Comments on: Tom is back http://fatvegan.com/2007/03/01/tom-is-back/ Mon, 06 Feb 2012 08:51:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ryan http://fatvegan.com/2007/03/01/tom-is-back/comment-page-1/#comment-2692 Ryan Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:07:48 +0000 http://fatvegan.com/2007/03/01/tom-is-back/#comment-2692 <p>You probably are Tom's biggest groupie.</p> You probably are Tom’s biggest groupie.

]]> By: Jane http://fatvegan.com/2007/03/01/tom-is-back/comment-page-1/#comment-2691 Jane Fri, 02 Mar 2007 21:29:45 +0000 http://fatvegan.com/2007/03/01/tom-is-back/#comment-2691 <p>Actually Ryan....there is another trend you may have to investigate because I for one often visited another site simply to follow the links to Tom's site.</p> Actually Ryan….there is another trend you may have to investigate because I for one often visited another site simply to follow the links to Tom’s site.

]]> By: Tom http://fatvegan.com/2007/03/01/tom-is-back/comment-page-1/#comment-2690 Tom Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:02:32 +0000 http://fatvegan.com/2007/03/01/tom-is-back/#comment-2690 <p>Oh. Yeah. </p> <p>Although it's the lowest month on record by at least 140 visits. So it could be a blippy coincidence. But I believe there is more to it than that. You economist types like to see everything as trends and statistics. I, on the other hand, feel the spirit of the drop, and the spirit says, it's because I wasn't on Blogfeed.</p> Oh. Yeah.

Although it’s the lowest month on record by at least 140 visits. So it could be a blippy coincidence. But I believe there is more to it than that. You economist types like to see everything as trends and statistics. I, on the other hand, feel the spirit of the drop, and the spirit says, it’s because I wasn’t on Blogfeed.

]]> By: Ryan http://fatvegan.com/2007/03/01/tom-is-back/comment-page-1/#comment-2689 Ryan Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:57:36 +0000 http://fatvegan.com/2007/03/01/tom-is-back/#comment-2689 <p>No. That could just be a blip. People used to sometimes worry that Blogfeed reduced their hits because people didn't go to the actual site.</p> No. That could just be a blip. People used to sometimes worry that Blogfeed reduced their hits because people didn’t go to the actual site.

]]> By: Tom http://fatvegan.com/2007/03/01/tom-is-back/comment-page-1/#comment-2687 Tom Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:28:18 +0000 http://fatvegan.com/2007/03/01/tom-is-back/#comment-2687 <p>I'd show you but I can't be bothered. Ask me when we're next together at a computer. However, in January the month before I was off Blogfeed I had 1,164 visits, in February the month without Webstat I had 841 visits. So it was a bit of a drop, but not massive.</p> I’d show you but I can’t be bothered. Ask me when we’re next together at a computer. However, in January the month before I was off Blogfeed I had 1,164 visits, in February the month without Webstat I had 841 visits. So it was a bit of a drop, but not massive.

]]>