Some pieces - say, Let's Go To Sir Cliff's House, 10 Things Every 80s Gamer Remembers, If Video Game Characters Were Spoons, Pingu, and literally anything about Gamerergate - have proved to be pure clickbait.
Conversely, some articles that I've loved writing - such as Which of These 19 Dunces Does Nicolas Cage Like Best?, The Ghost Train of Death, or Asking Game Designers If They'd Ever Given Birth To Themselves - get barely any interest whatsoever, and even repeating previously successful formats is no guarantee of anything.
Heck, three of my favourite ever "proper" articles - on the history of Sega, Nintendo and The Pre-History of Games - could be considered an utter waste of my time, and slightly put me off writing more of the same. Likewise, pretty much anything featuring an old Digitiser character... no interest. So much for nostalgia.
But wait! This isn't a whinge.
Plus, the things I find funniest - because I know people will just be baffled by them - are generally less popular. Opinion pieces usually find an audience, as do reviews, in an almost universal sense.
Well, unless the game in question is Mirror's Edge Catalyst. Going from our stats, nobody cares about Mirror's Edge Catalyst. Except for me. But I can't be trusted.
I had a feeling that Catalyst was in for a rough ride when I wrote my review-in-progress last week.
Despite incorporating a wonderful gallery of gifs showing cats being startled by cucumbers, hardly anybody even bothered reading it.
Similarly, yesterday's full review - though I concede it might've been overshadowed by the mighty presence of Noel Edmonds, and a pretty heartfelt piece inspired by the horrible shooting in Orlando - got barely any interest.
Indeed, despite being a mutliformat title, Catalyst failed to debut at number one in this week's games charts - being held off the top spot by Overwatch, which was released some weeks back.
It's too early to call Catalyst a flop, but if I close my eyes and feel the winds against my skin... I can call it now: it's going to be a flop. Mediocre review score don't help, of course. But also pulling against it are the game's idiosyncrasies. It's not some paramilitary shooter or fantasy hack-and-slash. It looks unique, and it is unique.
It doesn't fit easily into a box, so there's no shorthand for any potential audience to tap into. And that's a worry for all of us. Not least me, whose tastes seem to drip in from left-field.
Looking at the games coming out of E3 is wearying.
They all seemed to be pressed out of a mould, made from the same ingredients.
Watch Dogs 2 is coming because Watch Dogs was the biggest launch ever for an original IP.
But when you peer at Watch Dogs, it's not hard to speculate that its success was largely down to it looking like a fairly respectable Grand Theft Auto game, albeit without any engaging characters.
In terms of E3, only Rare's Sea of Thieves, Sony's The Last Guardian, Grow Up, and Kojima's bizarre-looking, Darryl-From-The-Walking-Dead-starring, Deadly Stranding, appear to be doing anything remotely original. And for all its flaws, Mirror's Edge Catalyst is original.
Please. This is not necessarily a grumble. Please, sir.
In all the more predictable games gushing from the E3 geyser, there's plenty I'm looking forward to - Insomniac's Spider-Man (don't like his patriotic costume, mind), Days Gone, Infinite Warfare, Ubisoft's open world winter sports game Steep - but there's also a lot there that is playing it achingly safe.
So much of what's coming out of E3 feels homogenised, be it Watch Dogs 2, or God of War 4, or Detroit: Become Human... I'm growing tired of all these photorealistic attempts to bridge the Uncanny Valley, with their milky, golden lighting effects, and realtime shadows.
Somehow, everything looks the same - whether it's set in a fantasy kingdom, or the far future.
But wait: I actually think 2016 has been the best year for games in a while. I've felt spoilt for choice.
But... there is part of me that's worried that the potential failure of big budget experiments like Mirror's Edge Catalyst will send the publishers running scared again.
Here's an example: I loved Captain America Civil War... but loved it slightly less than I would've done, had I not been to see the godawful Batman Vs Superman the week before. By the time X-Men: Age of Apocalypse came out, I didn't even bother going.
A few years back, that would've been unthinkable. There's no way I wouldn't have gone to see a major super-hero movie in the cinema. But it's all just noise and CGI, and I've had enough. For the same reason, I didn't go and see Warcraft: The Beginning. I saw that trailer months back, and knew I had no reason to invest in a bunch of CGI characters.
And maybe that's the problem with the games I'm seeing coming from E3. It's not just that they seem to be playing it safe... there are no characters. More than that, they seem to lack character. There's nothing for me to hang onto. It's like trying to climb a mountain that has been polished smooth of handholds and crannies.
Captain America: Civil War was dripping with character. And we need more of that as far as games go.
But that's just me putting my oar in, and if history tells me anything it's that I don't always have the most mainstream tastes. Clearly, from the reaction to the E3 reveals, everyone seems very happy. Lots of big games, which will sell in big numbers. There's nothing there that's going to scare the horses - just a lot of comfortable slipper-type franchise.
When Digitiser2000 launched, I had this vague idea to build on the brand awareness it had, and turn it into some sort of mainstream site. That, however, would've pulled against my natural inclinations.
Now my focus has changed. I want to do things on here that I like, and just hope that Digi's audience like them too. Often those things don't appeal to anyone. Sometimes I get lucky.
I know that I'm capable of contorting myself into shapes that are more in line with the majority, but - really - who needs another website like that? The freedom that this site gives me - thanks to all those who contribute to our donor fund - is a far more appealing than popularity.
I fully understand that, unfortunately, games publishers don't have that luxury. Spending hundreds of millions on a triple-A game isn't the time to be taking risks. People have a natural inclination to avoid risks, whether they're spending $200 million on development, or £50 as a punter.
The failure of Mirror's Edge Catalyst - I'm calling it now - is going to result in more sequels for established brands, more identikit games, more remasters, and more franchises like Watch Dogs. Oh well.
Coming up: 10 Things That Look Like Nolan Bushnell's Pancreas.