|Stumbleupon referrals: 100% use Firefox|
yeah, sure. browser report in Analytics
| 1:02 pm on Nov 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
This might be old news to some but it sure made me re-think the site's targeted audience for almost half a minute.
Apparently one site which I help out with, a generic, informative, travel related site ( not the least techie related ) has just had yet another two week stumbleupon rush...
Nothing special so far. ( revenues, of course, stayed exaclty the same *groan* - still business as usual. Or rather the lack of it. )
But when I looked at the overall browser report it said 50% of all visitors this month were using FireFox. My jaw dropped for an entire second, then after pulling it back I clicked on referring sites, stumbleupon, browsers.
( that was probably me, checking on URLs not generally used for referrals )
Ok, so there's no way this many thousands of people are using FireFox, so what's the deal? You *can* stumble without FF, right? This ain't a reporting glitch, as all other data is fine.
I knew that Stumbleupon masks its referrals to look like they came from the same URL ( the buy targeted traffic from us page *pfft* ) but they also mask Browsers?
or am I missing something...?...
| 9:15 am on Nov 3, 2007 (gmt 0)|
In my experience, target traffic is not useful.
I'd bought some target traffic from n******.net and b******.com last month( I hide domain names for security reason). The bounce rate of target traffic from n******.net is 99.73%, totally useless!
The bounce rate of target traffic from b******.com is 46.28%, looks like normally. But there is another strange thing. Visitors from b******.com just accessed three pagea: home page, site map and contacts information page, none of them visit product , faq or purchase page. Totally useless too!
| 4:34 pm on Nov 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yes, well I'd never buy traffic.
It's unethical, AND it's worthless.
As I've said the site received some thousands of visitors, simply because a community found it interesting and passed the link around. Traffic of course was only targeting the aspect which was mentioned on stumbleupon, and showed all the characteristics of bored, mildly interested people taking a peek at the pages, bounce rate about average, but pageviews less than half.
My post was basically about the fact that this opportunity could have been used, at least to have a better understanding of the site's audience, their likes, dislikes, location, things we could benefit from knowing.
But some of their stats are masked by stumbleupon, or so it seems.
You see, it's impossible for them all to have used FireFox.
And that's just one aspect.
The referring page is masked as well, thus you have to go and hunt down even the category in which the site's link was posted.
Not very friendly.