[rwfromkansas]

I must be stupid or something, but the higher numbers are lower on the scale, not higher (the graph is flipped or something...weird). Wouldn't this mean FR is actually doing worse than these other sites?

I have a hard time believing this is true, which is why I am asking. The conclusion that we are doing better makes more sense, but I don't get that from the graphs that are upside down...lol.

[ItsBacon]

They're rankings, not number of hits, so lower is better.

[Congressman Billybob]

I had the same problem with the graphs being "upside down" that you did. When I looked at the fourth one, I realized that the numbers are Internet ranking in usage, not number of hits.

So the best rating is "1" meaning the top-ranked site. FR is now into the top 1,000 of all sites. Only Rush Limbaugh is above us, and having gone to subscription service, he may drop below us.

Does that help?

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest column for UPI, "Necessary Lies -- Iraq & N. Korea" (Now up on UPI wire, and FR.)

As the politician formerly known as Al Gore has said, Buy my book, "to Restore Trust in America"

[Timesink]

I must be stupid or something, but the higher numbers are lower on the scale, not higher (the graph is flipped or something...weird). Wouldn't this mean FR is actually doing worse than these other sites?

You're reading it upside down. Think of it as a Billboard chart, and you're Casey Kasem. The higher notch a site occupies, the more popular it is.