# Google and my blog



## Pilgrim (Jul 10, 2007)

My blog comes up #2 in search results for Confessional Presbyterianism and #6 for Old School Presbyterian(ism). Since I post at most only a handful of times per month and haven't posted recently, this is surprising to me.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 10, 2007)

It would surprise me only if the search term was worth money. 

Among Presbyterians today, in fact, it is rare to find people interested in Confessional Presbyterianism. Among Presbyterians on this Board, it is sometimes disputed that we ought to be Confessional.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 10, 2007)

joshua said:


> But what folks really need to do is ask, what does it really mean to be _Confessional_? I mean, sometimes Paul would use _confessional_ in "such and such" sense, but it didn't mean he couldn't have used it _this and that_ sense. You see, it's all very ambiguous. What St. Paul really said was...umm...nevermind.



Paul said "confessional"? Ok, Bud, chapter and verse. What translation are you using anyway?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 11, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> It would surprise me only if the search term was worth money.
> 
> Among Presbyterians today, in fact, it is rare to find people interested in Confessional Presbyterianism. Among Presbyterians on this Board, it is sometimes disputed that we ought to be Confessional.



My first thought was that this is due to Confessional/Old School Presbyterianism basically being an arcane ghetto today, unfortunately. But I don't have a counter on my blog, I have no idea how many hits it gets. My profile was viewed quite a bit when I commented on some more well known blogs a few months ago. 

Those Presbyterians who hold to the original WCF (and maybe a few others) would of course question just how Confessional Old School Presbyterianism was in the first place.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 11, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> But I don't have a counter on my blog, I have no idea how many hits it gets.



You could install statcounter and then you can obsess over the number of hits for a while. (That's what I did, until the hits leveled out to 2 per day, one of which was my wife). At least it was free.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 11, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> You could install statcounter and then you can obsess over the number of hits for a while. (That's what I did, until the hits leveled out to 2 per day, one of which was my wife). At least it was free.



 I don't know why, but I chuckled at that. Probably because no one has commented on one of my blogs in over a year.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 11, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> You could install statcounter and then you can obsess over the number of hits for a while. (That's what I did, until the hits leveled out to 2 per day, one of which was my wife). At least it was free.


I would recommend Google Analytics instead. It is very powerful and free with your Google account. I set it up on Chris Coldwell's sites and it provides excellent data.



Draught Horse said:


> I don't know why, but I chuckled at that. Probably because no one has commented on one of my blogs in over a year.


This is why I don't think folks ought to worry too much about their privacy. There are tons of people that are trying to be seen and read on the Internet. I've run an online business for about 3 years now and know quite a bit about how expensive it is to be noticed on the Internet.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 11, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I would recommend Google Analytics instead. It is very powerful and free with your Google account. I set it up on Chris Coldwell's sites and it provides excellent data.



Thanks! I'll check it out. Maybe it will tell me who the other person is.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 12, 2007)

Joshua,

Primarily in this case it's that Pilgrim has a Google account already and adding Analytics is a piece of cake and doesn't require another login. Also, a lot of applications are now adding hooks for Analytics (Wordpress, Drupal, etc)


----------

