A Visit Is Not A Visit Is Not A Visit
from the rethinking-the-power-of-traffic dept
It seems that some folks are beginning to explore a rather important topic: the value of certain types of links. In the past, people generally assumed that all web traffic was effectively equal, and no matter how you got it, it didn't much matter. But it's clear that's not really true. For example, some people note that traffic from a site such as Digg is often not very "useful" traffic, because people come, see the one page, do nothing else, and never come back (this isn't entirely true in our experience, but it's mostly true). And, of course, there are newspapers who claim the same thing is true about Google News -- even to the point that some are suggesting that, even if it brings in less traffic, newspapers should block Google from scraping them so that visitors have to find those news sites via other means.Along those lines, Fred Wilson has started exploring the value of links from different places, with a focus on "passed" or "earned" links -- basically links that someone "passed on" rather than were found via a search engine. The hypothesis was that such "passed links" were more valuable, and from a conceptual level it makes some amount of sense. If someone you know or trust sends you to a link, you're more likely to click and pay attention to that link. Fred does some investigating of this, with a limited amount of data, and isn't quite sure it's true (from what he's seen), though he admits that the data is limited.
I think this is definitely an important subject for websites to investigate -- but I find the initial suggestion (blocking one source because the "value" of those visitors is low) to be quite silly and backwards. That's deciding that because a certain type of user isn't worth that much, you should ignore them all together. I would think the smarter means would be to simply treat those visitors differently, and focus on recognizing where they come from, and then looking to provide value based on that fact. You won't capture everyone, but you can certainly do a better job of funneling people in a certain direction based on where they're coming from and what they're likely looking for based on that information. It's not something that we do here, but it's about to be added to the "things to do" queue.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: earned links, passed links, traffic, visits
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Blocking me because I watch Googles "entertainment" news would be suicide. I only look at it once a week at most, but mostly I look because I've run out of tech things to read.
It would be stupid to block folks from ANY source as they may like condensed information once in a while...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a question of numbers
I run a couple of e-commerce websites. About 60% of traffic is from search results. On average 40% are 'bounce' traffic which are people who look at the result but nothing else. The rest look at a varying amount of pages and an even smaller number end up making a purchase.
The end result is a LOT of useless traffic and bandwidth. However, without that traffic sales would be lower so I an glad to accept it. I welcome the people as even though they may not make an immediate purchase they MIGHT come back another day.
It may be misguided but I look on it with the old saying in mind "Chuck enough sh*t at the wall and eventually enough will stick". Bandwidth is a small percentage of cost and is WELL worth the return.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I found Techdirt via Google News
I guess that means that you should make sure to make your deep pages look just as good as your main page. That way people will want to look at your stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
This reminds me of a grocery store manager (true story) that quit selling a particular product because it sold so well that he was mostly out of stock most of the time. His solution was to not carry the product because it made his customers angry when they came into the store to purchase it and found that it was out of stock. He said he had much less complaints if he did that. My only thought was that he was obviously a product of our new "dumbed down" public school system. He never considered ordering more of the product and giving it more shelf space, and then raising the price a bit based upon demand. Apparently, "profit" was a dirty word in his vocabulary. I stopped purchasing anything from his store, and noticed that about a year and a half later that he had gone out of business. I suspect that he's still sitting around wondering what happened. Heh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
We could have raised the price, but the manufacturer also sold direct. A raise large enough to moderate demand would likely have resulted in all the customers ordering direct. Now we're just wasting shelf space.
We gave up, and discontinued offering the product. We gave customers who came in the phone number for the manufactuer so they could order directly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agree, sort of
This isn't a new system though. You want a lot of links for Google to like you and you want "word of mouth" advertising (friends giving out your links) to drive your business.
My 2c
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CENSORSHIP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's what happens with most (all?) aggregation sites this drives a lot of traffic to the site and it would be hard to find a more useful kind of traffic.
Historically the Masnicks have understood that but for this story it's deemed not very useful ? !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The scare quotes were used to indicate this is an argument made by others. It's a dumb argument and one we don't agree with.
I'm sorry if that was too subtle for you, but since you like to come here and insult me at least once a day, I would have thought you would have recognized that.
Sorry that it went over your head. I'll try to dumb things down for you to make insulting me easier in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think a big reason for this trust is because Penny Arcade is very selective with the things they allow to be advertised on their site. They only allow for ads of products that they themselves support to be on their site. So even if a user was to click on a paid for banner they would likely find something that they could be interested in. That makes the non paid for links more valuable since it keeps the entire website trustworthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So if the news media (which is owned by somewhat radical Republicans, Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch) decided that everyone is (should be) radical Republicans, and based what they access on that presumption, that's okay?
Get real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]