Surely you jest, Mister Eller!

One to many? That is the web's specialty. 'Many' does not begin to describe the multitudinous masses that can read and respond to your work. While the number is vast, it is also indefinite. You are never sure who reads your work.

Well... hang on... actually, I'm pretty sure it's vastly far from vast in actual practice.

Seems to me “the web” doesn't do diddly in terms of bringing one to many without a whole lot of other gunk from crawling to indexing to the content being sufficiently important to those who crawl/index to rank it such that it has a chance in hades of turning up high enough in search results to maybe be seen by probably not a lot of people – who still have to follow the link depending on how clickbaity the title and/or content selected for display in search, etc., etc.

Impressions? Views? Likes? Those never tell the whole story.

In fact, they tell no stories at all: at best they provide fodder for stories one might tell oneself.

Here the “stats” are called “visits”. Not reads. Not bookmarks. Could have been an accidental clicks. Could have been a machine “visits”.

But your name mentioned in the title of this post, and the fact portions of your post are quoted directly?

That's probably at least halfway decent confirmation your post was no mere message in a bottle.