martinibuster - 7:39 am on Jul 15, 2010 (gmt 0)

Cost and worth can be very different things indeed. Worth is subjective. The cost of something is generally a price tag (unless it's at auction, where it has a starting price tag). The cost of a link is determined by the subjective worth. What (subjective) metrics are useful to calculate the worth to arrive at a cost?

Traffic level is a metric, one of several I use, in order to calculate what something is worth. If a site cannot attract enough traffic to cause a blip on Google Trends or Quantcast, what does that say about the power of that site's backlinks? What does that say about that site's importance within it's niche?

A metric like the quality of backlinks, to me, is more important than the traffic metric. A metric like the quality of the outbound links is more important to me than the traffic metric.

I am not saying that a site with miniscule traffic is worthless. I like low traffic sites with 30 honest links, I love those sites. I am using multiple criteria. I don't use the traffic criteria to decide if a site is worth less. I use it to decide if a site is worth more. Good traffic stats enhances the worth.
It's like, imagine you're putting together a team of fighters for an island death match. Do you pick the six foot weightlifter guy or the little guy who weighs 125 pounds?

How does the equation change if the little guy is Bruce Lee? There's nothing wrong with the six foot weightlifter, the guy with low traffic. Maybe his back isn't what it used to be and his asthma is acting up. How does that change the equation?

The backlink and outbound link metrics are metrics I use to determine if something is worthless, not worth bothering with. I don't use the traffic criteria to decide if a site is worthless. I use it to decide if a site is worth more.