I last heard, and it was a little while ago, the figure was around 15,500
Anonymous
http://2fargon.com/wplist
crawls and indexes wp blogs. The list is offline, but the count is visible, still.
half as much as it is gonna be
My search at G***** is to use */wp-login.php. Currently it seems to be down now mysteriously at 12,200. May not be right of course.
http://www.google.com/search?q=inurl:wp-login.php+intitle:”Wordpress+>+Login”&num=100&hl=en&lr=&filter=0
72,000 hits. I don’t know if this only counts WordPress 1.5, as I am too new to know what kind of phrases where in the 1.2 or before url and login screen.
I also don’t know if this will catch people who have modified their theme to remove any link to the wp-login page. I would imagine this is << 5% though.
Does this somehow exclude duplicate results? No clue how it works….
What do you mean by duplicate results? As for how it works, it’s a google search for url’s that contain “wp-login.php and that have “WordPress > Login” in the title, which should indicate exactly one WordPress 1.5 installation, and may also find WordPress versions less than 1.5
Well, some results from google show any number of duplicates; you get the message at the bottom of a page which states something about there being more results but many of them are duplicates of those already shown. I’ve never done what you’re doing there, so I just wondered how you KNOW it’s “exactly one WordPress 1.5 installation”.
Idle curiosity…. google’s famous for duplicate results on their search pages….
If that G. search gives only 72,000 – what about the rest that has been downloaded?
http://wordpress.org/download/counter/
<confused>
Moderator
James Huff
(@macmanx)
Volunteer Moderator
They were probably downloading the recent version of 1.5.x to update their existing 1.5.x blogs.
That makes sense 🙂
(even if I don’t really care)
Considering the large number of hosted bloggers who never retrieve WordPress from this site, the download count will always be misleading as to the number of actual WP users out there.
May be better off just stating “lots and lots.”