SEO Blogs ranked by Feedburner
I thought I would trawl through my own blogroll and others to note down feed burner numbers.
It’s interesting who lists and who doesn’t. I don’t think one can deduce because a feed is not listed that it is small.
Top Rank Blog
7925
SEOmoz
7033
Marketing Pilgrim
5402
Wolf Howl
3597
seopedia.org
1564
seo-scoop.com
1502
andybeard.eu
1148
smallbusinesssem.com
1034
Search Marketing Standard
1006
stepforth.com
720
shimonsandler.com
654
Commerce 360
641
seodisco.com
371
blog.seoptimise.com
348
web professor
280
vanessafoxnude.com
210
yackyack.co.uk
111
zzmarketing.co.uk
109
viperchill.com
46
eplanit.biz
15
Social Media Marketing
cavitate.net
438
Bloggers
problogger.net
24242
copyblogger.com
17757
shoemoney.com
9084
johnchow.com
5410
netbusinessblog.com
1414
vinnylingham.com
944
copyblogger.com
Marketing
lonelymarketer.com
494
Well done Darren Rowse for topping my unscientific poll.
I think Brian Clark at Copyblogger has had the fastest growth rate, something to be studied and learned from that dude.
Well done Viperchill at having the stones to publish your feed. It has only one direction to go.
June 3rd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Well it was 55 two days ago and the day following i hadnt even made a post and it dropped to 46 so i have no idea how accurate it is
To be honest i dont find it embarassing, i think i write good content and when i get emails and comments it makes it all worth while :). I think it tempts people to ‘follow the crowd’ when they see others have subscribed, much like people digg stories (on digg) what is on the homepage before even viewing it
Nice post, and thanks Lyndon
June 3rd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Exactly Glen, it only matters if it matters. It’s not the ultimate metric, but it is a metric.
But if something can be measured it can be improved.
I agree, I think comments and emails are a far more accurate metric.
June 3rd, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I think those feedburner stats are cool. Its good to think that 111 people are in to the stuff I write. I also agree with the big number theory too, if people see a big number then they instantly think wooah cool.
I’m enjoy watching my little number thingy grow though, I remember when it was like 3, even then I thought cool I have 3 subs
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:29 pm
It is gratifying to know that people out there actually read the stuff. Even if it’s one person.
June 4th, 2007 at 10:06 am
I was one of those 3 Rob
June 4th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Someday when my blog grows up, I hope it can reach anything close to Brian Clark’s numbers. Wow.
I have a feeling SEOmoz numbers are higher than Feedburner is reporting, possibly double.
Cheers!
June 5th, 2007 at 11:53 am
See lyndon its jumped to 56 now, i really dont know if that many people subscribe and unsubscribe when i havnt done anything different
Anyone have a good idea with feedburner stat accuracy :)?
June 5th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
As far as I understand, the stats are based on how many times your feed is accessed and then the number is extrapolated from there.
It’s not based on the amount of subscribers you actually have.
Mine has gone form 287 to 250 to 283 in a week.
There is probably a margin of error of about 10% to 15%, factor that in and you ahve a good idea as to what is happening.
June 25th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
You missed mine.
http://www.semtutor.com
http://www.ogletreeseo.com
June 25th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
I guess you don’t allow images.
http://www.ogletreeseo.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~fc/DavidOgletree-SeoAdviceAndInternetNews
http://www.semtutor.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~fc/MarketingTipsTricks
June 26th, 2007 at 7:37 am
Sorry Ogletree, I couldn’t find the feedburner stats on your site. I still can’t. I only added those sites who displayed the stats. Which is why I don’t even list my own.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:41 am
[...] I thought I would trawl through my own blogroll and others to note down feed burner numbers. It’s interesting who lists and who doesn’t. I don’t think one can deduce because a feed is not listed that it is small. (more…) [...]