Comments on: Metrics of competitive webmastering http://blog.cellarer.com/metrics-of-website-optimization/ Wine regions, food blogs, practical advice Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:10:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Epic Directory http://blog.cellarer.com/metrics-of-website-optimization/#comment-2609 Epic Directory Mon, 15 Sep 2008 05:20:12 +0000 http://blog.cellarer.com/metrics-of-website-optimization/#comment-2609 Very nice article. I to do not agree with what Google chooses as pagerank. I mean some sites that are dedicated to the content they provide will only have a pr of 7 while some sites that have virtually no content but a lot of traffic will have a pr 9. Pagerank is highly over rated but we are stuck with it. Very nice article. I to do not agree with what Google chooses as pagerank. I mean some sites that are dedicated to the content they provide will only have a pr of 7 while some sites that have virtually no content but a lot of traffic will have a pr 9. Pagerank is highly over rated but we are stuck with it.

]]> By: Andre Ribeirinho http://blog.cellarer.com/metrics-of-website-optimization/#comment-1441 Andre Ribeirinho Fri, 30 May 2008 11:00:03 +0000 http://blog.cellarer.com/metrics-of-website-optimization/#comment-1441 Hi Estelle, I think making a list like this is always interesting so that you can take a different overview of the wine world site. Regarding the traffic numbers I agree with Ryan that this might be misleading to potential advertising clients. I think you could include a more clearly visible note (maybe below the "Monthly traffic" tile) stating that these are numbers that might not be correct because they are not provided by the sites themselves. Cheers, Hi Estelle,
I think making a list like this is always interesting so that you can take a different overview of the wine world site.

Regarding the traffic numbers I agree with Ryan that this might be misleading to potential advertising clients. I think you could include a more clearly visible note (maybe below the “Monthly traffic” tile) stating that these are numbers that might not be correct because they are not provided by the sites themselves.

Cheers,

]]> By: Estelle Platini http://blog.cellarer.com/metrics-of-website-optimization/#comment-467 Estelle Platini Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:44:22 +0000 http://blog.cellarer.com/metrics-of-website-optimization/#comment-467 Ryan, Thank you for your private email and this comment. I understand your concern. Indeed it will not happen that all wine websites agree. So we have a problem: you don't want inaccurate figures to show up and I would like to show a measure of user interest. I'll think it over and in the next weeks I will try to obtain traffic figures from some webmasters. Ryan,
Thank you for your private email and this comment. I understand your concern. Indeed it will not happen that all wine websites agree.
So we have a problem: you don’t want inaccurate figures to show up and I would like to show a measure of user interest. I’ll think it over and in the next weeks I will try to obtain traffic figures from some webmasters.

]]> By: ryan http://blog.cellarer.com/metrics-of-website-optimization/#comment-466 ryan Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:05:50 +0000 http://blog.cellarer.com/metrics-of-website-optimization/#comment-466 As I said in my private email, the numbers you quote are drastically wrong. They may be fair as they relate to each other, but they are very wrong in terms of overall traffic across the the wine bloggers world/wine website world. Therefore why wouldn't you just list a list of wine ranking, as others do, so as not to cause a problem. I really don't want to see the wine world represented this way with numbers that are wrong. Oh and Compete may be full of professional's but they are wrong too! Unless all wine websites felt there was a benefit to including a counter for each one to track traffic with, something that will never happen, it cannot be fair to list "false numbers" about any sites. No matter how innocent they may seem, they could do more harm then good. As I said in my private email, the numbers you quote are drastically wrong. They may be fair as they relate to each other, but they are very wrong in terms of overall traffic across the the wine bloggers world/wine website world. Therefore why wouldn’t you just list a list of wine ranking, as others do, so as not to cause a problem.

I really don’t want to see the wine world represented this way with numbers that are wrong. Oh and Compete may be full of professional’s but they are wrong too!

Unless all wine websites felt there was a benefit to including a counter for each one to track traffic with, something that will never happen, it cannot be fair to list “false numbers” about any sites. No matter how innocent they may seem, they could do more harm then good.

]]> By: Estelle Platini http://blog.cellarer.com/metrics-of-website-optimization/#comment-463 Estelle Platini Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:02:13 +0000 http://blog.cellarer.com/metrics-of-website-optimization/#comment-463 It is possible that Spittoon "should" be slightly lower with respect to its authority. A way to achieve this is to put less weight on the traffic metric. I will try such a move for the next issue. More generally such a “system” can only be suspect in so far many bloggers will have opinions on it. I propose that the skew of the traffic metric counterbalances the skew of the other 2 metrics (PR and backlinks). In other words excluding traffic would be unfair to the reader interest. It is possible that Spittoon “should” be slightly lower with respect to its authority. A way to achieve this is to put less weight on the traffic metric. I will try such a move for the next issue.
More generally such a “system” can only be suspect in so far many bloggers will have opinions on it. I propose that the skew of the traffic metric counterbalances the skew of the other 2 metrics (PR and backlinks).
In other words excluding traffic would be unfair to the reader interest.

]]> By: Robert http://blog.cellarer.com/metrics-of-website-optimization/#comment-461 Robert Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:57:58 +0000 http://blog.cellarer.com/metrics-of-website-optimization/#comment-461 Estelle, I would reckon that there are all sorts of reasons the stats are wrong - not systematic across all sites (like underreporting a type of visitor that would be common to all sites). In fact, it is to do with redirects, shared domains, etc. and therefore they are likely to be wildly innacurate and variable. I think I'm with Ryan in saying that unless it can be proven that it is fair to all, it probably shouldn't be included. Also, we should apply some common sense to the results too. Any "system" that values, for example (and nothing against Andrew of course), Spittoon.biz above WineLibrary.tv must be somewhat suspect, no? Estelle, I would reckon that there are all sorts of reasons the stats are wrong - not systematic across all sites (like underreporting a type of visitor that would be common to all sites). In fact, it is to do with redirects, shared domains, etc. and therefore they are likely to be wildly innacurate and variable. I think I’m with Ryan in saying that unless it can be proven that it is fair to all, it probably shouldn’t be included.

Also, we should apply some common sense to the results too.

Any “system” that values, for example (and nothing against Andrew of course), Spittoon.biz above WineLibrary.tv must be somewhat suspect, no?

]]> By: Estelle Platini http://blog.cellarer.com/metrics-of-website-optimization/#comment-459 Estelle Platini Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:52:04 +0000 http://blog.cellarer.com/metrics-of-website-optimization/#comment-459 Ryan, Thank you for commenting. The traffic numbers are not "mine". They are issued by "professional experts": Compete.com. I did not think that it was a problem to reproduce them since are already <a href="http://siteanalytics.compete.com/catavino.net+cellarer.com/?metric=uv">public</a>. Sorry for that. We agree that they are inaccurate and this is why I will improve on them for the April issue. The idea I am checking is that their bias would be evenly distributed across the board: every sites have a traffic figure that would be too low in the same proportion. So I will "correct" the traffic figures in an homogenuous manner. (It would help if you would <a href="http://blog.cellarer.com/about/">email me</a> your actual traffic for March, December, September and June 2007). Ryan,
Thank you for commenting.
The traffic numbers are not “mine”. They are issued by “professional experts”: Compete.com. I did not think that it was a problem to reproduce them since are already public. Sorry for that.
We agree that they are inaccurate and this is why I will improve on them for the April issue. The idea I am checking is that their bias would be evenly distributed across the board: every sites have a traffic figure that would be too low in the same proportion. So I will “correct” the traffic figures in an homogenuous manner. (It would help if you would email me your actual traffic for March, December, September and June 2007).

]]> By: ryan http://blog.cellarer.com/metrics-of-website-optimization/#comment-452 ryan Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:24:43 +0000 http://blog.cellarer.com/metrics-of-website-optimization/#comment-452 Since you and everyone else knows that your traffic numbers are wrong on your list, why would you put them up? It does a disservice to sites that are using their real traffic numbers to get advertisements. These numbers you list are way below what the real numbers are. I know I wouldn't like my sponsors, who are not tech savy and need to have things explained to them to happen across your site and think that I am lying. Just a thought Since you and everyone else knows that your traffic numbers are wrong on your list, why would you put them up? It does a disservice to sites that are using their real traffic numbers to get advertisements. These numbers you list are way below what the real numbers are. I know I wouldn’t like my sponsors, who are not tech savy and need to have things explained to them to happen across your site and think that I am lying.

Just a thought

]]>