The article 'How can community democracy be strengthened in your local area?' shows up as the top entry of five in the OLO 'Today's most popular' list for Monday 22 March 2010. A screenshot of this seemingly anomalous event, freezing it in time as evidence, can be viewed here:
http://twitpic.com/1a4ib6

The article in question can be viewed here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10078&page=0

(For those OLO users who may not be aware, the OLO 'Today's most popular' list can be reached here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/ , and scrolling down a bit, or by clicking the On Line Opinion button at the top of every OLO page, and likewise scrolling upon arrival.)

The OLO article 'How can community democracy be strengthened in your local area?' by Kellie Tranter, published on 23 February 2010, attracted 11 comments. The last comment was posted on Wednesday, 3 March 2010 at 6:13:37 PM.




How has this article's surge in popularity come about?



Presumably, it is views of the article, as opposed to views of the comments thread, that generate the statistics upon which the 'Today's most popular' listing is based. I'm guessing that someone has posted a link to that article through which has come the traffic that has returned it to the top of the list around a month after its publication.

It would be fascinating to know how much traffic it took to elevate the article to its current position, and from where that traffic has come. Is it technically possible to determine this? If it is, would it enhance the usefulness of OLO to its using public if more fulsome site statistics were to be made available? It would also be interesting to know the relative popularity of comments threads as distinct from articles.

Would OLO users accept it being a paid enhancement, available upon subscription?

What other issues, if any, do users see surrounding this surprising return to popularity of a no longer current article?

I am curious as to how OLO really ticks.

As of 7:30 PM AEDST, Tuesday 23 March, the article 'How can community democracy be strengthened in your local area?' as well as showing as top of the 'Todays most popular' list again, is also showing as third most popular for the week.

I wonder how many hits it has taken to put it up there? Does the OLO site record simply the number of views of the page, or the number of unique views, when compiling these popularity statistics? There is a subtle difference between the two.

If it is the former, it would be perhaps possible for as little as one user to game the OLO system to influence an article's apparent popularity, but as to what point there would be in doing that I am unsure.

'How can community democracy be strengthened in your local area?', as of 7:42 AM AEDST Thursday 25 March now tops both 'most popular' OLO lists. See screenshot: http://twitpic.com/1aola2

Where can the hits that have kept advancing this article be coming from?

Could it be, for example, that OLO userID 'Romany', who teaches in China, has set this article as an assignment for her students? There are many students, and computers, in China. Surely the article would not be considered subversive in China, and have access blocked in consequence, any more than it would be classed as 'unwanted content' under the Australian internet censorship rules, as it clearly seems not to be.

This leads me to ask whether the article in question ever topped the OLO popularity lists at around the time of its publication? Is there any way OLO users could access an archive of past 'Most popular' displays? I would see this as being analogous to being able to view progressive updates to the Australian Electoral Commission's Virtual Tallyroom at an electoral event, which, of course, the mug public cannot do.

Manually taking screenshots is such a cluncky and limited way of recording these ratings.

Wouldn't it be embarrassing for the AEC and the Australian government if lowly, humble OLO showed how easily in this digital age (presuming it is easy, of course) such a progressing archive could be made available to public, or user, scrutiny, respectively. Scrutiny. Now there's a word! I know, I can but dream.

Isn't this all rivettingly fascinating!

The phenomenon continues. Here is a screenshot as of 8:30 AM AEDST Friday 26 March of the 'Today's most popular' display:
http://twitpic.com/1avxbp

The article 'How can community democracy be strengthened in your local area?' is still topping both 'Today's most popular', and 'This week's most popular' displays.



Speaking of popularity, here is a list of OLO articles, from the last month only, that have failed to attract a single comment.



A submarine-led recovery for the Hunter Valley? Lee Rhiannon. Published Friday, February 26, 2010
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9998

Google’s lesson: innovation has to be accompanied by reliability. Published Monday, March 1, 2010
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10106

Time to move: Reserve Bank must get interest rates back to normal soon. Henry Thornton. Published Tuesday, March 2, 2010
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10124

Haiti: cursed or brave? Adele Webb. Published Thursday, March 4, 2010
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10126

Westrac, Seven merger needs communicating beyond the financial. Richard Stanton. Published Monday, March 8, 2010
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10143

Biomed analysis: keep traditional knowledge open but safe. Priya Shetty. Published Tuesday, March 9, 2010
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10142

‘Twittering’ politics: the case of the fakes. Nicholas Hookway. Published Monday, March 22, 2010
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10201

"Isn't this all rivetingly fascinating!"

Hi Forrest. Well yes, it is - that's why I keep dropping in to see the latest update.

I can't offer any explanation as it's completely out of my league. However, I would be surprised if OLO can't explain some of the queries you raise - have you emailed them directly?

Had to chuckle about Romany's students hijacking the thread, but then again ... why not?

With respect to coming to an understanding as to how this article has won its 'Veronicas' award for being so pop pop popular, qanda suggests:

"..., I would be surprised if OLO can't explain
some of the queries you raise - have you emailed
them directly?"

No, I haven't emailed OLO directly.

I tend not to be an email-active sort of person. Besides which, my purpose here has been to provoke thought, not provoke, or impose a workload upon, the OLO administration. I figured that if OLO wasn't happy as to where it thought this question might lead, then all it had to do was not approve the topic.



However, OLO did approve the topic, and clearly the amount of discussion the opening post has engendered has got right out of hand.



I genuinely don't know what degree of interest OLO may have in this phenomenon: it may be something that happens far more frequently than I imagine, and that I am but showing my ignorance of something quite commonplace. All I can say is that the topic is not a 'Dorothy Dix' designed to help OLO fly any kite, nor am I seeking inside information on OLO site statistics. OLO is free to explain, or refrain from explanation, as it wishes. Perhaps the enabling of the degree of user access envisaged, although technically achievable, may be unreasonably intrusive upon the legitimate proprietory interests of OLO. I am simply curious, as I have already said, as to how OLO really works.

Anyway, I am thankful for qanda's suggestion, and take this opportunity of directing his attention to an outstanding query which it appears he may have missed, here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3480#82724

OLO couldn't be just using 'How can community democracy be strengthened in your local area?' as a non-dynamic place-holder in the display, effectively reducing the first two displays to one of only four dynamic places, could it? What would there be to be gained by doing something like that?

Rivet, rivet, rivet.

Rivet, rivet, rivet.

Rivet.