4 ms·
First - this is taken from http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/109714/nate-silver-the-times%E2%80%99-biggest-brand# http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/109714/nate-silver-t
by jsm386 14y ago
First - this is taken from http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/109714/nate-silver-the-times%E2%80%99-biggest-brand# http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/109714/nate-silver-the-times%E...
Second (as is clear from source article but, once more): via https://twitter.com/JanetCoats/status/265925450696642561 https://twitter.com/JanetCoats/status/265925450696642561
@fivethirtyeight did not account for 20% of NYT traffic; 20% of visitors to NYT looked at 538. Big difference, my math-challenged friends.
- mattangriffel 14y agoyes, but as @bdbreedlove mentions, "NYT must have some goddamn impressive stickyness for that not to be a very similar number."
- davidkatz 14y agoMany people check out a news site a few times a day, so it's hard to tell. Either way, it's impressive.
- pdog 14y agoThe New Republic is a better source, so I submitted a new discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4751278 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4751278 Mashable, in this instance, is just rushed and plainly false blog-spam. According to them, FiveThirtyEight "accounted for 20% of all visits to the New York Times website," probably implying page views. The original article says 20% of visitors to the New York Times website also visited the FiveThirtyEight blog.