Exposing PseudoAstronomy

September 12, 2011

Completely Arbitrary Milestone Reached: 250,000 Blog Views

Filed under: Miscellaneous — Stuart Robbins @ 2:08 pm
Tags: , ,

I launched this blog back on September 3, 2008, for all intents and purposes 3 full years ago (and 9 days for you OCD’ers). It seems fitting, then, that my arbitrary milestone of 250,000 blog views has occurred today.

Just like my 100,000 blog-view milestone back in March, 2010, I missed the tipping point. This time it was because I was baking for a conference as opposed to being at a conference.

It took 18 months to get to 100,000, and it took another 18 months to get to 250,000. You can almost fit a line between those.

I think it’s apropos to take a brief look at some of the stats for the last three years.

  • My busiest day was on June 16, 2010, thanks to Phil Plait when he blogged about my run-in and subsequent threats by the astrologer Terry Nazon. Over 12,000 people visited my blog thanks to Phil, but in that day, it topped at 7,985.
  • I have made 175 posts (this is 176), and there have been 1,798 comments. Obviously the comments are not evenly distributed among the posts.
  • The top link people have clicked on, with 4,452 clicks, is to my image of what the sky looks like on December 21, 2012. The next-top is to the NASA site with images of Apollo from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, with 648 clicks.
  • With the top-clicked file in mind, it is perhaps fitting that the top five posts people have read are about Planet X & 2012. The most popular with 15,972 views is on the magnetic pole shift, while the very close second is on proof Earth is not currently undergoing a geographic pole shift.
  • In how people are getting here, obviously the top referrer is from Phil Plait’s “Bad Astronomy” blog, with the second-highest from 2012 Predictions.net.
  • Also on the topic of referrers, the top two search terms that get people here are “Planet X” with 1,195 clicks, and “Define:Theory in Science” with 1,146.

With all that in mind, I’ll wrap up this short, self-congratulatory post and work towards the next arbitrary milestone of 500,000! Let’s see if we can get there before the world ends, shall we?


  1. Congratulations! I don’t think I’ll be joining you there any time soon 😀
    What about your search stats? What is the most common term?

    Comment by eyeonicr — September 12, 2011 @ 10:12 pm | Reply

    • “… the top two search terms that get people here are “Planet X” with 1,195 clicks, and “Define:Theory in Science” with 1,146.”

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — September 13, 2011 @ 6:00 am | Reply

      • Must’ve been half asleep…

        Comment by eyeonicr — September 13, 2011 @ 2:05 pm

  2. Dear Stuart,

    As I don’t consider popularity to be at all relevant to the substance and character of a person, I am commenting strictly about your conduct as the administrator of your blog and on your defiant lack of adherence to respected scientific standards of objectivity and evaluation of evidence.

    See: https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2011/08/20/new-interview-on-the-conspiracy-skeptic-podcast/

    Allowing, and tacitly encouraging, your (mainly anonymous) blatantly defamatory supporters to ignore and not be held to the same standards of ethical and civil conduct you want to hold your critics to, is itself unethical and unworthy of any mature, ethical person, let alone one claiming to be a scientist.

    Refusing to acknowledge, let alone openly examine, evidence that you yourself called for – especially when one of your own supporters admits seeing further corroborating evidence supporting the core claims under discussion/attack – is absolutely unworthy of anyone aspiring to be a real scientist. The obvious dissonance between your own strongly held beliefs and prejudices, and the requirements and responsibilities of true, objective scientific inquiry, bespeak a mentality more indicative of religious fundamentalism than anything remotely scientific.

    Your behavior in this matter, despite all patient and sincere efforts to assist and honestly, openly dialogue with you, is simply unethical and unworthy of anyone with real character.

    Michael Horn

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 13, 2011 @ 5:56 am | Reply

    • I’ve told you this numerous times before:

      1. I am not your skeptic lackey, I cover what I want when I want and I have no desire to go further into Meier’s “prophecies” and “evidence,” in part because …
      2. You have STILL, a year and a half later, refused to provide evidence that my analysis of Apophis was wrong or additional evidence to examine that Meier predicted it instead of retrodicted.

      As to how I run my blog, my comments policy is clear, it is mine to interpret, and if you do not like it, you are very welcome to stop coming here. I also find it fascinating that you are criticizing my behavior when yours is so atrocious as to have been effectively banned from C2C. That’s impressive and puts you up there with the likes of Sylvia Browne.

      That is all, I will not reply further to you.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — September 13, 2011 @ 6:04 am | Reply

  3. I think your record showing lack of character and professional ethics at that blog, as I enumerated above, speaks for itself. That you continue to identify yourself as a skeptic anything – rather than a scientist – is further revealing…and finally confirms an answer to my request that you choose between skepticism and science.

    I don’t identify myself with C2C, even after 14 appearances on the show. I freely, openly disagree with ANYONE who wants to evade the tough questions about the evidence. As I said, popularity is NOT my measuring device for substance, ethics, character and honor.

    Either something is true…or it isn’t. The fact that both you and your supporter – who acknowledges having personally seen Meier’s prophetically accurate information – dealt with the inescapable, conclusive evidence of his authenticity with stunned silence itself speaks at the highest decibels.

    Instead of a petulant, childish and irrelevant attempt to divert the attention from your – now very much indelibly public – record of ineptitude and flawed character, I suggest that you openly examine the evidence that YOU called for.

    I’ll be delighted to assist in any way I can.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 13, 2011 @ 6:44 am | Reply

  4. And now, The Answer that Stuart has long been waiting for:


    Comment by Michael Horn — September 14, 2011 @ 6:55 am | Reply

  5. Does anyone have any data on how many of the 250,000 comments were by Michael Horn? “249,999 ?

    Comment by Mick — September 15, 2011 @ 2:18 am | Reply

    • Posts are different from comments are different from page views. As of now, there are 1810 comments. 94 are Horn’s. You’re actually in the top 10 with 27. I’m highest.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — September 15, 2011 @ 7:54 am | Reply

  6. Ah, how fleeting fame, how unwelcome infamy:


    Number 95 then, or perhaps…96.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 15, 2011 @ 11:05 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: