Posted on 07/12/2012 5:05:00 AM PDT by xzins
I thought it might be interesting to see which right-of-center websites actually receive the most traffic. So, I went to Alexa.com and ranked the 50 sites on the right. Do keep in mind that…
1) Alexa doesn’t distinguish between top level domains and their sub-directories. So, for example, a blog on Townhall and Townhall itself would have the same rating. Additionally, websites hosted at places like Blogspot, which list each blog on a sub-directory, can’t be measured. My guess is that it only knocked 2-4 websites max off the list including Ace of Spades HQ, Gateway Pundit, & Big Hollywood.
2) Although I have found Alexa to be generally accurate, it does occasionally make mistakes and certainly isn’t as on target as a statistics tracker.
3) I didn’t deliberately leave any right-of-center websites off the list, including the Libertarian websites. So, if you are supposed to be on list and weren’t included, feel free to send me an email.
All 50 websites are listed with their Alexa rank following their link. So for example, a “1″ would mean the page was the most popular website on the net. A “100,000″ would mean the 100,000th most popular page on the net. With that being said, let’s go ahead and take a look at the rankings.
1) Fox News: 260
2) Wall Street Journal: 383
3) The Drudge Report: 748
4) New York Post: 888
5) WorldNetDaily: 2,692
6) Newsmax: 3,264
7) Free Republic: 3,988
8) The Washington Times: 4,717
9) TownHall: 5,986
10) The Rush Limbaugh Show: 7,624
11) Real Clear Politics: 7,957
12) National Review: 10,346
13) Hot Air: 11,517
14) Michelle Malkin: 12,871
15) Glenn Beck: 13,153
16) Human Events Online: 17,538
17) The Heritage Foundation: 20,746
18) Newsbusters: 21,452
19) Lew Rockwell: 24,677
20) The Weekly Standard: 25,565
21) News With Views: 27,352
22) Sean Hannity: 28,086
23) Pajamas Media 28,969
24) The Ludwig von Mises Institute: 29,116
25) Atlas Shrugs: 29,548
26) The American Thinker: 29,980
27) Cybercast News Service: 32,348
28) Neal Boortz: 32,857
29) Reason: 33,254
30) Lucianne: 34,135
31) Ann Coulter 36,864
32) The Cato Journal: 39,187
33) Daily Paul: 41,465
34) The Volokh Conspiracy: 42,021
35) Bill O’Reilly: 42,533
36) Redstate: 42,655
37) Conservapedia: 43,866
38) Power Line: 44,542
39) Jewish World Review: 44,765
40) Front Page Magazine: 48,645
41) Daniel Pipes: 49,692
42) Little Green Footballs: 49,844
43) Campaign for Liberty: 50,638
44) The American Spectator: 52,377
45) Commentary: 55,447
46) GOPUSA: 58,771
47) James Lileks’: 60,536
48) Right Wing News: 63,097
49) Wizbang: 63,427
50) Day by Day: 63,455
10 bonus websites for you
51) Moonbattery: 67,850
52) Life News: 69,493
53) Vdare: 70,866
54) Debbie Schlussel: 73,543
55) Republican National Committee: 73,599
56) Lifesitenews: 73,823
57) Dick Morris: 77,187
58) Blackfive: 83,031
59) Outside the Beltway: 83,455
60) American Conservative: 90,579
Update #1: Jihad Watch emailed to note that they’re at 29,887. That would put them at #26. Sorry, I missed you, guys!
Update #2: Canada Free Press is at 73,555 which would put them at #55 on the original list.
Update #3: The great thing I have found about doing these lists is that if you miss a site, by the end of the day, someone will be sure to let you know about it =D Here a handful of other websites that were missed.
The Ron Paul Forums is at 29,341, which means they would have come in at #25 on the original list.
Onenewsnow ranks at 9,388, which would have put it at #12.
PS: I’ve had a couple people suggest that Infowars should be on the list, but I consider that to be a loony, anti-authority conspiracy site more than a conservative website. Others may disagree.
Update #4: The Business & Media Institutecomes in at 79,500, which would have put it at #58.
Well, I sometimes forward such material to other for reliable information, and if I had done so with the extensive information taken from this particular post of yours, my stamp on it would have proven me unreliable when I was depending on you. So, regretfully, it did matter.
However, having myself been mistaken a time or two, I double-checked its fidelity to the source, and found there that the list was stale. So I put the final note on it to warn others of the FR-timeline inaccuracy.
When I have been caught up in a key bit of mistaken detail, I have learned to be grateful for the correction, admit to all, and not push the wise counsel aside by making excuses. Boot camp stuff.
Not intending to harm or offend, just laying the inconsistencies away for good. This post still comes up in web searches. Perhaps it should be taken off.
Respectfully ---
I repeat.
Another thread not long afterward had roughly the same results.
So, old data or not, it was still in the ballpark. That’s not shoving anything aside. It’s telling you that the info is still dependable. Therefore, you can say to your friends, “this is how FR ranked X years ago, and it’s roughly the same today.”
Buuuuump!
You don't have to repeat. All you have to say is "You were right and I was wrong. I posted stale inaccurate data, through inadvertently submitting it with the wrong publishing date-stamp."
Another thread not long afterward had roughly the same results.
Perhaps, but that is irrelevant. Even the responses to this thread showed that significant changes had taken place over the elapsed three years. "Roughly" is not taking responsibility for giving the right data in the wrong time frame.
So, old data or not, it was still in the ballpark.
If you were only interested in FR positioning in the pack, yeah, ballpark. But not the precise relationships of every other site.
That’s not shoving anything aside.
It is.
It’s telling you that the info is still dependable.
Not for each and every site in the slate. The information was valid only for the date it was first published. The ranking is clearly time-dependent, with significant changes.
Therefore, you can say to your friends, “this is how FR ranked X years ago, and it’s roughly the same today.”
What have my friends to do with this debate? Why are you introducing that dimension? Where are you going with this?
If you want to be faithful to the image and credibility of FR, just admit to having made a mistake in dating the stale information. That's not hard, is it? I am assuming that for sure the mis-dating of the publication of the article was merely an oversight, am I not?
It's something like saying,"Yesterday this was oats. Today it is still oats. The horse only used it once overnight."
Nothing you can say will change that.
Why else do you think that virtually every MSN org and every talk show host, radio and TV, either search FR daily or hire lackeys to do it?
They are not smart enough to find the truth on their own, and of course have no desire to do so except to falsely refute it with their nefarious actions.
So where else would they go except to THE premiere conservative website on the internets?
What have my friends to do with this debate? Why are you introducing that dimension? Where are you going with this?
Perhaps he read your proclamation posted earlier where YOU were "introducing that dimension":
I sometimes forward such material to other [without an “s” at the end of that word this sentence is deemed unreliable] for reliable information, and if I had done so with the extensive information taken from this particular post of yours, my stamp on it would have proven me unreliableOh that oats thingie was clever, be careful when throwing the next day ones in a glass house.
It seems you are trying to cause others to conclude this discourse was meant to impugn FRs standing. It was not.
Your interest in gratuitously taking up someone else's offenses are -- what?
Meddling to start a flame war?
I'm not buying. The issue is over. So long ---
Thanks, Synchro. FWIW, you are correct about why I brought up friends. At least I assumed that “others” meant friends.
You called for the thread to be pulled.
Not necessary, it’s all been hashed out quite well.
My reasoning in taking up your offences was to show you what you seemed to not be seeing, and clafify the situation.
Meddling? You have been here long enough that you should
have a better idea of how FR works.
Anyone can post to any other reply.
If you don’t want anyone to reply, have a private conversation.
No matter how it fluctuates from way high on the list, to a little lower, FR is still the best and most effective conservative website on the internets.
You called for the thread to be pulled.
Not necessary, it’s all been hashed out quite well.
My reasoning in taking up your offences was to show you what you seemed to not be seeing, and clafify the situation.
Meddling? You have been here long enough that you should
have a better idea of how FR works.
Anyone can post to any other reply.
If you don’t want anyone to reply, have a private conversation.
No matter how it fluctuates from way high on the list, to a little lower, FR is still the best and most effective conservative website on the internets.
Must be just others who are not friends, but those that imardmd1 imparts information to on an impersonal level.
"The date given as the publication date of the list was way, way wrong. You entered the date of its appearance (July 12, 2012) as the same day that you posted it, when in fact this article was over three years old!
Please note well this has absolutely nothing to do with the ranking or reputation of Free Republic. It has everything to do with giving a wrong publication date for the site ranking posted. The data was stale.
No response to the observation was necessary. However, xxins did respond; and, rather that stepping up to the plate and saying, "You are right, and I was wrong," instead posted a litany of excuses to gloss over and minimize the error, thus attempting to duck taking responsibility. Then you stepped in, taking up his offenses, attempting to justify his position. And both of you trying to drag in some kind of inference that I was somehow attacking the reputation of Free Republic, which is a damnable lie.
Now, you have both stepped into poop. I know how FR operates, that if an error is publicly made and publicly shown, if needed a public retraction should be made, not merely a private one. When you inserted yourself, it would have been better if you had not called a right wrong, and a wrong right. But your participation was neither invited, desirable, or helpful. You didn't clarify anything.
You called for the thread to be pulled
This is a deliberate overstatement. I said, "Perhaps it should be taken off." That was clearly a suggestion, not a challenge. I do not call for or make such decisions.
I'm done with this.
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.