2 Weeks later & Still Nothing

...........perhaps she just can't be arsed any longer?

WanderingScribe: nesting

It looks as if wanderingscribe may have misjudged her audience - the new rising star may have run its course. She posted a new blog this afternoon but she may have waited too long since her last because it is now eight o'clock in the evening and still nobody has posted a comment. BBC claimed that she had 11,000 readers per week before she signed her book deal (a figure I strongly dispute), so where are they now - even her loyal followers seem to have deserted her. Sadly her creative streak seems to have also deserted her. Let's hope for her sake it's just a short period of writer's block.

Query to BBC re accuracy of story.

This morning I posted an email to the BBC News website feedback about the wanderingscribe followup story as follows:
I have already pointed out that your mathematics in the story about Anya Peters (Parked up) are incorrect. Your story claims that her website had 11,000 READERS per week, which is incorrect. You are basing your figures on the statistics provided by her site meter which records the number of VISITS made to her site. Agreed there would have been 11,000 visits per week but since many of these visitors returned daily for updates and many of them made more than 1 visit per day then the actual number of readers could be as little as 500. Isn't it time that your story should be corrected? or is this a case of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story? I would also like to know why the BBC has printed mostly complimentary comments concerning this story and neglected those which are critical of her story.
The story in question can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5029984.stm
I await to hear what BBC's reply (if any) is to this.

BBC Guilty of moderating comments

For some reason BBC want to give the impression that WanderingScribe's blog is extremely successful.
In their article, referred to previously, BBC claim WS has had 11,000 readers per week - I posted 2 comments on their web page pointing out that although she may have had 11,000 visits this did not in fact mean 11,000 readers. Many of these visitors went back regularly every day and often 2 or more times per day so the actual number of 'readers' is much lower (it could be as low as 500 actual readers, which would only be 1 week's sales and not enough to make it a top 10 best seller).
But do you see that in their comments section - NOPE - they obviously just want happy smiley everything is wonderful comments.
I am not trying to detract from WS's success - I would just like BBC to get their maths right.
Publishers may want to take this into consideration when trying to judge pre-publication popularity.

What's that saying? Lies, damn lies and statistics!! 'nuff said.