lesswrong.com: global rank − 40,877, rank in the US − 19,570,
57.81% of total traffic come from the US.
slatestarcodex.com: global rank − 69,386, rank in the US -
31,060,
61.97% of total traffic come from the US.
Therefore, LessWrong seems to have a little bit more visitors (especially from outside the US) than SlateStarCodex. SSC seems to have a lot of comments, but you should note that LW requires having an account for posting comments, whereas SSC allows you to post comments anonymously, it doesn’t even ask your email address.
Curiously, overcomingbias.com has 6k readers in feedly.com and 778 in inoreader.com, which is comparable to LessWrong itself, but it has fewer visitors than LW or SSC. Perhaps most people use their RSS readers to read it and don’t visit the blog itself.
I think there is a difference between LW and SSC. On LW, we have 2-4 new discussion threads every day, a lot of threads are active at the same time. Whereas SSC usually has 2-4 thread a week, only perhaps a couple threads are active at any given point in time. In addition to that, almost all SSC posts are written by the same person who builds upon his previous posts. Therefore everyone is on the same page both literally and figuratively. Therefore it is quite easy to tell what ideas float on SSC now. Whereas LessWrong has many individual posters who tend to be interested in various things. Few of them build upon the ideas of each other, few explore the possibilities suggested by other LW posts. Therefore it is much harder for a reader to get a big picture. A question “what X has been up to recently?” is much harder to answer if X=LW than if X=SSC.
As of now, LessWrong does not have posters whose new ideas would move opinions of the majority of the readers forward. People seem to form ideas on their own, whereas SSC offers its readers a “journey”. Therefore comments are relatively much more important on LessWrong than they are on SlateStarCodex. However, if one is supposed to read the comments, it becomes much harder to use the site casually. On SSC, while comments sometimes do add to the post themselves, you can simply read Scott’s essays if you do not have time for anything more. The question how to optimize your LessWrong reading, which is relevant for casual readers, is harder to answer. The question “how has X consensus changed in the last 3 months” is much harder to answer if X=LW than if X=SSC, because in order to answer the latter question, reading Scott’s essays seems to be enough.
To sum up. LW probably has more readers (especially from the outside the US), SSC probably has more comments due to the possibility to post comments anonymously. SSC posts, all being written by the same person, build upon each other and thus offer their readers a “journey” and are able to move consensus opinions more quickly than individual LW posts.
You should note a few things. According to alexa.com:
lesswrong.com: global rank − 51,809, rank in the United States − 18,847, 46.3% of visitors come from the US.
slatestarcodex.com: global rank − 87,006, rank in the United States − 16,366, 71.7% of visitors come from the US.
According to similarweb.com:
lesswrong.com: global rank − 40,877, rank in the US − 19,570, 57.81% of total traffic come from the US.
slatestarcodex.com: global rank − 69,386, rank in the US - 31,060, 61.97% of total traffic come from the US.
Therefore, LessWrong seems to have a little bit more visitors (especially from outside the US) than SlateStarCodex. SSC seems to have a lot of comments, but you should note that LW requires having an account for posting comments, whereas SSC allows you to post comments anonymously, it doesn’t even ask your email address.
RSS readers:
feedly.com shows lesswrong.com (i.e. http://lesswrong.com/.rss, which is the same as http://lesswrong.com/promoted/.rss) as having 7k readers and slatestarcodex.com as having 2k readers. It is interesting to note that http://lesswrong.com/new/.rss and http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/new/.rss have few subscribers. This is probably because if new people visit LessWrong, they can see only one RSS Feed icon on the front page so naturally it is the one they subscribe to. I think this is a very bad thing and it should be corrected as soon as possible. If someone tells a person to check out LessWrong, they are likely to end up reading promoted posts only.
inoreader.com has similar stats: lesswrong.com has 378 subscribers, slatestarcodex.com has 137 subscribers. Few people to subscribe to lesswrong.com/new and Discussion.
Curiously, overcomingbias.com has 6k readers in feedly.com and 778 in inoreader.com, which is comparable to LessWrong itself, but it has fewer visitors than LW or SSC. Perhaps most people use their RSS readers to read it and don’t visit the blog itself.
I think there is a difference between LW and SSC. On LW, we have 2-4 new discussion threads every day, a lot of threads are active at the same time. Whereas SSC usually has 2-4 thread a week, only perhaps a couple threads are active at any given point in time. In addition to that, almost all SSC posts are written by the same person who builds upon his previous posts. Therefore everyone is on the same page both literally and figuratively. Therefore it is quite easy to tell what ideas float on SSC now. Whereas LessWrong has many individual posters who tend to be interested in various things. Few of them build upon the ideas of each other, few explore the possibilities suggested by other LW posts. Therefore it is much harder for a reader to get a big picture. A question “what X has been up to recently?” is much harder to answer if X=LW than if X=SSC.
As of now, LessWrong does not have posters whose new ideas would move opinions of the majority of the readers forward. People seem to form ideas on their own, whereas SSC offers its readers a “journey”. Therefore comments are relatively much more important on LessWrong than they are on SlateStarCodex. However, if one is supposed to read the comments, it becomes much harder to use the site casually. On SSC, while comments sometimes do add to the post themselves, you can simply read Scott’s essays if you do not have time for anything more. The question how to optimize your LessWrong reading, which is relevant for casual readers, is harder to answer. The question “how has X consensus changed in the last 3 months” is much harder to answer if X=LW than if X=SSC, because in order to answer the latter question, reading Scott’s essays seems to be enough.
To sum up. LW probably has more readers (especially from the outside the US), SSC probably has more comments due to the possibility to post comments anonymously. SSC posts, all being written by the same person, build upon each other and thus offer their readers a “journey” and are able to move consensus opinions more quickly than individual LW posts.