Forum Moderators: phranque
there are some really unusual spikes where a site can go from off the bottom of the chart to within the top 100 and then back off the bottom of the chart again. I don't see how that can happen.
I can - It is due to a really small sample size. No offence to WebmasterWorld but why do you think they're so high? It is because every webmaster and their dog has the toolbar installed. This is also, to some extent, true of larger (more expensive and supposedly more accurate) stats firms like hitwise and redsherrif.
why do you think they're so high? It is because every webmaster and their dog has the toolbar installed.
Is there any reason why Google doesn't release similar stats?
I don't know - Google have never been particularly open when it comes to this sort of thing. It would also be more accurate than a lot of other services - so it would be really expensive.
My traffic ranks at Alexa are also too low. I have compared them with my stats program. I have had more visitors in the past 4 months then any other time and Alexa has said my visitors were down by 40,000 for the month for the last 2 months. My visitors are up by 60,000. Their stats can’t be very up-to date. It is just a guide to go by.
It isn't even a guide to go buy. I don't think I'll ever manage to get across how little weight I would give to Alexa rankings - and I am speaking from direct experience of having seen an individual user (one user!) push sites into the top 5,000 in just a few months.
Alexa ranking's don't matter - Google ranking's do :)
Sid
Mac
So therefore, they don't matter - they are too easy to control.
Sid
Getting into 100,000 by yourself would be easy as, but getting into the 1000's would be a little tough, or impossible on your own.
Threads like this have been discussed many times here at WebmasterWorld, I myself remember answering things like this to a couple of them.
Sid
Consider this: Many years ago Alexa unsuccessfully positioned itself as a web analytics company to sell statistical information like Nielsen ratings, comscore, mediametrix, etc.
That division went out of business because nobody wanted to purchase their reports. Why not? Because their source data was dubious.
If their data had statistical accuracy their reports would be quoted by the Wall Street Journal, NYT, etc. But no reputable media outlet quotes Alexa data because Alexa data is unreliable.
IMO
below 100,000 - worthless information.
100,000 - 20,000 - some worth.
Agreed on the very high positioned sites: I think the stats do become relevant or at least indicative after the 20,000 mark.
