We recently discussed how by using Google Analytics and a time stamped RSS feed, we could get a good idea of when people were reading and commenting on the Digital Britain – Interim Report. Now that the official consultation period has ended, we can show you the full web analytics from our re-publication of the report and try to draw some conclusions. We’d appreciate any insight you might be able to bring to this and have made a fairly complete set of PDF exports of the analytics available on Scribd. We’re aware that web analytics are never 100% accurate, but these should be accurate enought to indicate trends. Below are some images which offer a useful overview. Click on them to go to Scribd.
So 3,313 people made 4,409 visits and on average viewed 2.75 pages over 3:03 minutes. About half of these visitors, ‘bounced’; that is, they came to the site and left without reading beyond the initial page. The spikes in traffic are when we launched and when the Guardian, boingboing and the Digital Britain discussion site linked to us.
Note how few people came to the site via a search engine. Currently, a search for ‘digital britain report’ on http://google.co.uk, ranks our re-publication of the report at site #15 (the Fake Digital Britain Report ranks slightly higher).
When people did come to us via a search engine, the searches are predictable, they stayed on the site for less than the average time and tended to ‘bounce’ more often than average, too. The site is optimised fairly well for Search Engines (there are areas for improvement) but perhaps because it’s a new site, with few incoming links and is competing with established government and newspaper sites, it would be difficult to rank higher in this short period of time.
The top ten traffic sources accounted for 83% of all of our traffic. 43% came from Twitter and ‘direct’ sources which I suspect are the shortened URLs which are used on Twitter. I think we can say that without Twitter, we would have had much less impact and found it more difficult to advocate comment on the report given the time we have available to work on WriteToReply.
With just over 12,000 page views, the front page of the report is by far the most popular page but it’s interesting to see that the 3rd and 4th most popular pages are the ‘Comments by User’ and ‘Comments by Section’ pages, which are unique (??) to CommentPress, the tool that enables paragraph level commenting.
We had visitors from across the UK, but the largest concentration by far came from London (44%). Next was Manchester (5%) and third was Milton Keynes (2.6%). I should note that Tony (one half of WriteToReply) works for the Open University which is based in Milton Keynes. The rest of the geographical coverage would appear to be just small clusters of people, mainly in England and the urban areas of Scotland and Wales. If WriteToReply is to be a successful public service, we need to see this coverage spread more evenly throughout the UK for national consultations. We’d also like to see local authorities and local interest groups use WriteToReply for their consultations, too and their use and advocacy of it might also help even the spread during national consultations.
At least 70% of visitors came to the report over a ‘broadband’ type connection. This is possibly much higher if the ‘unknown’ speeds were also mostly broadband, too. Interestingly, at least 17% of visits were from a T1 connection, which is a leased line used by business. Just 2% of visitors were confirmed dial-up users.
54% of visitors browsed using Firefox, while 26% used Internet Explorer. 66% ran on Windows and 23% ran on a Mac.
So, if you run Firefox on Windows, live in London with a broadband connection, came to the site via Twitter, spent about three minutes on the site (not long enough to comment) and never returned to the site… you’re pretty average, but we thank you for your interest. 🙂 If you’re one of the 69 people that left some of the 295 comments on the report via WriteToReply, we want to thank you very much.
And do remember that anyone re-publishing a document on WriteToReply can easily collect this kind of data to give a better understanding about the impact the consultation is having. Were it endorsed and used by civil servants to publish consultations, a much more accurate overall picture of who is engaging with the consultation and how they engage could be built up and why not make that information publicly available, too?