.nnIt’s interesting that your twitter followers increased – perhaps the better quality of your post encouraged greater engagement and triggered the reader to follow.nnYou say that you were posting more solid content, I think you’ll find this is reflected deeper in the numbers. Before deciding whether posting more or less is a good thing, you need to decide what you want the site to achieve and start measuring that – I’ve never found a site where the only goal is hits! nnAs your site appears to be a tool to connect to people and promote your skills, this may have been more of a success than it first appears :o)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Justin, we know ‘meaningful content’ is the key and presuming we find your less frequent posts even more meaningful, you’re readjusting the bar. I doubt you’ll lose your core followers with fewer, deeper posts; don’t you suppose more consistent depth of content will expand your following given some time?

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Justin, I have found a paradox of sorts.nnI wondered too if I could scale back quantity and shoot for greater quality. What I discovered is that when left to atrophy, my writing muscle withered. Some of my best posts have come in those periods where I was in rhythm and pounding away.nnNow, you could say that I was driven to write because I had good content and the Muses were playing along, but it didn’t work that way. When I am not writing often, it’s hard to get started… and when I delay to meet an artificial schedule, I forget the very core of what I wanted to say.nnYour mileage can and will vary, of course — but thanks for sharing the self-examination!

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

You’re absolutely right. Quality-wise, I don’t think I wrote anythingrnduring my weekly experiment that I couldn’t have written during myrndaily phase. Some of my best posts have been knocked out at 3 AM whenrnI was under pressure to complete a dozen other things, so I know thatrnlimiting my output has nothing to do with directly improving myrnquality.rnrnThis reinforces the old adage, “If you want something done, give it torna busy person.” And if you want something written well, give it tornsomeone who’s writing all the time.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Interesting indeed. I too have been running my own little experiment with post frequency.nI wrote an article a couple of weeks ago about content creation, quality vs quantity. At this point I was pretty much only writing one post a week and was holding position #23 for my main keyword.nA reader suggested I write more, so took the challenge on and decided to write 2-3 posts per week. In a weeks time, my blog went to position # 15 in google. Coincidence? Maybe. Definitely worth looking into more.nBut I agree it’s a give and take. My social networking interactions went down in the interim.nI think a happy medium is the best scenario. If you write 5x a week, that’s what people are going to expect (and demand) of you. If you write 2x then they will get used to that as well.nAt the end of the day if you continue to produce quality content, you will always have your loyal fans. ;-)nThanks for sharing your experience Justin!

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

the mysteries of traffic! thank you for sharing this post Justin. Very genuine and open. I wonder if there’s a correlation between traffic and sales (new business). At the end of the day that’s what matters most. I’ve gone to 3 posts a week and yes the traffic has gone down but my sales have increased because I’m dedicating more time to follow up with clients.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Justin, your article helped bring things full circle: It inspired me to create my own blog post: http://samsonmedia.net/blog/2010/08/blogging-how-much-is-too-much-or-not-enough/

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

This is awesome. As you continue the experiment, have you considered incorporating guest blogging into the mix? Possibly, writing one (or more) quality post(s) per week on your blog and two (or more) posts elsewhere?nnIt could provide an interesting combination of traffic, exposure to new audiences (and business opportunities) and creative release. Or at least it may provide an interesting twist on your existing test.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Factoring in guest posts would involve a whole new batch of variables,rnand would probably be best tracked over the course of a year, with arndifferent guest post on the same day each week. Not a bad idea –rnmaybe something to consider in 2011.rnrnAs for me guest blogging more often on other people’s blogs, that’srnalways in the cards, but two things stop me from doing it more often:rnrn* Time (which, as you realize, I could have more of if I blogged lessrnfor myself)rnrn* A reason to do sornrnGuest blogging seems easiest among like-minded bloggers who sharerncomplementary skills and goals.rnrnIf the goal of guest blogging is to interest someone else’s readers inrnwhat I normally blog about, I’m not sure I blog about anythingrnconsistently enough that my “brand” would port easily (andrnsatisfyingly) elsewhere. And, if someone else’s readers did startrnfollowing me home, what would I *do* with them?rnrn(Not that I’d complain…)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

can you help me with a small question? When I leave a comment on a blog sometimes it gives you the option ‘acceptable code’ what does this mean and how do you use it? Thanks Grant

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Grant: Some blogs allow commenters to include HTML in their comments,rnto help with style or links. Obviously, this is not to be abused,rnalthough spammers often do.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Hey Justin,nnI shared your findings with my readers and one had a question, and I think the answer would open up this discussion in an interesting direction:nn”any correlation between subject matter of posts vs. search trends/volume for those topics of the two time periods??”nnWould probably be fascinating to see if what people were searching for lined up with your most-trafficked posts or not. :)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Good question. I just poked around in Analytics, and while it doesn’trnlook like search is driving very much of my current traffic, thernphrases that do bubble up (and one or two results in particular) arernworth a blog post all their own. (Maybe next week.)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Great, great info! Thanks so much for sharing this. I’m interested in finding out how the 3x weekly works out. Please share!

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Has the quality of the discussion gotten better, worse or remained unchanged?n

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Justin, this is fascinating. As a fairly new “professional blogger” (though I’ve been blogging personally for years) I’m struggling with keeping a set calendar vs. getting all the other work done vs. selling services. Glad to know that there may not be a magic formula, I was starting to feel like I wasn’t doing it the “right” way (though I know, of course, that there is no “right way” in social media, ever). I’m encouraged by your post to try a few different ways to see what works best for me.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Good question. Overall, I’d say the quality of the discussion hasrnremained high. At least, *I’ve* enjoyed the feedback I’ve beenrngetting, and that has to count for something.rnrnSince I was writing denser posts during this experiment, I should havernbeen seeing more comments because there’d be more to comment about inrneach post, even if the actual number of posts was down. Overall, I’drnsay that was true during the experiment, but only on days when I wroternsomething that commenters could find a handle on. For example, my poprnculture post –rnhttp://www.justinkownacki.com/2010/06/21/the-popularity-paradox-why-do-we-hate-pop-culture/rn– generated some great personal feedback, even though my non-biz andrnnon-social media posts tend to get fewer comments.rnrnThat said, the quality of the discussion also depends partly on howrnmany people leave engaging comments, which is (in part) determined byrnoverall traffic. If fewer people (and especially fewer new readers)rnare moved to comment, then the long-term quality of the conversationrnshrinks.rnrnSo far, so good.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

There’s never a “right” way, but there are “better” or “worse” ways,rndepending on:rnrn* your goalsrn* your reachrn* your audiencern* your timern* your skillsrn* how much you actually carernrnSo tinker. If it gets better, go forward. If it gets worse, go back.rn Experimenting is half the fun of blogging (or, I think, it SHOULDrnbe). Otherwise, it’s just pressing buttons, and we have enough ofrnthose jobs already.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Sounds like the experiment brought up some interesting ideas. Thanks for writing it all down for us to read, I enjoyed learning from it! :)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

This is really fascinating!! Another point of interest might be to see see if perhaps engagement went up–i.e. more people read the fewer posts–by looking at bounce rates, time on site, etc. and see how it changed over time. If there’s less content coming out perhaps more are compelled to read what’s there instead of skimming? I have no idea if it’s true but it’d be a good thing to test.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Someone else suggested that, too, so I followed up with another post:rnrnhttp://www.justinkownacki.com/2010/08/18/ego-cynicism-and-bad-reviews-what-i-learned-by-peeking-at-my-bounce-rates/rnrnEvidently, for an loosely focused “media / biz” blog of this size,rnbounce rates are inconclusive — but there were a few interestingrntakeaways.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Unfortunately I have learned this lesson the hard way. Mine wasn’t a test but yet a cause of being too involved in other projects.nnThanks for sharing your results!

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Nice work Justin.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Very true. A lot of people have raised the issue of “need,” as in,rn”Do you NEED to blog every day?”rnrnObviously, no. In fact, you don’t need to blog at all. None of theserntraffic experiments takes into account the importance of bloggingrnwithin the experimenter’s overall business plan (or, for that matter,rnthe experimenter’s personal enjoyment of blogging).rnrnI like your idea of fluctuating the publishing days. As others havernsaid, August is a dead zone for traffic, so maybe this isn’t thernwisest month to start tinkering, but what the hell…

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Justin: GREAT analysis of your writing and traffic patterns! A few months ago I subjected myself to a “one blog post (at least) per day challenge.” It was a great way to help me gain some traction but in the end, I found it a bit difficult to keep up (I still author content for my company blog after all and I found that this is what made it most difficult). So, I kept with the idea of writing shorter posts with one main point. nnI’m not sure what mix works best: MWF or WTF. But I think that 2-3 days per week is a good consistent number. And ultimately, one should write as they see fit. nnThanks again for the analysis and for sparking some thoughts along my own writing. :-)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Interesting post but it’s important to contextualise the change that is happening.nnBy posting less, there is less new content. The number of posts drops to 20% but your visitors and page views drop by a much lesser degree. nnCould you conclude that visitor engagement goes up? Perhaps… nnIt would be interesting to understand what happens to your secondary metrics during this period. For example, has bounce rate dropped, are people spending longer on the page, do they read the whole post now whereas they used to skim it, do they amplify-retweet/share/digg or otherwise engage more – you can tell all of this through analytics.nnIt’s interesting that your twitter followers increased – perhaps the better quality of your post encouraged greater engagement and triggered the reader to follow.nnYou say that you were posting more solid content, I think you’ll find this is reflected deeper in the numbers. Before deciding whether posting more or less is a good thing, you need to decide what you want the site to achieve and start measuring that – I’ve never found a site where the only goal is hits! nnAs your site appears to be a tool to connect to people and promote your skills, this may have been more of a success than it first appears :o)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Justin, we know ‘meaningful content’ is the key and presuming we find your less frequent posts even more meaningful, you’re readjusting the bar. I doubt you’ll lose your core followers with fewer, deeper posts; don’t you suppose more consistent depth of content will expand your following given some time?

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Justin, I have found a paradox of sorts.nnI wondered too if I could scale back quantity and shoot for greater quality. What I discovered is that when left to atrophy, my writing muscle withered. Some of my best posts have come in those periods where I was in rhythm and pounding away.nnNow, you could say that I was driven to write because I had good content and the Muses were playing along, but it didn’t work that way. When I am not writing often, it’s hard to get started… and when I delay to meet an artificial schedule, I forget the very core of what I wanted to say.nnYour mileage can and will vary, of course — but thanks for sharing the self-examination!

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

You’re absolutely right. Quality-wise, I don’t think I wrote anythingrnduring my weekly experiment that I couldn’t have written during myrndaily phase. Some of my best posts have been knocked out at 3 AM whenrnI was under pressure to complete a dozen other things, so I know thatrnlimiting my output has nothing to do with directly improving myrnquality.rnrnThis reinforces the old adage, “If you want something done, give it torna busy person.” And if you want something written well, give it tornsomeone who’s writing all the time.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Interesting indeed. I too have been running my own little experiment with post frequency.nI wrote an article a couple of weeks ago about content creation, quality vs quantity. At this point I was pretty much only writing one post a week and was holding position #23 for my main keyword.nA reader suggested I write more, so took the challenge on and decided to write 2-3 posts per week. In a weeks time, my blog went to position # 15 in google. Coincidence? Maybe. Definitely worth looking into more.nBut I agree it’s a give and take. My social networking interactions went down in the interim.nI think a happy medium is the best scenario. If you write 5x a week, that’s what people are going to expect (and demand) of you. If you write 2x then they will get used to that as well.nAt the end of the day if you continue to produce quality content, you will always have your loyal fans. ;-)nThanks for sharing your experience Justin!

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

the mysteries of traffic! thank you for sharing this post Justin. Very genuine and open. I wonder if there’s a correlation between traffic and sales (new business). At the end of the day that’s what matters most. I’ve gone to 3 posts a week and yes the traffic has gone down but my sales have increased because I’m dedicating more time to follow up with clients.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Justin, your article helped bring things full circle: It inspired me to create my own blog post: http://samsonmedia.net/blog/2010/08/blogging-how-much-is-too-much-or-not-enough/

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

This is awesome. As you continue the experiment, have you considered incorporating guest blogging into the mix? Possibly, writing one (or more) quality post(s) per week on your blog and two (or more) posts elsewhere?nnIt could provide an interesting combination of traffic, exposure to new audiences (and business opportunities) and creative release. Or at least it may provide an interesting twist on your existing test.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Factoring in guest posts would involve a whole new batch of variables,rnand would probably be best tracked over the course of a year, with arndifferent guest post on the same day each week. Not a bad idea –rnmaybe something to consider in 2011.rnrnAs for me guest blogging more often on other people’s blogs, that’srnalways in the cards, but two things stop me from doing it more often:rnrn* Time (which, as you realize, I could have more of if I blogged lessrnfor myself)rnrn* A reason to do sornrnGuest blogging seems easiest among like-minded bloggers who sharerncomplementary skills and goals.rnrnIf the goal of guest blogging is to interest someone else’s readers inrnwhat I normally blog about, I’m not sure I blog about anythingrnconsistently enough that my “brand” would port easily (andrnsatisfyingly) elsewhere. And, if someone else’s readers did startrnfollowing me home, what would I *do* with them?rnrn(Not that I’d complain…)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

can you help me with a small question? When I leave a comment on a blog sometimes it gives you the option ‘acceptable code’ what does this mean and how do you use it? Thanks Grant

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Grant: Some blogs allow commenters to include HTML in their comments,rnto help with style or links. Obviously, this is not to be abused,rnalthough spammers often do.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Hey Justin,nnI shared your findings with my readers and one had a question, and I think the answer would open up this discussion in an interesting direction:nn”any correlation between subject matter of posts vs. search trends/volume for those topics of the two time periods??”nnWould probably be fascinating to see if what people were searching for lined up with your most-trafficked posts or not. :)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Good question. I just poked around in Analytics, and while it doesn’trnlook like search is driving very much of my current traffic, thernphrases that do bubble up (and one or two results in particular) arernworth a blog post all their own. (Maybe next week.)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Great, great info! Thanks so much for sharing this. I’m interested in finding out how the 3x weekly works out. Please share!

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Has the quality of the discussion gotten better, worse or remained unchanged?n

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Justin, this is fascinating. As a fairly new “professional blogger” (though I’ve been blogging personally for years) I’m struggling with keeping a set calendar vs. getting all the other work done vs. selling services. Glad to know that there may not be a magic formula, I was starting to feel like I wasn’t doing it the “right” way (though I know, of course, that there is no “right way” in social media, ever). I’m encouraged by your post to try a few different ways to see what works best for me.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Good question. Overall, I’d say the quality of the discussion hasrnremained high. At least, *I’ve* enjoyed the feedback I’ve beenrngetting, and that has to count for something.rnrnSince I was writing denser posts during this experiment, I should havernbeen seeing more comments because there’d be more to comment about inrneach post, even if the actual number of posts was down. Overall, I’drnsay that was true during the experiment, but only on days when I wroternsomething that commenters could find a handle on. For example, my poprnculture post –rnhttp://www.justinkownacki.com/2010/06/21/the-popularity-paradox-why-do-we-hate-pop-culture/rn– generated some great personal feedback, even though my non-biz andrnnon-social media posts tend to get fewer comments.rnrnThat said, the quality of the discussion also depends partly on howrnmany people leave engaging comments, which is (in part) determined byrnoverall traffic. If fewer people (and especially fewer new readers)rnare moved to comment, then the long-term quality of the conversationrnshrinks.rnrnSo far, so good.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

There’s never a “right” way, but there are “better” or “worse” ways,rndepending on:rnrn* your goalsrn* your reachrn* your audiencern* your timern* your skillsrn* how much you actually carernrnSo tinker. If it gets better, go forward. If it gets worse, go back.rn Experimenting is half the fun of blogging (or, I think, it SHOULDrnbe). Otherwise, it’s just pressing buttons, and we have enough ofrnthose jobs already.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Sounds like the experiment brought up some interesting ideas. Thanks for writing it all down for us to read, I enjoyed learning from it! :)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

This is really fascinating!! Another point of interest might be to see see if perhaps engagement went up–i.e. more people read the fewer posts–by looking at bounce rates, time on site, etc. and see how it changed over time. If there’s less content coming out perhaps more are compelled to read what’s there instead of skimming? I have no idea if it’s true but it’d be a good thing to test.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Someone else suggested that, too, so I followed up with another post:rnrnhttp://www.justinkownacki.com/2010/08/18/ego-cynicism-and-bad-reviews-what-i-learned-by-peeking-at-my-bounce-rates/rnrnEvidently, for an loosely focused “media / biz” blog of this size,rnbounce rates are inconclusive — but there were a few interestingrntakeaways.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Unfortunately I have learned this lesson the hard way. Mine wasn’t a test but yet a cause of being too involved in other projects.nnThanks for sharing your results!

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Nice work Justin.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Very true. A lot of people have raised the issue of “need,” as in,rn”Do you NEED to blog every day?”rnrnObviously, no. In fact, you don’t need to blog at all. None of theserntraffic experiments takes into account the importance of bloggingrnwithin the experimenter’s overall business plan (or, for that matter,rnthe experimenter’s personal enjoyment of blogging).rnrnI like your idea of fluctuating the publishing days. As others havernsaid, August is a dead zone for traffic, so maybe this isn’t thernwisest month to start tinkering, but what the hell…

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Justin: GREAT analysis of your writing and traffic patterns! A few months ago I subjected myself to a “one blog post (at least) per day challenge.” It was a great way to help me gain some traction but in the end, I found it a bit difficult to keep up (I still author content for my company blog after all and I found that this is what made it most difficult). So, I kept with the idea of writing shorter posts with one main point. nnI’m not sure what mix works best: MWF or WTF. But I think that 2-3 days per week is a good consistent number. And ultimately, one should write as they see fit. nnThanks again for the analysis and for sparking some thoughts along my own writing. :-)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Interesting post but it’s important to contextualise the change that is happening.nnBy posting less, there is less new content. The number of posts drops to 20% but your visitors and page views drop by a much lesser degree. nnCould you conclude that visitor engagement goes up? Perhaps… nnIt would be interesting to understand what happens to your secondary metrics during this period. For example, has bounce rate dropped, are people spending longer on the page, do they read the whole post now whereas they used to skim it, do they amplify-retweet/share/digg or otherwise engage more – you can tell all of this through analytics.nnIt’s interesting that your twitter followers increased – perhaps the better quality of your post encouraged greater engagement and triggered the reader to follow.nnYou say that you were posting more solid content, I think you’ll find this is reflected deeper in the numbers. Before deciding whether posting more or less is a good thing, you need to decide what you want the site to achieve and start measuring that – I’ve never found a site where the only goal is hits! nnAs your site appears to be a tool to connect to people and promote your skills, this may have been more of a success than it first appears :o)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Justin, we know ‘meaningful content’ is the key and presuming we find your less frequent posts even more meaningful, you’re readjusting the bar. I doubt you’ll lose your core followers with fewer, deeper posts; don’t you suppose more consistent depth of content will expand your following given some time?

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Justin, I have found a paradox of sorts.nnI wondered too if I could scale back quantity and shoot for greater quality. What I discovered is that when left to atrophy, my writing muscle withered. Some of my best posts have come in those periods where I was in rhythm and pounding away.nnNow, you could say that I was driven to write because I had good content and the Muses were playing along, but it didn’t work that way. When I am not writing often, it’s hard to get started… and when I delay to meet an artificial schedule, I forget the very core of what I wanted to say.nnYour mileage can and will vary, of course — but thanks for sharing the self-examination!

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

You’re absolutely right. Quality-wise, I don’t think I wrote anythingrnduring my weekly experiment that I couldn’t have written during myrndaily phase. Some of my best posts have been knocked out at 3 AM whenrnI was under pressure to complete a dozen other things, so I know thatrnlimiting my output has nothing to do with directly improving myrnquality.rnrnThis reinforces the old adage, “If you want something done, give it torna busy person.” And if you want something written well, give it tornsomeone who’s writing all the time.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Interesting indeed. I too have been running my own little experiment with post frequency.nI wrote an article a couple of weeks ago about content creation, quality vs quantity. At this point I was pretty much only writing one post a week and was holding position #23 for my main keyword.nA reader suggested I write more, so took the challenge on and decided to write 2-3 posts per week. In a weeks time, my blog went to position # 15 in google. Coincidence? Maybe. Definitely worth looking into more.nBut I agree it’s a give and take. My social networking interactions went down in the interim.nI think a happy medium is the best scenario. If you write 5x a week, that’s what people are going to expect (and demand) of you. If you write 2x then they will get used to that as well.nAt the end of the day if you continue to produce quality content, you will always have your loyal fans. ;-)nThanks for sharing your experience Justin!

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

the mysteries of traffic! thank you for sharing this post Justin. Very genuine and open. I wonder if there’s a correlation between traffic and sales (new business). At the end of the day that’s what matters most. I’ve gone to 3 posts a week and yes the traffic has gone down but my sales have increased because I’m dedicating more time to follow up with clients.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Justin, your article helped bring things full circle: It inspired me to create my own blog post: http://samsonmedia.net/blog/2010/08/blogging-how-much-is-too-much-or-not-enough/

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

This is awesome. As you continue the experiment, have you considered incorporating guest blogging into the mix? Possibly, writing one (or more) quality post(s) per week on your blog and two (or more) posts elsewhere?nnIt could provide an interesting combination of traffic, exposure to new audiences (and business opportunities) and creative release. Or at least it may provide an interesting twist on your existing test.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Factoring in guest posts would involve a whole new batch of variables,rnand would probably be best tracked over the course of a year, with arndifferent guest post on the same day each week. Not a bad idea –rnmaybe something to consider in 2011.rnrnAs for me guest blogging more often on other people’s blogs, that’srnalways in the cards, but two things stop me from doing it more often:rnrn* Time (which, as you realize, I could have more of if I blogged lessrnfor myself)rnrn* A reason to do sornrnGuest blogging seems easiest among like-minded bloggers who sharerncomplementary skills and goals.rnrnIf the goal of guest blogging is to interest someone else’s readers inrnwhat I normally blog about, I’m not sure I blog about anythingrnconsistently enough that my “brand” would port easily (andrnsatisfyingly) elsewhere. And, if someone else’s readers did startrnfollowing me home, what would I *do* with them?rnrn(Not that I’d complain…)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

can you help me with a small question? When I leave a comment on a blog sometimes it gives you the option ‘acceptable code’ what does this mean and how do you use it? Thanks Grant

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Grant: Some blogs allow commenters to include HTML in their comments,rnto help with style or links. Obviously, this is not to be abused,rnalthough spammers often do.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Hey Justin,nnI shared your findings with my readers and one had a question, and I think the answer would open up this discussion in an interesting direction:nn”any correlation between subject matter of posts vs. search trends/volume for those topics of the two time periods??”nnWould probably be fascinating to see if what people were searching for lined up with your most-trafficked posts or not. :)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Good question. I just poked around in Analytics, and while it doesn’trnlook like search is driving very much of my current traffic, thernphrases that do bubble up (and one or two results in particular) arernworth a blog post all their own. (Maybe next week.)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Great, great info! Thanks so much for sharing this. I’m interested in finding out how the 3x weekly works out. Please share!

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Has the quality of the discussion gotten better, worse or remained unchanged?n

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Justin, this is fascinating. As a fairly new “professional blogger” (though I’ve been blogging personally for years) I’m struggling with keeping a set calendar vs. getting all the other work done vs. selling services. Glad to know that there may not be a magic formula, I was starting to feel like I wasn’t doing it the “right” way (though I know, of course, that there is no “right way” in social media, ever). I’m encouraged by your post to try a few different ways to see what works best for me.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Good question. Overall, I’d say the quality of the discussion hasrnremained high. At least, *I’ve* enjoyed the feedback I’ve beenrngetting, and that has to count for something.rnrnSince I was writing denser posts during this experiment, I should havernbeen seeing more comments because there’d be more to comment about inrneach post, even if the actual number of posts was down. Overall, I’drnsay that was true during the experiment, but only on days when I wroternsomething that commenters could find a handle on. For example, my poprnculture post –rnhttp://www.justinkownacki.com/2010/06/21/the-popularity-paradox-why-do-we-hate-pop-culture/rn– generated some great personal feedback, even though my non-biz andrnnon-social media posts tend to get fewer comments.rnrnThat said, the quality of the discussion also depends partly on howrnmany people leave engaging comments, which is (in part) determined byrnoverall traffic. If fewer people (and especially fewer new readers)rnare moved to comment, then the long-term quality of the conversationrnshrinks.rnrnSo far, so good.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

There’s never a “right” way, but there are “better” or “worse” ways,rndepending on:rnrn* your goalsrn* your reachrn* your audiencern* your timern* your skillsrn* how much you actually carernrnSo tinker. If it gets better, go forward. If it gets worse, go back.rn Experimenting is half the fun of blogging (or, I think, it SHOULDrnbe). Otherwise, it’s just pressing buttons, and we have enough ofrnthose jobs already.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Sounds like the experiment brought up some interesting ideas. Thanks for writing it all down for us to read, I enjoyed learning from it! :)

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

This is really fascinating!! Another point of interest might be to see see if perhaps engagement went up–i.e. more people read the fewer posts–by looking at bounce rates, time on site, etc. and see how it changed over time. If there’s less content coming out perhaps more are compelled to read what’s there instead of skimming? I have no idea if it’s true but it’d be a good thing to test.

Anonymous · November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

Someone else suggested that, too, so I followed up with another post:rnrnhttp://www.justinkownacki.com/2010/08/18/ego-cynicism-and-bad-reviews-what-i-learned-by-peeking-at-my-bounce-rates/rnrnEvidently, for an loosely focused “media / biz” blog of this size,rnbounce rates are inconclusive — but there were a few interestingrntakeaways.

Friday's Browser Tab Summary of Cool, Interactive (mostly) Links | BackLeft · October 21, 2013 at 11:20 am

[…] What I’ve Learned From Blogging Weekly Instead of Daily – Justin Kownacki […]

Why I'm Reinventing Myself: A Financial Awakening at 33 / Justin Kownacki · April 5, 2011 at 8:50 pm

[…] I’ll be blogging here a lot more often.  A year ago, I was blogging daily, then intermittently, and then not at all.  I used to have over 10,000 unique visitors on this site every month, and […]

Learn to Blog: Nate Riggs On the how to build a blog audience | Columbus Social Media + Social Media Strategist | Nate Riggs & Social Business Strategies · March 30, 2011 at 11:06 am

[…] Knowacki’s experiment on his own blog was quite interesting.  Here’s the intro to his results post three months later: A few months ago, I decided to try an experiment with this blog.  From May […]

Friday’s Browser Tab Summary of Cool, Interactive (mostly) Links | It's All About the Conversation · September 12, 2010 at 12:37 am

[…] What I’ve Learned From Blogging Weekly Instead of Daily – Justin Kownacki […]

My take at a Blog Strategy | It's All About the Conversation · August 31, 2010 at 7:27 pm

[…] pretty good.  maybe a bit aggressive, but After Reading Justin Kownacki’s post on “What I’ve Learned From Blogging Weekly Instead of Daily,” I thought that this strategy was pretty close to getting the sort of website traffic that I […]

The Blogging Roller Coaster « Social Media Fly On the Wall · August 25, 2010 at 8:19 am

[…] is a great article from Justin Kownacki which gives an overview of what happens to your numbers when you drop from daily to weekly post. In […]

4 Words Of Non-Wisdom Bloggers Give · August 23, 2010 at 11:37 am

[…] no further than Justin Kownacki. Justin recently ended an experiment on his blog where he began blogging weekly instead of daily, allowing himself to focus on creating one truly great piece of content a […]

My Urban Report » Some basic blogging advice · August 19, 2010 at 1:34 pm

[…] come back if you post regularly. Everyday is probably best, but once a week at a minimum. Check out Justin Kownacki’s post about his findings related to daily vs. weekly posting – it’s good […]

Justin Kownacki - Ego, Cynicism and Bad Reviews: What I Learned by Peeking at My Bounce Rates · August 18, 2010 at 12:02 am

[…] week, I shared what I learned by blogging weekly instead of daily.  Judging by the high volume of traffic, retweets and comments that post generated, people are […]

Blogging for SEO: Strong Evidence Suggests Daily Posts | Clarence Muhammad · August 12, 2010 at 6:44 am

[…] the last three months, Justin has blogged weekly instead of daily. His goal was to improve the quality of the blog by devoting more time to each high impact post […]

Blogging for SEO: Strong Evidence Suggests Daily Posts | Google Seo Guide · August 11, 2010 at 6:45 am

[…] the last three months, Justin has blogged weekly instead of daily. His goal was to improve the quality of the blog by devoting more time to each high impact post […]

Blogging for SEO: Strong Evidence Suggests Daily Posts | webmarketingexperts.com.au · August 11, 2010 at 5:40 am

[…] the last three months, Justin has blogged weekly instead of daily. His goal was to improve the quality of the blog by devoting more time to each high impact post […]

I Am Blogging Today Because Justin Kownacki Said I Should « Meanwhile Back at the Ranch · August 10, 2010 at 1:31 pm

[…] I Am Blogging Today Because Justin Kownacki Said I Should Jump to Comments Neat little post from the self-described “armchair sociologist and perpetual contrarian.&#8221… […]

Re: Justin Kownacki – What I’ve Learned From Blogging Weekly Instead of Daily · August 9, 2010 at 9:40 am

[…] to Justin’s post:  Justin Kownacki – What I’ve Learned From Blogging Weekly Instead of Daily. reddit_url = […]

Tweets that mention Justin Kownacki - What I’ve Learned From Blogging Weekly Instead of Daily -- Topsy.com · August 9, 2010 at 8:09 am

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jason Yormark, Jerry Hamal. Jerry Hamal said: What I’ve Learned From Blogging Weekly Instead of Daily http://bit.ly/dkn4ta (gelezen op @justinkownacki's blog) […]

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.