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

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

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

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou