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.

Filed Under: earned links, passed links, traffic, visits

Seattle P-I's Online Traffic Drops... But Just A Bit

from the not-too-shabby dept

A former Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter, now writing for Paid Content, seems to take some glee in reporting that traffic to the Seattle P-I's website is off 20% since the decision to lay off most of the staff and go web only. But, actually, it seems like a pretty good result. Editorial staff was cut by 80% down to just 20 people. Support staff is basically gone entirely. And then all the printing and delivery expenses are gone as well. To basically cut all that expense and still retain 80% of the traffic? That seems phenomenal. If anything, it validates the decision.

Filed Under: journalism, newspapers, online only, traffic
Companies: seattle post-intelligencer

Facebook Driving More Traffic Than Google To Some Big Sites

from the balance-of-power dept

Yesterday was the news that social networking and blogs had become more popular than email; today, word comes that Facebook has become the most significant source of traffic for a number of big web sites. It's overtaken Google for some sites, even with just a third of the unique visitors of the search behemoth. But, as paidContent points out, Facebook needs to figure out how to translate this traffic-generation power into revenues as a part of its bigger overall search for a monetization strategy. An issue persists for the likes of Google, too, though: as social networks start to become more powerful sources of traffic, will advertisers shift more of their dollars to them, and away from search-based keywords?

Filed Under: social networks, traffic
Companies: facebook, google

Internet Traffic Routing Around The US

from the indeed-it-is dept

There's a famous saying by John Gilmore, that "the internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." However, that saying may apply equally to other "damage" beyond censorship -- and that includes spying, slow connections and many other things. In fact, with it being considered somewhat common knowledge that US intelligence agencies frequently tap into internet traffic coming through the US from elsewhere, more and more countries are working hard to make sure their internet traffic need not travel through the US at all. It's not just about the spying -- though, that is a part of it.

It's also about a basic competitive advantage. Since the internet has become such an important infrastructure concern, relying on a separate country to make sure that infrastructure remains solvent (especially when that country has actively promoted policies that seem to hinder investment in that infrastructure) doesn't make much sense. So, while the US gov't argues over side issues like net neutrality, other countries are making sure that whatever the US does with its internet policy doesn't impact their ability to make use of a global information network. One of these days, US politicians are going to wake up and realize that while they were arguing over net neutrality and policies concerning telcos and cable companies, other countries built out much stronger internet infrastructure that will allow their economies to profit, while we start playing catchup.

Filed Under: damage, internet, spying, traffic, us

National Motorists Association Challenges Cities To Prove Red-Light Cameras Are Safer

from the put-up-or-shut-up dept

Over the years, we've had a number of posts about studies showing that red-light cameras tend to increase the number of accidents, even as cities that install them claim that they're doing so for safety reasons. The problem appears to be that red-light cameras cause more people to slam on the brakes at the last second, leading to more rear-ender collisions. Plenty of studies have shown that if you really want safer intersections, the solution is rather simple: increase the length of time for yellow lights and include a pause after a light turns red before the cross-traffic signal turns green. Some cities already do this, but many do not. A big part of the problem is that red-light cameras are big money makers for municipalities, who share the revenue with the makers of the cameras -- who have every incentive in the world to set the traffic lights to encourage more violations, rather than fewer. To give proof to the lie that municipalities are installing red-light cameras for safety reasons, the National Motorists Association is now offering $10,000 to cities (found via The Agitator) if it can't reduce by 50% the number of red-light violations using regular traffic engineering. They're only looking to do this at camera-enforced intersections that still have high numbers of violations. Of course, if the NMA can show such a reduction, the city would then be required to remove its red-light camera systems. What are the chances any city takes the NMA up on this challenge?

Filed Under: red-light cameras, traffic, traffic accidents
Companies: national motorists association