I know many people were eying this survey kind of strangely. "Is miller caving to his audience?" No, that's not what it was about. I will continue to blog about the same things for as long as those things interest me. But when I write what I want to write, who am I writing to? For instance, if I found out that everyone skips my physics posts, I might try to make my physics posts more accessible, and if I found out I had an audience full of physicists, I might make them more in depth.
There is also a particular audience that I am tracking: my asexual readership.
When I first found the asexual blogosphere, frankly I felt it was in shambles. It now shows signs of picking up (a regular blogging carnival has just been announced), but it still pales in comparison to the lively skeptical blogosphere or the massive atheist blogosphere. I'm a small fry in the skeptical blogosphere, but in an environment full of dead, dying, and newbie asexual blogs, I'm suddenly notable.
Long story short, I now have a lot of incoming visitors from asexual sites. I can see this from the site statistics, but site statistics don't give me a good idea of who sticks around and who doesn't. Thus the survey.
With my small sample size, uncertainties are around 10-25%. Therefore, I think it is misleading to give specific numbers, so I will summarize in words.
About half came for asexual/queer topics, half came for physics, half came for atheism/religion, and half came for skepticism/critical thinking. That means that on average people came for not one but two topics. That either means I lose the readers that only like one topic, or it means that people have more diverse interests than I give them credit for. In any case, the tentative conclusion based on terrible statistics is that asexuals do not yet dominate the readership.
The only topic that gets skipped a lot is puzzles. I could have guessed this before, and it will not affect my blogging.
The homosecular acetheist
It occurs to me that some asexuals might feel uncomfortable with a blog that associates them with atheism? If that's the way anyone feels all I have to say is, "Tough luck!" It probably also makes some physics enthusiasts and even some skeptics uncomfortable. I write what I like and I don't expect everyone to agree.
In fact, I'm sort of evilly rubbing my hands together at the thought of introducing skepticism to a bunch of asexuals and introducing advanced queerness to a bunch of atheists. Mwahaha, I have finally found a way to do more than preach to the choir! Which is what people accuse you of doing when they're not busy accusing you of proselytizing.
As for asexuals who feel uncomfortable being associated with LGBTQ, this discomfort is fully intentional. I am unabashedly opposed to asexual separatists (in a friendly way of course).
Unrelated(?) blog updates
I designed another sidebar graphic to link to the LGBTA category of my blog.
I also wrote an Asexuality 101 page, linked on the side bar.
I am currently debating whether to keep the rainbow flag and asexual flag, which now seem slightly redundant. I may also decide to make the extended link list more prominent. Any thoughts?