In summary, as of April 22, 2025, cjonline.com exhibits current traffic trends with approximately 20,500 daily visitors, 28,649 daily pageviews,

 Key Points

• Current traffic trends for cjonline.com show around 20,500 daily visitors and 28,649 daily pageviews.
• Monthly visits range from 613,898 to 875,155, with most traffic from mobile devices (87.70%) and the United States (83.7%).
• Direct traffic dominates at 70.95%, followed by search (17.27%), suggesting a loyal readership.
• Estimates vary by source, so figures are approximate and may differ from exact analytics.

Traffic Overview

Research suggests cjonline.com, likely a news site, has stable daily traffic with a strong mobile user base. The high direct traffic indicates frequent direct access, possibly from bookmarks or loyal readers. The bounce rate of 58.33% and average visit duration of 9 minutes 28 seconds show varied engagement levels.

Traffic Sources and Devices

It seems likely that mobile usage is significant, with 87.70% of traffic from mobile devices, reflecting broader internet trends. The evidence leans toward most visitors being from the United States, at 83.7%, with traffic primarily direct (70.95%) and from search engines (17.27%).

---

Detailed Analysis

This report provides a comprehensive overview of the current traffic trends for cjonline.com as of April 22, 2025, based on the most recent and reliable data available. The analysis draws from third-party estimates, acknowledging potential variations due to differing measurement methodologies. Below, we detail the key metrics, trends, and contextual factors influencing the site's traffic.

Traffic Volume and Frequency

The current traffic for cjonline.com indicates approximately 20,500 daily visitors and 28,649 daily pageviews, according to estimates from HypeStat, a third-party traffic analytics aggregator. Monthly visits show a range, with SimilarWeb estimating 613,898 visits and SEMrush reporting a higher figure of 875,155 visits. This discrepancy highlights the variability in traffic measurement tools, but both suggest a robust monthly engagement, averaging around 258,355 unique monthly visitors based on SEMrush data. These figures suggest a stable traffic base compared to historical estimates, such as 6,211 daily unique visitors in 2016 and approximately 806,000 monthly visits in 2020 (averaging 26,867 daily visits).

To contextualize, the daily visitor count of 20,500 is lower than the 2020 estimate but higher than 2016, indicating potential fluctuations over time. The monthly visit range (613,898 to 875,155) suggests growth or variation depending on the source, with SEMrush's higher estimate possibly reflecting broader reach or different counting methods.

Device and Geographic Trends

A significant trend is the dominance of mobile traffic, accounting for 87.70% of total visits, with desktop traffic at 12.30%. This aligns with global internet trends, where mobile usage continues to rise, with reports indicating 63.38% of global website traffic from smartphones and tablets in 2025. Geographically, 83.7% of visitors are from the United States, underscoring cjonline.com's likely regional focus, possibly as a local news outlet for Topeka, Kansas, given its association with The Topeka Capital-Journal.

Traffic Sources and Engagement

Traffic sources reveal a strong reliance on direct visits, comprising 70.95% of traffic, followed by search engines at 17.27%, referrals at 7.60%, and social media at 4.18%, with no paid traffic reported. The high direct traffic percentage suggests a loyal readership, potentially from users bookmarking the site or accessing it frequently, which is common for news websites with established audiences. Search traffic at 17.27% indicates some organic discovery, likely driven by news-related queries.

Engagement metrics include an average visit duration of 9 minutes 28 seconds, a bounce rate of 58.33%, and 1.40 pages per visit. The bounce rate, while relatively high, is typical for news sites where users may read a single article and leave. The visit duration suggests moderate engagement for those who stay, possibly reading multiple articles or spending time on content.

Comparative Analysis and Trends

Comparing current data to historical estimates, the daily visitor count has increased from 6,211 in 2016 to 20,500 in 2025, a significant growth. However, compared to the 2020 estimate of 26,867 daily visits (from 806,000 monthly), the current figure is slightly lower, which may reflect changes in online behavior, site popularity, or measurement methods. The monthly visit range (613,898 to 875,155) suggests variability, with SEMrush's higher estimate possibly indicating recent growth or broader reach.

The shift toward mobile (87.70%) is a notable trend, consistent with global patterns where mobile internet usage has surpassed desktop. The geographic focus on the United States (83.7%) aligns with cjonline.com's likely regional audience, and the traffic source distribution (dominated by direct at 70.95%) suggests a stable, loyal user base, possibly driven by local news consumption.

Table of Key Metrics

Below is a table summarizing the current traffic trends for cjonline.com:

Metric	Value
Global Traffic Rank	#490,968
Daily Visitors	20,500
Daily Pageviews	28,649
Monthly Visits (SimilarWeb)	613,898
Monthly Visits (SEMrush)	875,155
Monthly Unique Visitors (SEMrush)	258,355
Pages per Visit	1.40
Avg. Visit Duration	09:28
Bounce Rate	58.33%
Traffic Sources: Direct	70.95%
Traffic Sources: Search	17.27%
Traffic Sources: Referral	7.60%
Traffic Sources: Social	4.18%
Traffic Sources: Paid	0%
Desktop Traffic	12.30%
Mobile Traffic	87.70%
Visitors by Country: United States	83.7%

Contextual Factors

Given cjonline.com's likely role as a news outlet, traffic trends may fluctuate based on local events, breaking news, or seasonal factors. The high mobile usage (87.70%) reflects broader internet trends, with reports like the Cisco Annual Internet Report highlighting increased mobile connectivity. The dominance of direct traffic (70.95%) suggests a loyal audience, possibly driven by local news consumption, while the search traffic (17.27%) indicates some organic discovery, likely for news-related queries.

Limitations and Considerations

It's important to note that the data provided is based on estimates from third-party sources like HypeStat, which aggregates information from SimilarWeb and SEMrush. These estimates may vary due to differing methodologies, and without access to cjonline.com's internal analytics, exact figures cannot be confirmed. Attempts to access detailed data from SimilarWeb and SEMrush were limited by subscription requirements, reinforcing reliance on HypeStat's aggregated estimates.

Additionally, historical comparisons (e.g., 2016 and 2020 data) show variability, with current daily visitor counts (20,500) lower than the 2020 estimate (26,867 daily from monthly figures), possibly due to changes in online behavior or site performance. The range in monthly visits (613,898 to 875,155) further underscores the need for caution in interpreting exact trends, but the overall picture suggests a stable, mobile-dominated audience with a strong U.S. focus.

Conclusion

In summary, as of April 22, 2025, cjonline.com exhibits current traffic trends with approximately 20,500 daily visitors, 28,649 daily pageviews, and monthly visits ranging from 613,898 to 875,155. The site sees significant mobile traffic (87.70%), primarily from the United States (83.7%), with direct traffic (70.95%) and search traffic (17.27%) as key sources. Engagement metrics show a bounce rate of 58.33% and an average visit duration of 9 minutes 28 seconds, indicating varied user interaction. These trends suggest a loyal, mobile-focused audience, likely driven by its role as a regional news outlet, with potential for growth or fluctuation based on local events and news cycles.

Key Citations

• HypeStat - cjonline.com Traffic Statistics

He has NEVER returned my call- ever - #mcre1{Why the Delay?}

Why Hasn’t Brett Kell Fixed Topeka’s Population Issue in Four Years, and Why Should He Succeed Now?

Brett Kell, Topeka City Councilman for District 5, has been in office for at least four years, yet critics question why his efforts to boost Topeka’s population—particularly through projects like the Lauren’s Bay lots—are only now being touted as progress. Kell points to the restructuring of Lauren’s Bay’s $7.7 million in tax specials as a key strategy to support population growth by making the lots viable for future homeowners. However, given his tenure, some residents and observers are skeptical, asking why it has taken so long to advance this initiative and whether he can deliver results now.

Why the Delay?
Several factors may explain why Lauren’s Bay and related population growth efforts have not yet yielded significant results under Kell’s watch:

1. Complexity of Development Projects: Large-scale housing developments like Lauren’s Bay often face bureaucratic, financial, and logistical hurdles. Securing funding, negotiating tax restructuring, and addressing community opposition (as Kell acknowledges the project’s controversy) can take years. The $7.7 million in tax specials likely required extensive legal and financial planning to avoid foreclosure while ensuring taxpayer recovery, which may have slowed progress.
2. Council Dynamics and Collaboration: As a council member, Kell’s ability to push projects forward depends on cooperation with colleagues and city staff. Allegations that he fails to return calls, even to fellow council members, raise concerns about his effectiveness in building the consensus needed to expedite initiatives like Lauren’s Bay. If true, this unresponsiveness could have delayed decision-making, as colleagues may struggle to align on timelines or priorities.
3. Broader Economic and Social Challenges: Topeka’s population stagnation is influenced by factors beyond one council member’s control, such as job opportunities, school quality, and regional migration trends. While Kell has emphasized housing as a driver of growth, systemic issues may have limited the impact of his efforts over four years, requiring longer-term strategies that are only now gaining traction.
4. Focus on Financial Recovery: Kell’s defense of Lauren’s Bay centers on recovering nearly all of the $7.7 million rather than losing it to foreclosure. This suggests his initial focus may have been on stabilizing the project’s finances rather than rapidly developing it, potentially delaying visible population growth outcomes.

Why Now?

Kell’s current emphasis on Lauren’s Bay as a population growth tool may reflect recent progress in overcoming these challenges. He claims the restructuring of tax specials is nearly complete, positioning the lots for development and new homeowners. This could indicate that earlier groundwork—navigating financial constraints or community pushback—is now bearing fruit. Additionally, with the 2025 election approaching and Kell running unopposed for District 5, he may be highlighting Lauren’s Bay to showcase tangible achievements to voters, framing it as a long-term investment poised to deliver.

Skepticism Persists
Critics, however, remain unconvinced. If Kell has struggled with communication, as some allege, his ability to coordinate with developers, colleagues, or city officials to finalize Lauren’s Bay raises doubts. Four years is ample time to demonstrate progress, yet the project remains a “hot button topic” rather than a clear success. Residents may question whether Kell’s focus on financial recovery over swift development reflects a lack of urgency or vision, especially when compared to modern urban growth strategies like tech-driven infrastructure or community engagement initiatives. His reliance on traditional approaches, like tax restructuring, might also seem outdated to those expecting bolder innovation to attract new residents.

Moreover, if Kell’s alleged unresponsiveness extends to colleagues, it could undermine his ability to rally the council around future population growth plans. Effective governance requires collaboration, and a councilman who reportedly doesn’t return calls may struggle to build the coalitions needed to execute complex projects quickly. Without evidence of improved communication or a clear timeline for Lauren’s Bay’s completion, voters may doubt his ability to “get it done” now, despite his optimism.

Conclusion
While Kell attributes delays in projects like Lauren’s Bay to their complexity and frames recent progress as a step toward population growth, his four-year tenure invites scrutiny. Allegations of unresponsiveness, if substantiated, could explain some of the slow progress and cast doubt on his ability to deliver results moving forward. Without a competing candidate or public outcry, Kell may continue to advance his agenda, but residents deserve clarity on why past efforts lagged and how he plans to ensure success now.

---

We need to replace Brett.

 Why Does Brett Kell Remain an Elected Official Despite Communication Concerns?

Brett Kell’s continued tenure as Topeka City Councilman for District 5, despite allegations that he fails to communicate effectively, including not returning calls to constituents or even colleagues, can be explained by several factors common to electoral politics and local governance:

1. Incumbency Advantage: Incumbents like Kell often benefit from name recognition, established voter bases, and political networks. Kell has served on the council since at least 2021 and is currently Deputy Mayor, giving him visibility and a track record that voters may prioritize over specific grievances. If communication issues haven’t been widely publicized or documented, they may not outweigh his perceived accomplishments, such as his work on the Lauren’s Bay lots or the transient guest tax, which he touts as financial wins for Topeka.
2. Lack of Strong Opposition: As of the latest information, Kell is the only candidate running for the District 5 seat in the 2025 election, with the filing deadline set for June 2, 2025. Without a challenger to highlight his alleged unresponsiveness, voters may lack an alternative, allowing Kell to retain his seat by default. In local elections, low voter turnout and limited candidate pools often enable incumbents to stay in office, even if some constituents are dissatisfied.
3. Voter Priorities and Awareness: Not all voters may be aware of or prioritize Kell’s alleged communication failures. Some may value his policy positions, such as his focus on population growth through housing developments or tourism revenue via the transient guest tax, over personal accessibility. Others may not have experienced or heard about unreturned calls, especially if these issues are anecdotal rather than widely reported. In District 5, voters might also prioritize broader issues like jobs or safety, which Kell has emphasized in past campaigns, over individual responsiveness.
4. Perception of Effectiveness: Kell’s public statements suggest he positions himself as a pragmatic leader, focusing on recovering tax dollars (e.g., Lauren’s Bay) and boosting Topeka’s appeal through tourism. If colleagues or constituents perceive him as effective in these areas, his alleged failure to return calls might be overlooked as a minor flaw. Additionally, some council members may communicate with Kell through other channels (e.g., meetings or email), which can mitigate the impact of unreturned calls on collaborative work.
5. Limited Accountability Mechanisms: Local elected officials like Kell face accountability primarily through elections, public opinion, or media scrutiny. If the claim that he doesn’t communicate with colleagues hasn’t been substantiated with evidence or amplified by local media, it may not generate enough pressure to threaten his position. Topeka’s council structure also lacks formal mechanisms to penalize unresponsiveness, leaving it to voters to decide whether this trait disqualifies him.
6. Potential Mischaracterization or Exaggeration: Without concrete evidence, it’s possible the claim that Kell “won’t communicate” is an exaggeration or based on isolated incidents. He may prioritize certain communications (e.g., in-person meetings or written correspondence) or have a staff handling inquiries, which could explain perceptions of unresponsiveness. If colleagues haven’t publicly criticized him for this, it might not be a widespread issue, allowing him to maintain his role.

Addressing the Communication Critique
The allegation that Kell doesn’t return calls, even to colleagues, is a serious concern, as effective communication is critical for collaboration on the city council. If true, this could hinder decision-making on issues like population growth or infrastructure, potentially frustrating colleagues who rely on timely input. However, without documented complaints from council members or constituents, it’s unclear how pervasive this issue is. For example, no public records or X posts in my knowledge base confirm colleagues’ dissatisfaction with Kell’s responsiveness. If this is a known issue, it could gain traction as a campaign point for a challenger, but it hasn’t yet disrupted his electoral success.

Why It Persists
Kell’s ability to remain an elected official despite these concerns likely stems from a combination of voter inertia, lack of competition, and the absence of a high-profile scandal. Local politics often tolerate personal shortcomings if they don’t directly derail visible outcomes. If Kell’s unresponsiveness is a significant issue, it would require organized opposition—such as a rival candidate or grassroots campaign—to highlight it and sway voters.

---