I’ve been looking over last year’s film releases while eBaying. Now you probably noticed that I didn’t put together a “best films of 2005” list because to me it seems like a largely pointless affair. How does one properly compare Match Point and King Kong? But having just rewatched it on DVD, I feel confident that last year’s Best Picture That Nobody Saw was certainly Kiss Kiss Bang Bang which I’ve raved about before. It’s a real pity given the classy Hollywood polish they achieved with just $15 million (which was actually $5 mil over budget). The WB had not been “confident in the premise” (based in part on the book Bodies Are Where You Find Them, which I’m now curious to read) but after seeing it screened they loved it and gave it a high profile release. In short, if you are one of the vast majority who haven’t seen this film, do so now.
The Gallery has been remoulded to fit the site once more. Due to some changes to the core code it’s not quite how I’d like it just yet, but it’s pretty close to the old version with which you are familiar. On the subject of photos, I dropped in at morgueFile after receiving an email about someone using one of my photographs to illustrate an anthology called Writing Through Cancer. Since I haven’t been there for a while I was pleasantly surprised to discover that my total downloads has now crossed the 2000 mark.
On to the Google Analytics-inspired geo locational visits competition (I think that’s a world first!). So far Milton Keynes is actually way out in the lead, but I don’t know who claims that traffic. Next up are Cambridge, Nottingham and Colchester, with Harrow-on-the-Hill and Kingston-upon-Hull close behind. Remember there are no prizes as yet and randomly refreshing pages makes no difference, we’re only counting visits. While we’re discussing stats, would anyone like to shed some light on who performed a search query consisting of luke church, Cambridge, and saint. I’m just curious.
12 April 2006 at 5:04 pm
It might have been a typo and was meant to be “-saint” so when looking for our Luke you wouldnt get random churches called St.Luke?!
12 April 2006 at 8:52 pm
that would have been me if i’d known you could do minus serches. couldn’t find luke’s photos for all the churches:(
12 April 2006 at 10:03 pm
Kirsten, it was actually a “-saint”, I just thought it sounded weirder my way. :p
I was more curious as to whether it was Luke himself or someone else stalking him…
Angie, I’ve linked to Luke’s photos several times if you do a search in the box at the top right. 🙂
13 April 2006 at 9:16 am
Liar! I knew you just wanted to mislead people! Well, looks like you have to do waaaay better than this… :d
13 April 2006 at 11:14 am
Well, what can I say?
I did once have fun at a conference where I was arguing that Google was an evil force of social exclusion, by pointing out that the only practical way to find me was to search for ‘Luke Church -God’, but unfortunately the churches have been a little more internet-active since those happy days.
I’m highly amused that someone else came up with the idea independently. Judging from my web-analysis reports I have a few strange stalkers… (And one girl in America who wants me (or hopefully my namesake) dead, and claims that I gave her STDs, worryingly…)
Of the search terms that have hit my photography website, a particular favourite is ‘chav+photography’. That Mr. Ash has a lot to answer for.
Tragically the easiest way to find my website, is the somewhat dull ‘Luke Church Photography’, but I mailed you a link Angie.
I would also note that as you so aptly put it, our infamy is mutual, of the visitors to my photography sever over the past month, some 8% came from one ‘meewella.com’ 🙂
This should be more concerning when one considers that in Feburary the webserver served 88,307 image files, making up so 1.41GB of image data. Enough of this ‘we can stalk people via the websites they look at’ statistical fun.. I should back to practicing for my deity trials.
13 April 2006 at 11:16 am
Is it just me, or do I talk too much? :”>
13 April 2006 at 3:18 pm
Awwww… just keep talking, we’re used to it… 😉 Alternatively you could reply to my email, yes the one that I send about TWO WEEKS AGO x(
13 April 2006 at 8:54 pm
I’ve just realised that it would actually be quite sad if the frequency with which I read your website closely matches the frequency with which *everyone in Cambridge* does as well.
I sincerely hope that though I am in fourth place, it’s a long fourth place from Cambridge. Else, I might have to take a break for a while. Sheesh!
14 April 2006 at 1:15 am
Luke, your rambling — err, writing — is always appreciated here. I fully understand why you’d choose to post here rather than individually reply to fanmail like Kirsten’s since it’s just more efficient in reaching your wider audience.
And I’m always happy to pass on traffic. I intially typed the word “share” but then realised that might be misinterpreted as an offer to share bandwidth too… b-)
Jane, to be fair to you the stats have only been running during the Cambridge hols so most Cam students would be visiting from their respective hometowns at the moment unless they just love the University too much to leave.
14 April 2006 at 9:50 am
Oi! Fanmail? Love the university too much to leave? Wait till you come home… [-( x(
14 April 2006 at 11:17 am
oooo, you’re in big trouble now! you’ve gone and made her mad! hahaha
14 April 2006 at 3:45 pm
Haha unlucky there.