A new study by the Community Media Workshop pronounces Chi-Town Daily News the No. 1 independent/alternative source for local news in Chicago.
One of the study's main components was looking at how large of an audience local websites reach. So if you're a regular Daily News reader, give yourself a pat on the back. You helped get us the gold.
We've worked really hard over the past year to grow traffic and produce reporting that has some real impact. It's nice to be noticed.
No good deed goes unpunished, though. Some naysayers are already questioning the statistics, and the operator of one local blog flat out accused us of making up our traffic numbers today. Jealousy is not pretty.
For the record: We told Community Media Workshop that we serve 65,000 unique visitors a month. For the cynical among you, here's a screen-cap of our Webalyzer stats report showing that. We also track unique visitors with Google Analytics. And though GA shows a lower number of page views, it still gives us 65,000 unique visitors a month.
Generally our traffic has grown about 3x during each of the three years we've been in existence, and we're trying to top 100,000 unique visitors a month this year.
So visit often.
Discuss
LOU GRANT, 06-12-2009
Geoff, I've had a few posts about this also in my blog: http://www.chitowndailynews.org/section/Media_Insider. Sic transit gloria
ALEXANDRE RUSSO, 06-12-2009
thanks for finally showing your numbers, geoff -- and sorry if you took offense at my skepticism.
i didn't say you'd made up your numbers, just that they weren't verified as they should have been.
your readers can see the post here:
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/district-299/2009/06/how-chi-town-came-in-first-rosy-self-reported-data.html
asking questions and poking at unverified claims is what journalists are supposed to do, isn't it? even when the questions are about other journalists.
you've had a long run of positive press, some of it deserved. try being gracious about the questions that follow.
-- alexander
GEOFF DOUGHERTY, 06-12-2009
@Alexander: I wasn't accusing you of accusing me of making stuff up - that was directed at another blogger.
I'm happy to field questions and back up our statements about site statistics, as I've done here.
Unfortunately, some of those questions (again, not yours!) seem driven more by sour grapes than honest journalistic interest. I find that to be a little unsettling.
ALEXANDRE RUSSO, 06-12-2009
thanks for finally showing your numbers, geoff -- and sorry if you took offense at my skepticism.
i didn't say you'd made up your numbers, just that they weren't verified as they should have been.
your readers can see the post here:
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/district-299/2009/06/how-chi-town-came-in-first-rosy-self-reported-data.html
asking questions and poking at unverified claims is what journalists are supposed to do, isn't it? even when the questions are about other journalists.
you've had a long run of positive press, some of it deserved. try being gracious about the questions that follow.
-- alexander
ALEXANDRE RUSSO, 06-12-2009
thanks for the clarification, geoff --
however, it seems awfully easy to cry sour grapes at the first sign of criticism.
[next thing you'll be saying is that the concerns come from a "disgruntled former employee."]
truth is, there's no easy or agreed-upon way to verify site statistics independently, especially with relatively small numbers.
truth is, most of us who are concerned about any of this could be considered competitors, all of us jealous of each other.
as you know, my main concern isn't your site stat claims but the site's spotty and thin coverage of cps
http://www.catalyst-chicago.org/RUSSO/index.php/entry/1854/
in what world does a site as well-supported as yours not have someone focused on the city's $6B education mess?
then again, i live and breathe this stuff.
/ alexander
GEOFF DOUGHERTY, 06-12-2009
@Alexander: This is far from the first sign of criticism -- people accuse us of all sorts of things, all the time. Most of that I'm fine with.
The criticism over the CMW study, however, seems like it's ill-informed and in some cases ill-spirited, which is why I'll continue to respond to it aggressively.
Re CPS coverage, we do not receive funding to cover CPS, and hence don't have a full-time reporter assigned to cover the district. We'd like to get that position funded, and are trying to do so now.
In the meantime, we've been allocating some of our incredibly scarce general operating funds to covering CPS with freelancers. That can yield great results at times. At other times it can be spotty and unpredictable. We do the best we can with what we have.