Skip to main content

This web thing really is worldwide!

I've been collecting stats on visitors to this blog using the excellent free Stat Counter service.

One of the more fun reports is a map showing the distribution of the most recent readers around the globe. Here you are:


Can you spot yourself?

Especially for Henry, here's Southern UK in more detail:


Comments

  1. That's because your feet appear to be in the air, Henry. I've added a map of southern UK - no Cromer: I guess you might be part of the London blip.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the tip, Brian - I have now installed it over at the End Of The Pier show, and it's a revelation. Hardly had my statcounter hit the ground than I have hits from all over the known Unioverse, and elsewhere. It's fascinating!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've been looking for Cromer on there (thought that's why you mentioned Prof CCX in your post) but decided it must have been obliterated by a chicken run. One of my blogging friends put one of these things on his site and before we knew it we all had a massive telling off at Friend Feed and on her blog (which she closed for comments) by a lady in a Continent Which Must Not Be Named In Case She Could be Identified (but has some connection with convicts).

    Takes all sorts.....

    ReplyDelete
  4. As I mentioned above, I think Henry must have been accessing in London, Maxine.

    Don't quite understand the telling off bit. Telling off for doing what? Are you telling me there's only one person with web access on some continent or other? I suspect even Antarctica has more than one, and Australia certainly has!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Determining the precise location of people with Statcounter is often very approximate. For a test, I logged on to my site from Cromer and saw where it popped up on statcounter (for the purposes of blocking my own IP address) and found that the answer was .... Bradford.

    ReplyDelete
  6. We won't tell Mrs Cromercrox what you've been up to in Bradford, if you don't want us to.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope