To: All
I must be stupid or something, but the higher numbers are lower on the scale, not higher (the graph is flipped or something...weird). Wouldn't this mean FR is actually doing worse than these other sites?
I have a hard time believing this is true, which is why I am asking. The conclusion that we are doing better makes more sense, but I don't get that from the graphs that are upside down...lol.
164 posted on
01/28/2003 10:30:00 AM PST by
rwfromkansas
(What is the chief end of man? To glorify God and enjoy Him forever. --- Westminster Catechism Q1)
To: rwfromkansas
They're rankings, not number of hits, so lower is better.
165 posted on
01/28/2003 10:36:52 AM PST by
ItsBacon
(I smell bacon! Where's the bacon? baconbaconbaconbaconbaconbaconbaconbacon)
To: rwfromkansas
To: rwfromkansas
I must be stupid or something, but the higher numbers are lower on the scale, not higher (the graph is flipped or something...weird). Wouldn't this mean FR is actually doing worse than these other sites?You're reading it upside down. Think of it as a Billboard chart, and you're Casey Kasem. The higher notch a site occupies, the more popular it is.
187 posted on
01/28/2003 10:51:41 PM PST by
Timesink
(I offered her a ring, she gave me the finger)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson