It'd be interesting if there were a way to measure proportion of visitors from different sources who engaged, by some definition of engagement. Ideally I want to know "read the article", but that's hard to measure. Number of new feed subscriptions might be a decent proxy for "read and really liked the article", though.<p>One reason I want to know that is that for my own sites, I've generally found a large proportion of link-blog traffic to be very shallow, to the point where maybe one in 100 hits is a "real" hit. This is particularly the case at link-blogs without any summary blurbs. Slashdotters who don't want to read the article, for example, often just read the blurb and don't bother to click through, so a bigger proportion of those who do click through are at least somewhat interested in reading. A much larger percentage of people on sites like Reddit click through, but I don't think a much larger percentage actually read the articles; many are just clicking through to figure out what the article's about, since there's no blurb to explain it. And some don't even do that much, since a common Reddit use pattern is "middle-click on every article to open in new tab, then work through the tabs", often culminating in just closing the remaining still-unread tabs when you're done reddit-surfing, which results in a ton of spurious hits that involved no human eyeballs.<p>Anecdotally, the proportion of shallow-hits/not-even-real-hits goes up somewhat proportionally to traffic. Front-page of reddit delivers maybe 100x as much traffic as front-page of a more niche sub-reddit, but <i>much</i> less than 100x real readership.