Website usage

WebsiteOur project website has reached its third anniversary and so here are some statistics for the last year (courtesy of Google Analytics). Last year’s figures are in brackets.

Number of visits: 11337 (14480)

Number of page-views: 24176 (38729)

Number of unique visitors: 9907 (11995)

Number of countries from which pages have been viewed: 139 (136), of which 63 (65) have been the source of 10 or more visits

Greatest number of visits in one day: 213 on 31 Aug 14 (918 on 10 Dec 13)

Most visited pages:


Third anniversary

Miniature of a scribe writing at a desk (thought to be Bede), from the preface to Bede's prose Life of St Cuthbert

MS British Library Yates Thompson 26 f. 2: Miniature of a scribe writing at a desk (thought to be Bede), from the preface to Bede’s prose Life of St Cuthbert

It is three years since this blog was launched, and so here are some approximate statistics about the blog over the last year (and ever). See last year’s statistics here.

Number of posts: 15 (85)
Number of pages: 2 (2)

Blog posts/pages viewed: 1649 (4894)
Number of countries from which post/pages have been viewed: 62 (76)
Most viewed identifiable post: A celebration *

The anniversary of our website is coming soon, and we will report some statistics for that in due course.

* This is the top individual post page visited. The homepage is again our most frequently visited page: it displays the five most recent posts, and WordPress doesn’t allocate views per post to these individually according to what was displayed at the time it was viewed.

DHARMa report

We’re pleased to see the recent announcement of the release of the final report of the DHARMa project. This was a project looking at questions raised by research data in the humanities in Oxford and especially its preservation; the DMLBS project contributed to this as a case study last year. The full project report is available here and is well worth reading.

Although the results of the study come too late for the DMLBS, we welcome the careful and thoughtful presentation of the issues, and we would echo many of the extremely sensible findings and recommendations, particularly the value of individualized guidance and mentoring at all stages of a digital humanities project.

Now that issues relating to the basic level of digital preservation (of research data) have been aired, we hope attention can next be given to addressing the more difficult but vital issues raised by digital sustainability (of tools and interfaces), which should be the gold standard in maintaining the value created by digital humanities projects.