Many people like to compare their online article submissions with other online article submission authors. And in doing so they will believe that their popularity as a writer has something to do with this. It does not really and it is very unwise to believe it does.
Recently it was stated that if someone had 70 articles posted online and I have 7000 articles online then we could compare these average consider the amount of time that each author had them up online. For instance if I had my articles up for 16 months and they have had theirs up for 8-months then our averages should be similar in that my averages should be twice as much since they have been up for twice as long.
Well on the surface this seems like a good idea and mathematically correct however it is totally wrong and that is a complete fallacy. Why? Well consider that I post so many new articles it drags down the averages and another author may post fewer articles and that allows their articles to move up faster on an average basis.
Now then if we posted at the same percentages to the total each month it might seem to be relevant however also there is seasonality in Internet traffic at different times of the year too and therefore that somewhat throw all the numbers out of wack unless we both started on the same day of the same year you see? Consider all this in 2006.
