• Lab
  • AndroidForMobile Foundation at
    Facebook’s attempts to fight fake news seem to be working. (Twitter’s? Not so much.)
    ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
    June 28, 2012, 5:18 p.m.
    Reporting & Production

    Anatomy of a spike: How SCOTUS Blog dealt with its biggest traffic day ever

    Health-care decision day meant spending big money to keep the site from crashing at exactly the wrong time.

    Ten-year-old has been a go-to authority on the health care challenge since the beginning, which made today its Oscar night, Super Bowl, and Christmas morning all wrapped into one. But on the Internet, success comes with a darker side: server crashes. SCOTUS Blog was prepared. The traffic buildup was already intense on Monday:

    To put that 500,000-in-one-day in context, it had nearly 1 million over the three days of oral arguments this spring. (Other sites were prepping too; just before the decision was handed down, New York Times developer Jacob Harris tweeted a graph spike.)

    For SCOTUS Blog, preparing meant , even if they would only be used for a short burst of traffic.

    To help offload the burden, SCOTUS Blog shut down its main site at peak times and redirected visitors to . That was hosted on , a server company that specializes in optimized WordPress installations. And the minute-by-minute liveblog was pushed off to , with an embed put on the WPEngine site. The had its own special “Sponsored by Bloomberg Law” message in its header.

    And for the moment of maximum interest — the seconds after the decision was announced — SCOTUS Blog publisher advised they’d be going to Twitter first. “As a purely formal matter, we will ‘break’ the story of the health care decision on Twitter. So you can follow @scotusblog, if you’d like,” he wrote in the liveblog. “But don’t follow us just for that reason, because we will have the news here on the live blog less than 5 seconds later.”

    By 9:08 a.m., he said there were already 70,000 people reading the liveblog and that the site had already logged 1 million hits for the day. His guesstimate for the day’s traffic? “My best bet is 250,000 [concurrent liveblog readers] at the time of the decision.” Goldstein kept liveblog readers updated.

    9:16 a.m.: “100,000 live blog readers.”

    9:29 a.m.: “145,000 on the liveblog.”

    9:33 a.m.: “The previous record for our live blog was 100,000, on Monday. The previous record for our daily hits was 500,000, also Monday.”

    9:43 a.m.: “218,000”

    9:43 a.m.: “We are at less than 1% of our own server capacity. We’ve shifted the principal processing to CoverItLive, which expects it can handle >3 million.”

    9:56 a.m.: “FWIW, the count going into 10am is 344,000 contemporaneous readers.”

    10:03 a.m.: “1,000 requests to the liveblog per second.”

    10:06 a.m.: “520,000 contemporaneous readers.”

    At 10:09 a.m., . At this writing, that tweet’s been retweeted 2,927 times and favorited 142 times. (Also, .)

    10:22 a.m.: “866,000 liveblog readers.”

    That’s roughly the .

    From there, SCOTUS Blog switched into analysis, commentary, and smart aggregation of other sites’ analysis and commentary. But the traffic kept coming, if at a slower pace.

    1:11 p.m.: “SCOTUSBlog just clipped over 3 million hits!”

    2:17 p.m.: “Thanks to everyone for sticking with us this whole time. There are still over 80,000 people following the live blog.”

    CoverItLive said they’ve hosted in 2012, behind only ESPN’s NFL draft coverage.

    By 2:46 p.m., SCOTUS Blog staffers were ready to celebrate:

    And by 5:09 p.m., they were really ready to celebrate:

    Photo of the Supreme Court by used under a Creative Commons license.

    POSTED     June 28, 2012, 5:18 p.m.
    SEE MORE ON Reporting & Production
    Show comments  
    Show tags
    Join the 45,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
    Facebook’s attempts to fight fake news seem to be working. (Twitter’s? Not so much.)
    Plus: How YouTubers spread far-right beliefs (don’t just blame algorithms), and another cry for less both-sides journalism.
    Public or closed? How much activity really exists? See how other news organizations’ Facebook Groups are faring
    We analyzed the data of groups as large as 40,000 members and as small as 300, from international organizations to local publishers. How does yours fit in?
    Here’s what the Financial Times is doing to get bossy man voice out of (okay, less prominent in) its opinion section
    “She wrote a fabulous piece that did incredibly well and I think there’s no way on earth that (a) she would have submitted or (b) it would have run, before we started this stuff. It got more than double the usual number of pageviews for an opinion piece.”