January 2016's rankings were a mess and other monthly meta

Yesterday, I told my readers to "expect the retrospective series to continue tomorrow withJanuary 2016's stats."  Why?  The same reason I posted the monthly meta for March 2016.

Today, I'm doing something I skipped over in June, when I posted the Monthly meta for April 2016.

I'm skipping over January and March to post April.

It's long past time I got around to posting this month.

Seven months past time, in fact.

January 2016 saw 16,780 page views for 34 posts over 31 days, which had been the second highest in the history of the blog up to that time.   It's now the fifth highest.  Those numbers translate to 541.29 page views per day and 493.53 page views per entry, an increases of 42.3% from the previous January's 11,721 page views, which translated to 378.10 views per day and 366.28 views per post, the latter an increase of 34.7%.

On the other hand, readers left only 19 comments that month (0.61 comments per day and 0.59 comments per post), a low for the year so far, and no entry received more than two comments, so no most commented on post was recognized.

There was one post that stood out as the most pinned on Pinterest during January, "Three Star Wars trailers: movie, television, and video game" with 2 saves.

Follow over the jump for the most viewed entries, which were, as the title says, a mess in terms of rankings.

January was a strange month for ranking by page views.  Normally, only two or three entries have different rankings by page views depending on which counter I use, raw, which counts all page views, or default, which edits out duplicate views and other views the algorithm deems suspicious, such as by bots.  This month, the majority of entries show discrepancies between the two methods of counting.  Consequently, I'm going to rank entries by the raw counter, not by default counter, as I usually do.

The first entry I'm sharing, "NY Daily News mocks Palin endorsing Trump with music by Pet Shop Boys" from January 20, 2016, exemplifies the disparity between default and raw counters.  According to the default counter, it had 90 page views from normal social media promotion to rank ninth overall.  According to the raw counter, it had 92 page views and ranked thirteenth just among the entries posted during January.  That's a four-place difference in the "wrong" direction, six places if the two entries from the back catalog are included in the rankings!  I don't recall ever seeing such a discrepancy before, not only in magnitude but particularly in direction, during the past year-and-one-half I've been posting the monthly meta.

"'The Hateful Eight' and 'Spectre' win music awards at the Golden Globes" from January 17, 2016 tied for eleventh among all entries posted during January for earning 96 page views according to the raw counter from being shared at the science fiction groups and communities on Facebook and Google+.  It did not make the overall top ten, despite having more page views than two entries that did and as much as a third.
   
The ranking weirdness continues with "'Mad Max: Fury Road' wins nine Critics' Choice Awards" from January 19, 2016.  According to the default counter, it came in eighth overall with 91 page views, while the raw counter reported it had 96 page views, tying it for eleventh among January's entries with "'The Hateful Eight' and 'Spectre' win music awards at the Golden Globes."  Again, this is a big difference in the "wrong" direction.  Its readership came from being shared at the science fiction groups and communities on Facebook and Google+.  It was also the second most liked on Google+ with eight pluses.

The tenth most read entry posted during January was "Michigan marching bands parade in a new year" from January 1, 2016.  It earned 97 page views from normal social media promotion.  It did not make the default top ten despite beating two entries that did in raw views.

"Al Jazeera America shutting down as oil subsidy dries up" from January 16, 2016 earned 101 page views according to the raw counter between normal social media promotion and being shared in a comment at Kunstler's blog to end up ninth among entries posted during January.  It did not make the overall top ten despite beating two posts that did in raw views.

Another entry that beat two posts in raw page views and tied another yet did not make the overall top ten was "Self-driving cars--fantasy and reality: Student sustainability video festival 47" from January 4, 2016.  This entry tied for seventh among those posted during January with 105 page views according to the raw counter earned by promotion at the science and technology groups on Facebook as well as being shared in a comment at Kunstler's blog.

The most liked on Google+ in January was "Speculative fiction at the Critics' Choice Movie and Television Awards" from January 17, 2016 with 13 pluses.  Sharing it at the science fiction groups and communities on Facebook and Google+ earned it 87 page views, 105 according to the raw counter.  Those placed it both tenth overall and tied for seventh with "Self-driving cars--fantasy and reality: Student sustainability video festival 47" among entries posted during January.

"'The Martian' wins two Golden Globes" from January 12, 2016 came in sixth among entries posted during January with 108 raw page views earned by being shared at the science fiction groups and communities on Facebook and Google+.  It did not make the default top ten despite beating three posts that did in raw page views.
   
Both counters finally agreed on "Congressional hearings on the Flint water crisis and a resignation" from January 22, 2016.  Both ranked it fifth with 114 default and 118 raw views earned from normal social media promotion and being linked to by Infidel 753.

The ranking disparities appeared one last time with "'Spotlight' gets the recognition it deserves from the awards shows" from January 3, 2016.  The default counter reported 101 page views and ranked it seventh overall, while the raw counter showed 137 page views to place it fourth among all entries posted during January.  At least the disparity here was in the "right" direction.  The post earned its page views from normal social media promotion along with being linked to by Infidel 753.
   
"Comments and likes for the fourth year of Crazy Eddie's Motie News" from March 31, 2015 was the first of two entries from the back catalog to crack January's top ten.  It earned 112 page views from web search to come in sixth overall.

"Corn questions from 'Food, Inc.' worksheet" from October 18, 2014 won the Revenge of the Back Catalog trophy for January by earning 139 page views through web search to place fourth overall.*

Both counters agreed on the ranking of the top three, beginning with "Two MDEQ employees suspended over actions in Flint water crisis" from January 23, 2016 in third place.  It earned its 143 page views during January, 144 according to the raw counter, to rank third both overall and for entries posted during the month, though normal social media promotion and being linked to by Infidel 753.

Infidel 753 helped boost "The songs really are the best part of 'Fifty Shades of Grey'" from January 15, 2016 by linking to it at his blog.  Doing so, along with normal social media promotion, earned it 175 page views, 181 according to the raw counter, placing it second both entries posted during the month and overall.

"Trailer Tails: Student sustainability video festival 50" from January 7, 2016 came in first in January to win the New Post Award with 214 page views, 242 according to the raw counter.  It earned its readership by being shared at Kunstler's blog in conjunction with "Self-driving cars--fantasy and reality: Student sustainability video festival 47" and through promotion at the technology and energy groups and communities on Facebook and Google+.

All these data leave me one question, why were the rankings between the two counters so off?  I don't really know, but my guess is that January was unusual in having a bunch of entries with very close numbers that were relatively low.  Most other months have more daylight between the readership numbers and more entries with more views, which obscures discrepancies in counts.

With this entry, I am finally up-to-date with the monthly meta.  Stay tuned for the final installment of the annual retrospective tomorrow.

*I needed this paragraph for the final installment of the annual retrospective and the lack of January's stats stood in the way of posting it.