Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
Here are a few questions I have for those with experience:
Are these visitors typically NOT going to click on ads- even if they are in a niche that interests the reader?
Is this considered a bonafide "black hat" tactic to generate traffic?
The reason I ask is that my articles haven't quite made it to the front page, though I have the bandwith to handle it if they do....but they have generated some remarkable traffic that so far hasn't converted in my AS stats.
On the other hand, I was interviewed on a major radio program in a major city this morning for something I'm doing in one of my niches- received great traffic as a result- but no clicks.
So where do we draw the line between what is "good" traffic and what is "dirty"?
Thanks in advance for your input.
Here's the thing - putting aside the fact that as everybody said, Digg types are tech-savvy, most likely have advertising blocked or just ignore it, etc., most Digg users are not out to buy a product.
Most Digg users are there to read an article that others found interesting, and then go back to Digg and read other articles.
It's not your normal users that find your site because they are shopping for something.
In fact, you can easily get a bad reputation or have the post reported for spam if they show up and it's clearly an article trying to sell something or trying to get them to click on the ads. That's a very big no-no with them, from what I've seen.
If you have some exclusive review of some new product or whatever, it wouldn't be considered spam (but then again if it's a brand-new product, the advertising is not going to be there for that specific product).
It's not to say that Digg can't help - out of the hundreds or thousands that show up, a small percentage might bookmark your site and poke around, and if it's not reported as spam and removed, it's a good backlink.
The first time it happened to me, I didn't have a good way of measuring it (mainly, I was unprepared, somebody else submitted it), but my traffic was up significantly (we are talking triple-digit percentage) and things grew tight with bandwidth (due to some high-resolution images). My CTR was just up slightly - maybe half a percent, but not enough to point to being Dugg as the reason why.
The second time I had better stat tracking and I was slightly prepared - the person who submitted the article emailed me about an hour before they did. I managed to switch to a low-bandwidth/emergency theme I have (the ads were still present/normal, however I reduced the graphics on the pages as well as reduced the size of the sidebars, and I made sure the cache setup was working properly). I would say that for every thousand visitors I had the second time around, I probably got around 1-3 clicks - definitely not worth it from that perspective.
As I said though, it might help a little in the long run with backlinks, bookmarks, referrals (people emailing other people the site address), but it's not something I would deliberately do.
However, I did one experience in the past few days with my and my friend's website with digg and reddit and here is my conclusiong:
I WOULD NEVER WANT MY NEWS TO APPEAR IN ANY OF THESE SITES' HOME PAGE. It is a vaste of bandwidth and no click.
it ha spast few weeks, and I still get 1000 visitors per hour that click from backliks...
so I recommand you to get digged
The only upside I can think of is that these people if interested may come back or may pass on the articles to non-tech people and perhaps I will get more adsense over time from the tail end of all that traffic.
I've been "Dugg" twice or whatever you want to call it. Both times the CTR was horrible, and the bandwidth was through the roof.
Just as a matter of interest how much visitors/pageviews per hour did you have shortly after appearing on digg frontpage?