I think that most people understand that the internet is a low engagement medium. The vast majority of those browsing the internet are data consumers not contributors. But I don’t think most people really have any idea of the scale upon which this is true.
This is why there are such things as professional web site design and search engine optimization companies. Everything about internet web sites is usually all about generating “clicks” or “user engagement”. And this is one reason why these speciality companies, who’s services do not come cheap, are so prevalent.
These companies focus on helping web companies generate revenue. And that’s really their entire focus. They talk endlessly about “customers”, “engagement”, and “conversions” (i.e. the number of interactions that get something from the visitor; be it money or information). And their primary measure of success is revenue growth over time. Some people swear by their services, others don’t think they’re worth the added expense. However, everyone agrees that only a tiny fraction of visitors to any web site will every meaningfully engage with that site. This is true even for sites that exclusively sell products consumers need.
So where does this leave sites like mine. For a site like www.CascadeTubes.com things are obviously a little different. I don’t generate any revenue from this site. I don’t sell things and I don’t advertise things for sale elsewhere. There are no ads, no data collection, no pleas for money, no VIP clubs, or special deals. Everything offered up on this website, including my time and attention, is totally free. So if it doesn’t cost any visitor anything more than a little time and attention to peruse CascadeTubes, one might think that there would be higher “engagement” in the form of comments, questions, or direct emails. After all doesn’t everyone like free stuff? Actually, not so much. Let me explain.
This web site exists for really only one reason. That is so that I can connect with other individuals who share my interest in building, listening to, and sharing information about vacuum tube audio equipment. I played with the idea of trying to make money off my site but it never really panned out. Even the “donate” button I had for a while never generated even enough revenue to cover my web hosting charges. This site is really all about sharing information.
I think that most people would be surprised to find out how little sharing takes place. One way to gauge how much users like your content is with what is called “page views”. Each time a user loads a web page, be it a blog post, project page, or the “About” page a new “page view” is logged. This way I can tell what post and pages are the most popular. This helps me decide what to include in future posts and projects.
Now the shocking part. Overall it takes between 1000 and 3000 page views to generate one comment, question, or direct email on the CascadeTubes website. On the most popular pages it’s in the range of 1000 views per comment. On some of the less popular pages it can take upwards of 5000 views to generate even a single comment. This means that the probability of someone generating a comment or question is between 0.1% on the most popular pages and 0.02% on the less popular pages.
I’ve pondered this at length from time to time. I always ended up wondering what it was about this site, or any site for that matter, that makes people so reluctant to even comment on what they’ve seen or read. For a site like this one, I assume that most users got here looking for some information concerning tube audio. It’s a relatively specific interest profile. But that doesn’t seem to have any impact on the overall engagement rate.
When discussing this with other people that run web sites, both commercial and private, I’m told my numbers are actually not that bad. One person I know told me he wished he had the engagement levels CascadeTubs has. Even commercial sites seem to have similar levels of engagement.
There’s nothing really to be done about this. I just think it’s an interesting dynamic of information on the internet. And I thought that most people were probably not aware of what the actual numbers look like.
So, if you read a post or look at a project page, and you think that your question or comment is not important, or that you are “bothering” me, or taking up my time, rest assured this is not the case. The only bad question is the one never asked.
As always, questions and comments are welcome (obviously 🙂 ).
I knew I was in the 0.1%. I just knew it…and my wife wouldn’t believe me!
Seriously though, I’m a bit introverted even on the Internet. This is one of only 3 internet sites I have commented to. The others are photography oriented. I’ve long known that the vast majority of the Internet are “lurkers”.
Hi Matt. I built two of your amplifiers. I have also read a lot of your articles including some of your comments on the diy forum. My background is not mathematical or engineering in a sense but I like learning something new. The material you present is engaging and thorough. The quality of the material keeps my coming back and I appreciate that it’s presented well. I personally may not comment but I am always reading and learning from what you put on here. Thank you.
Matt,
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I think that I am a regular reader because this site is a blend of both design and fabrication. In addition, the open-source style, for lack of a better term, is very attractive. I appreciate the time you give to take pictures and to write for viewers.
I would echo Scott’s request for overt math inclusion. Your engineering background comes out regularly, especially with discussions on optimization. Seeing the math clarifies your decision process in my mind and provides a deeper understanding of tube amplification.
On a different topic, in April you organized the “Articles of Note” in the sidebar as well as created a list of links to older articles in the “Other Projects and Updates” post. Could you add a similar section to the Home page that says something like, “If you are interested in ______ look at ______.” and so on? As you mentioned in the “What’s in a Name?” post, navigating based on wood species is not as productive as other categories, and it might be nice for visitors to have a roadmap.
Thanks again for being willing to document and share your hobby for others who are also interested without financial strings attached. I hope that more people will ask questions because I enjoy reading the answers as much as any other content on the site!
Hello Matt:
I am a regular viewer of your site. I have checked out most of your projects and really enjoy reading about tube audio. You present things in a clear easy to read fashion, in away that helps me figure out how to replicate the concept rather than repeating the exact design.
I have built a few amplifiers and am now quite interested in the circuit design process. I studied the work of P. Turner from Australia and have a copy of his web site. I regularly read J.Broskie (he is quite over my head though). Aside from you I have not found too many other sites that offer the detail I need in topology design or discussion.
So…….
A bit more detail in load line discussion and detail example calculations, more formulas and equations on power supply design. And, how about a tube tester project for “at operating point” , “in situ” type tube matching, testing, evaluating etc., as most tube testers do not really test tubes in a usable fashion. And what about using older tubes that are somewhere along their life curve but are not NOS.
Nuff said for now
Thanks for the great site