"ZOMBIE TRAFFIC" Separating fact from fiction & emotion

[FishingDad]

This recent discussion about "ZOMBIE TRAFFIC" is just utter nonsense. What are people saying, anything worth while or just a communal <snip> because sales are down on the norm? The talk is firmly in the tin foil hat area.

Are you talking about SERPs, if so why, if your positions are dropping then that's that. If positions not dropping are you seriously saying Google is sending you people they know will not buy from you !? REALLY?!

Are you talking about PAY PER CLICK? if so then your talking possible click fraud then, aren’t you?

Giving any constant period on the internet, people buy or they don't buy and there's many many factors why they will one day and might not the next day.

[edited by: goodroi at 5:55 pm (utc) on Nov 10, 2015]
[edit reason] Let's be careful to keep the discussion on a professional level [/edit]

[WhiteHatTryHard]

This is the longest zombie attack in years. Usually its 1 or 2 days. Now its 4+. Adsense at 25% normal too.

[WhiteHatTryHard]

@FishingDad
Stop complaining. It's a thing that is happening if it doesn't affect you good. Breast cancer doesn't affect me either, but I dont go around claiming that women should stop complaining about it.

Post in a thread that interests you.

[mosxu]

mis-matched traffic will have to have a very high bounce rate and it is not possible to have only mis-matched traffic for hours or days. Yeah you may have a drunk user here and there but not for few hours or days may I say

[NickMNS]

Breast cancer doesn't affect me either, but I dont go around claiming that women should stop complaining about it.

@WhiteHatTryHard the difference between Breast Cancer and Zombies is that there is a very specific definition of what Breast Cancer is, there are means of diagnosing it. If a patient says my lungs hurt the doctor doesn't simply say "It's breast Cancer and it is caused by big Pharma trying to increase profits". The doctors can conduct tests that allow them to diagnose the problem.

When it comes to Zombie Traffic, there is nothing, just a bunch of hearsay from about a dozen people. And even amongst this group there isn't any consensus on what it is or isn't. Moreover, when anyone questions the zombie conspiracy the reply general reply is:

It's a thing that is happening if it doesn't affect you good

If there were a genuine interest on the part of those that claim to be affected by this ailment to find a solution then they should be open to suggestion from those that have critical view of situation. But those people prefer to talk in circles and do nothing. After 360+ posts here plus countless other posts overwhelming unrelated threads and nothing, no advancement on the topic, no consensus and nowhere closer to reaching a solution, for a problem that may or may not exist.

[WhiteHatTryHard]

@NickMNS
Posting here is what we are doing about it. This forum is read by googlers and by SEO news.... and SEO news is read by Googlers... ect
Do you think I'm posting here for fun or what?
Zombies are not something that is caused on the webmaster end. All we can do is make noise about it and theorize.
If you dont like us theorizing, go work on your site instead and make some money.

Anyways. This time zombies lasted for 4 whole days which has not ever happened to me in the past 2 or 3 years that zombies have been around.

see you guys next time the zombies attack... hopefully never.

[NickMNS]

You are not theorizing anything.
A theory needs to be falsefiable and testable. Then when evidence is presented that falsifies the theory, it can refined or thrown out.

Posting in a forum with a bunch of people that agree with some vague statements and tautologies achieves nothing.

if you want Google's feedback you should probably be posting in Google help forum not here.

As for SEO news, the Zombies conspiracy was already covered last fall on SER. You should read the comments there.

[frankleeceo]

Sometimes I think people see similar things, and based on their own understanding and background, will come to different conclusions. I think the biggest annoyance is that it's a constant debate of whether it exists or not. For the side that believes and sees it, it exists and is real...For the side that it doesn't, I think the easiest way to think why the other side can see it that way. I like this forum because I like to see different ideas and continuously challenge my thinking and methods, so far it has worked out for me.

The way I see is that, the side that do not see zombies must be doing somethings differently, or simply have not been touched by that part of algorithm.

This is what I would like to learn:
For the non-zombie believing camp,

How do you deal with mis-matching traffic? Do you have any suggestions to single out those traffic and direct them to methods that can be sold? Email list? Upsale? Special discount page?

How do you deal with buying cycles? Do you blast sales email or start discounting during those cycles? Do you adjust ads budgets on known periods of time that people do not intend to buy? Or is the budget consistent throughout the year / months?

For the zombie camp, what actions have been done that might have worked or do not work? If zombies have been continuous issues, you guys must have tried and experimented with things.

I read that playing with ad budgets does not help. Zombies existed on all channels.

I have read some people have created new funnel sites / brands and channels, and some have 301ed. How did that turn out? Did the overall traffic increase, but not the conversions?

I think I have also read people making blogs, or separated out blogs from their main sales site. How did that turn out?

These are all interesting things to learn and know about. Rather than a cycle of "yes it exists", "no it doesn't prove it". I think we can come to a conclusion that either camp will believe what they believe, but what is important is what we can take and learn from the whole situation.

[toidi]

Every now and then i get a spell where some bot/s click on submit buttons. Nothing is filled in or there is jiberish in one of the fields. Barnypock was the last one to fill in the name field. It will go on for a week or 2 and then wind down to a stop.

[glakes]

When it comes to Zombie Traffic, there is nothing, just a bunch of hearsay from about a dozen people. And even amongst this group there isn't any consensus on what it is or isn't.

For just being hearsay, this has become of the most active threads on WebmasterWorld and a place for those experiencing the problem to meet and discuss. If you indeed feel that the topic is hearsay and has no merit, then please leave if you don't have anything of value to add to the discussion. Merely stating that something does not exist, when you lack far less evidence then we collectively do, is even more speculative then what you see us talking about in public. Keep in mind the forum charter prohibits discussion of fine details in public, though many of us have shared information in private to know for a fact zombies exist. Why it exists and if/how to correct it is another issue and ultimately the reason why those of us experiencing this problem don't want unneeded noise from disbelievers.

[NickMNS]

@Glakes your post is a glaring example of the point I am making. I disagree with your position, so you tell me to leave and that I know nothing and if I want to stay I need to prove something that cannot be proven.

Yes you are correct, this is very long thread. This post will be the 370th. After 370 posts that span well over a year the discussion has not even reached a consensus on a definition of what constitutes zombie traffic.

What action, what change have you implemented on your website to directly address this issue?

Wait... I know the answer. You have switched to selling on Amazon and not relying on Google. I am not sure when exactly you did this but it has been at least six month. Which is not really action at all, but the avoidance of the problem. Yet you comeback here and lament about being a victim of evil Google and the zombie conspiracy and in the hopes of finding the magic cure to your problems. Simon_H mades some very valid suggestions a few month back, but I believe that you told him that he had no idea about what he was talking about and ignored it all.

Also if I recall, the last time I had spat with you were referring to people who didn't agree with your conspiracy theory idiots.

So there is a definite trend.

And let's not forget, you are the one that has Zombie problems, not me. I have nothing to loose here.

So why do I participate in this thread? Because the symptoms described here are most likely real. To understand how or why some are seeing the problem while other are not and to formalize a definition of the problem and then ultimately find a solution, which will allow me to face the problem should I ever encounter it. It also lets me see a different perspective.

Note I have been watching from the sidelines for a while and only felt compelled to jump back in after WhiteHatTryHard's comments about Breast Cancer.

Merely stating that something does not exist, when you lack far less evidence then we collectively do,

You can have an infinite stream of evidence (data) and you will never be able to prove a theory, but all it takes is one is a single data point to disprove a theory.

[mboydnv]

All week I have seen crazy bounce rates going on. Some days as high as 80% and as low as 45%. Today our traffic is terrible. No sales last two days.

I long for the days when there was competition in organic listings. (sigh)

Hope I live to see the day the majority in the world switches to another search engine. We've done ourselves a great dis-service using only Google. They've killed small business in many niches.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain

[tangor]

I wonder if what we are seeing is simply a saturation of the web? Also wonder if those experiencing these events have something in common (such as platform, coding styles, customer base, products) which is different from others. Also wonder if these are geo-related. Comparisons between G and B are apples and oranges ... I believe most of us will agree that bots will scrap g before b and that the numbers will also reveal that. Also wonder if the day of the "small biz" is coming to an end ... that conversions once obtained have simply dried up as folks go to the brand(s) (majors) and never even use a search engine int he first place. Whatever is left is what is called traffic ... and bots, sadly, have only grown in number. For those experiencing zombie traffic, how much of your biz is international? I know that for some of my sites (biz) once certain geo-locations were banned in htaccess my results improved greatly, my costs diminished nearly as greatly, and the conversions were solid.

Trash traffic exists. Is it a zombie? I don't know Is it a zephyer? I don't know. Is it Xindi come to flame the Earth into a cinder? I don't know. What I do know is that managing one's traffic, tackling the bots head on, and making decisions on which neighborhoods are allowed can make a huge difference.

And yet, there is a full knowledge that nobody is getting rich these days. It is the nature of the (ads) beast and the current players and low valued inventory.

This is an amazing thread, full of sound and fury but very few demonstrable facts. Until verifiable and agreeable parameters are established for the purpose of discussion I suspect there will be more sound and fury.

[reseller]

I think this thread hasn't been successful to "Separating fact from fiction & emotion". Therefore I wish to suggest to close this thread and start new relevant thread "Zombie Traffic Stories" where WebmasterWorld members, who have been affected by the so called Zombie Traffic, can post their stories and share, learn and make friends.

[mosxu]

@reseller
no reason to give up, everybody posting here has had tremendous contribution just to understand in the end that we do have the same problem

I do think that proper analytics are needed, my point of view is that numbers only are not good analytics, recording every user on the website and understand the behaviour from a UX perspective is a must do these days

[glakes]

@Glakes your post is a glaring example of the point I am making. I disagree with your position, so you tell me to leave and that I know nothing and if I want to stay I need to prove something that cannot be proven.

The problem is not your disagreement but its repetition. You made your point many months ago (possibly longer) and repeating your disagreement repeatedly in a thread created for those afflicted with the same zombie problem adds nothing but noise to the discussion. We all know you are a non-believer, so why have you not gone fishing with FishingDad? What is motivating you to keep telling believers, with detailed traffic data to support their claims, that zombies don't exist?

And let's not forget, you are the one that has Zombie problems, not me. I have nothing to loose here.

Then how could you possibly have something of value to add to a discussion that you admittedly know nothing about and are not experiencing? Simply because it does not exist in your reality does not mean it does not exist for others. But don't think you don't have anything to lose - commenting on something you are inexperienced in and lack the data/basis to form an objective opinion on does nick your credibility in the eyes of others (no pun intended).

You can have an infinite stream of evidence (data) and you will never be able to prove a theory, but all it takes is one is a single data point to disprove a theory.

Then disprove the existence of zombies. The problem is you lack our data to either prove or disprove the theory which makes you unqualified to even render an opinion on the topic as your belief is based not on data but solely your personal experience and the reality you are prejudiced to. We all know this and IMO is the reason why your time posting here is largely falling on deaf ears. Likewise, if we were saying that all sites have zombie problems it too would fall on deaf ears because it is not true as this problem afflicts a small percentage of sites (I've analyzed detailed data with other ecommerce operators in similar industries). We are not here saying your site has zombies, so please don't tell us ours do not. But if it makes you feel better trying to disprove something you are not personally experiencing, by all means keep typing away. If you do, expect others and I to repeatedly quote your comment "And let's not forget, you are the one that has Zombie problems, not me" to point out your lack of qualifications to comment on the subject of zombies and to question your motivations for interjecting yourself into such conversations.

One of the admitted problems with zombie traffic is it is a broad term that can be synonymous with many other terms by unbelievers until the finer details are reviewed. For example, mismatched traffic is often the scapegoat used to describe zombies. What is an acceptable level of mismatched traffic? 20%, 50%, 80% or even more? Google's zombies have unique and bizarre traits that can make up the collective behavior patterns of a significant percentage of the total traffic Google sends us. For example, Google users landing on obscure pages and dwelling on them for many minutes (privacy policies, etc.). Out of a couple thousand visitors, how many would be acceptable and deemed mismatched traffic? Compare a handful of Google users a day doing this to Bing and Yahoo never sending anyone to those pages. Or one page wonders, those who click through the search results and bounce immediately. That's the vast majority of Google zombie traffic for a lot of us and total page views/time on site by Google users is a fraction of Bing and Yahoo. Or how about Google sending traffic to pages that are noindexed. Bing and Yahoo never do that but amazingly Google does and those users dwell on the page. These are just some examples, but they would not matter that much if they made up a small or at least reasonable percentage of Google's traffic. When 90%+ of Google's traffic falls into these examples, they are beyond mis-matched traffic and are what I deem to be zombies. At least that's how I define them. It would be one thing if we were not ranking for our buyer terms, but many of us are. I've checked across many different IPs, web browsers with personalization on/off (to the best of my ability) and my site ranks well for terms that have consistently produced sales. My site ranks well, and I would expect to see some buyers out of the thousands of visitors Google sends but I'm not. I've even tried to determine why Google is sending users to privacy policy and TOS pages but Google's lack of transparancy in passing keyword query data on left me hitting a brick wall though the IPs and web browsers were varied from legitimate ISP user sources.

Comparing pre-zombie traffic of 9/2015 to today also backs up the night and day difference in traffic quality. Also, Adwords follows the same zombie pattern and the same identical campaigns in Bing and Yahoo greatly outperform the negative ROI in Adwords. Once again, Adwords also followed the same trends as organics and began producing terrible results on 9/2015, which is right around the time many others experienced the zombie apocalypse. Despite many tweaks in Adwords, nothing changed the traffic quality which underscores how little control we have to remedy the problem.

Though many people have reported zombies for years, this wave of zombies fell upon many of us in the fall of 2015. This suggests it is not site specific and is algorithmic. If it's a problem misinterpreting a page's true purpose, we would not be ranking for our buyer keywords and would instead be ranking for terms and condition page keywords, privacy policy page keywords, etc? To the best of my ability, I've not found anywhere that Google is ranking my site for such obscure terms, though I rank at the top for buyer keywords though Google sends few/no buyers most days of the week.

Getting back to my response to NickMNS, having to recap what we already know because you don't believe it can possibly exist because you don't have a problem with zombies is not a constructive use of my time but necessary because of the noise you add to the discussion. Others are free to formulate their own opinions on the value of your posts, but IMO your posts are just noise as your knowledge of the subject and basis of beliefs is limited to your admitted zombie-less personal experience.

I think this thread hasn't been successful to "Separating fact from fiction & emotion". Therefore I wish to suggest to close this thread and start new relevant thread "Zombie Traffic Stories" where WebmasterWorld members, who have been affected by the so called Zombie Traffic, can post their stories and share, learn and make friends.

There was a zombie thread deleted previously by mods and it had far better information. I know some of us have formed our own groups off-forum to discuss this matter without noise and without ridicule. You may want to reach out to others in the same boat and compare data. Trust me, the similarities are an eye opener...

[aristotle]

I just came across a string of fake referals from google on one of my sites, a few per hour, apparently started a couple of days ago, and clearly coming from a botnet. To the experienced human log checker, they're obviously bots. But some stats programs might include them as referals from google, in the same way as with ordinary referal spam.

I'm not sure how the creators of botnets choose their targeted sites and pages, but this is the first time I've ever noticed one using fake google referals on any of my sites. But they could have been hitting some other sites with fake google referals all along.

All the botnet activity I've ever seen was like a slow-motion DDOS attack, essentially harmless as long as as it stays at a low level. Don't ask me what the purpose of a slow-motion DDOS attack is, since I've never understood it.

So I'm just throwing this into the discussion as an outside possibility.

[NickMNS]

@aristotle I have seen referral spam using google.com as the referrer in th past. But if this is really referral spam, (ie it consists of calls to the GA server using your tracking number but never accessing your server) then it can easily be filtered in GA by setting up a filter that limits the data exclusively to users from hostname == your domain.

If this is not referral spam, but actual bot traffic accessing your server then detecting and blocking it maybe more challenging.

How specifically do you determine that this is bot traffic from the log?

@glakes I do not have time to respond to your post now, but I will.

[aristotle]

How specifically do you determine that this is bot traffic from the log?

If you spend a lot of time looking at logs, you get to where you can spot unusual activity. Traffic from botnets comes from the devices of real humans who don't know that their device is infected, or if they do know, haven't gotten rid of the infection. Therefore the activity comes from real consumer internet services and shows a wide variety of the user agents. This makes them harder to identify, especially for stats programs.

there are various clues, such as most of them don't download images or execute scripts. But I don't have time now to go into much detail.

[mosxu]

The only way bot nets can replace real traffic is if google has some sort of brand relevancy filters: so if under your brand the sites are clicked more than your own brand then a filter may be triggered your brand is no longer promoted and bot nets take over, it may explain why during the night we get only zombies, having fewer people searching for your brand the botnets outnumber genuine serchers easily

Other than that real traffic should still be there or maybe John Muller finds something out...

I know CTR manipulation is big in casino industry

[smilie]

If there were a genuine interest on the part of those that claim to be affected by this ailment to find a solution then they should be open to suggestion from those that have critical view of situation. But those people prefer to talk in circles and do nothing. After 360+ posts here plus countless other posts overwhelming unrelated threads and nothing, no advancement on the topic, no consensus and nowhere closer to reaching a solution,

@NickMNS, it's because Google killed hundreds of thousands of websites. And there's no repercussions, and no webmaster advocate. At least Matt Cutts was Google insider but somewhat pretended to be in the middle, right now a mega for-profit Corporation completely took over.

This forum is also dead, comparing to 5 years or so ago. All these posters that used to make money online and debate here went on to other things, OTHER than online businesses.

I have 7people I talk to who 3-4 years ago had thriving online businesses. One is extremely happy he sold out, people who bought his online business went under with it within 12 months. 3 completely destroyed by Google Animals. One is completely offline now, 90%+ of his business , BIG names, completely offline and doesn't care about online anymore. One is holding on to his online store while periodically gaming Amazon, but clearly sees no path up. I am the only pure play online business left, and I am already invested into non-US and non-ecommerce businesses. This is not "some websites" I am talking about, this is $1 mln+ per year revenue companies.

This is because with your website you are one day away from arrogant Google slapping you into oblivion. Not only that, the HEAVILY identifiable trend is for G to suck every single potentially paying customer of yours and sell it to the highest bidders, which is the behemots, Amazons, Walmarts etc. of the online commerce. And to their white list of friends and former Google employees with startups.

Never in history of the US commerce has one company had so much power over hundreds of thousands of businesses.

People before in this thread clearly identified what Zombie Traffic is. It is basically traffic with ALL POTENTIALLY CONVERTING VISITORS REMOVED. It is a FACT. If you don't care to discuss, really you are not adding anything to the thread other than derailing it. Maybe we should ask moderators to remove you from here.

[NickMNS]

@glakes were to I start there is so much to cover...

repeating your disagreement repeatedly in a thread created for those afflicted with the same zombie problem adds nothing but noise to the discussion.

I'm sorry you feel that my contribution adds nothing but noise. I see it somewhat differently, my disagreement is a critical view point, one that questions your assumptions and helps you think outside your own realm. Having a thread full of people agreeing with each other doesn't really advance you much. I can join in to your circle, "I am seeing only Zombies, Google the big bad evil company is out to get us small business people, they are bleeding us dry".

We are not here saying your site has zombies, so please don't tell us ours do not.

I don't know maybe my site has zombies? And I am not saying your site does not. I don't know. I don't know when you say Zombies what exactly you are referring to. From what I have gathered by participating in this thread is that broadly speaking is that zombies are when you have drop in your conversion rate and you have short periods where the conversion rate returns to normal generally at unexpected times. This description is vague and can be fitted to all kinds of scenarios, like an increase in bot traffic or an increase mismatched traffic a cannibalization of your buying traffic caused by selling though ebay or amazon or any combination of these scenarios which is it I don't know. From what I have read there has been much speculation about all of these scenarios and probably more but there haven't been any public attempts to narrow it down. So when you know what it is tell me, I will check my stats to see if I am affected.

Then disprove the existence of zombies. The problem is you lack our data

The issue is not one of proving or disproving per se. The issue is that the problem must be framed in such a way that it can be disproved, it must be falsifiable. If your define the problem with broad and vague terms such that any scenario fits then nothing will ever disprove it. Instead frame it in specific terms, even if it is only part of the big problem. For example take cannibalization, then find a means of testing that assertion. Pull a product from Amazon for a month, only sell it on your site. If the sales return then maybe it is cannibalization, if they don't then you disprove cannibalization. Move on the next possible issue.

@smilie

People before in this thread clearly identified what Zombie Traffic is. It is basically traffic with ALL POTENTIALLY CONVERTING VISITORS REMOVED

Clear as mud!
Let's start with "All", this is in fact the only clear term in your definition. If you have one conversion then your theory is disproved, since at least one of the potential converting visitor did make it your site, so it is not all!
"Potentially converting visitors" how exactly do you determine which of the visitors that come to your site and leave without converting are potential converters and certainly not converters?
"Removed" this suggests that users were headed to your site specifically to buy but then were redirected. If those users never got to your site how do you know they even existed?

Please humbly accept my apologies for my company does not make anywhere near $1M dollars in revenue, so obviously my opinion is not worthy of your respect. That said, operating $1M dollar a year in revenue business is really easy, all you have to do is sell 1 million widgets that each cost 2$ for $1 each. Bingo 1M in revenue. As the old saying goes if you what to be a millionaire, take a 1 billion dollars launch a website and in a few years you'll be a millionaire.

[mosxu]

What if it is a inside job?

[webmasterworld.com...] here they pride themselves to have taken thousands of sites down and millions of ads but they do not publish the list of these offenders what if a google employee unintentionally on purpose have included our sites as well without even notifying us?

One must see this as a possibility there is no way we get only zombies unless some sort of nepotism/abuse is happening and we are in the way...

[EditorialGuy]

This thread has veered into personal attacks and general Google-bashing, so I imagine we'll see some trimming of posts by the moderators. Until then, a couple of points need to be made:

1) The claim that Google has "killed" hundreds of thousands of Web sites ignores the fact that Google (like other search engines) has also given visibility to vast numbers of Web sites. By its nature, an algorithm, filter, etc. is going to help some Web sites more than it does others. And, as the number of pages on the Web increases, rankings are going to change. If your business is based largely on traffic from Google Search, you need to recognize that increased competition and the evolution of algorithms present risks to your personal status quo.

2) This forum does indeed seem quieter than it was five years ago, but that stands to reason: Many people have moved from traditional forums to social media, and the fact that Google no longer has a monthly "dance" means there's less to talk about. But don't assume that, just because this forum is quieter than it once was, everybody has abandoned the Web and moved on to other pursuits.

[smilie]

>> @NickMNS: Clear as mud! Let's start with "All", this is in fact the only clear term in your definition. "Potentially converting visitors" how exactly do you determine which of the visitors that come to your site and leave without converting are potential converters and certainly not converters?

Don't plan to explain this to a person whos only job is to derail the thread.

For everyone else:
Google is using markers, such as "free" Google Analytics Conversion tool that's installed on every other website, to identify visitors that either purchased something, or are in a purchase funnel in this particular niche. Google then would sell this visitor via Broad Match to highest bidder on Adwords - which is not your site. Then those visitors are removed from your traffic , technically. The rest of the visitors , including those who never intend to purchase, become more and more like a zombie.

As you remove everyone who's ever purchased or intended (were close to completing a funnel) from the traffic source, this then becomes an "unproven, non-converting traffic". De facto ZOMBIES.

Then one can come up with ways to filter zombie and non-zombie traffic, and periodically roll the algo so that small businesses don't feel being completely killed, just a choked to death bit by bit.

On our ecommerce about 3 years ago and before, we've had known days and hours of the day when converting visitors would come in. For instance, we'd know that between 3pm and 5pm it's pretty quiet. In the last 3 years, however, it is a random wave every time, on random days and random hours. And then the rest of the time traffic is there but majority of it never converts. This is just one example of many.

[NickMNS]

@smilie I am not derailing the thread. All I am doing is disagreeing with your assertions and presenting another perspective on this topic.

Don't plan to explain this

Please humor me and explain how you can make this differentiation. I sincerely would like to know.

So now that you haven't supported your claim, your are now making a new claim, that somehow Google analytics is the cause of Zombies. This myth has already been debunked a few month ago after a few people here removed analytics completely from their sites for period of a few weeks and reported back that they saw no difference or a slight worsening of their situation.

On our ecommerce about 3 years ago and before,

Things change, and in this world things change fast. You need to embrace this fact otherwise you will and probably already have been left behind. 3 years ago there was relatively little mobile traffic. Now most of the traffic is mobile. Google is constantly changing its algo, techniques that allowed you to rank three years ago may have little effect today. What is helping you rank today will likely be useless in a few years. Who know maybe in a few years Google will be gone replaced, by some thing else.

This is the web, there are little to no barriers to entry. All you need is a brain, a good idea and a keyboard and you can disrupt entire industries. It is what make this work exciting.

[Shaddows]

Google is using markers, such as "free" Google Analytics Conversion tool that's installed on every other website, to identify visitors that either purchased something, or are in a purchase funnel in this particular niche. Google then would sell this visitor via Broad Match to highest bidder on Adwords - which is not your site. Then those visitors are removed from your traffic , technically. The rest of the visitors , including those who never intend to purchase, become more and more like a zombie.

So, what you're saying is that if you bid high on adwords, you get a boost in Organic? That all ATF organic sites are adwords customers of the highest order? That failure to bid on adwords results in a "technical" removal from the SERP?

Well, as a theory, it has something going for it; it's falsifiable.

Otherwise, it's just a bit tinfoil.

Questions that I asked myself when I had zombies included:

- What percentage of visitors are non-convertible? (For me, I reckon 85% are non-convertible, maybe 90?)
- What percentage are potentially convertible in some fashion? (Say 15%) (Request call back, notify price change, vote, rate, register)
- What percentage are actively looking to park their cash? (Say 5%)
- How much of the quasi-converts do you convert (40% ~ 6% total)
- How many cash-parkers do you convert (40% - 2% total)

So, assuming 85% of traffic do their normal reading, clicking, comparing and disappearing routine.
What about the 15%. Do they still quasi-convert? Do they join the EXACT pattern of the 85%? Do they bounce (single page load)? Do they click links but that's it (and at what rate - human or superhuman, or subhuman)?
And then the 5%. Presumably totally non-converting, so are they following the 85%?
Can you even measure, within any formal meaning you care to adopt, whether that 5% continue to visit?

When we had zombies, it was generally incremental traffic that is no way impacted our core traffic. Our conversion RATES went down, but actual numbers were within tolerances (if anyone has a death wish, you can track my many, many posts on this topic over five years- I was pretty unique in incremental zombies)- these were new visitors who clicked at human rates but never engaged a non-link action.

Separately, we may have observed loose throttling, but not a buzz-cut

We definitely experience traffic-shaping, and until recently got a clear referral-pattern shift prior to major updates, but haven't seen anything for ages.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 8:45 pm (utc) on Apr 17, 2017]
[edit reason] temp edit in splitting thread - no edit to posts [/edit]

[NickMNS]

@Shaddows what was the source of the incremental traffic, was it all from Google?

[Shaddows]

As far as can be determined. You have to understand we have a very large site, some pages get very low views and that's fine. Some products just pad out listings, others establish price points, still others are just Brands that need to be there or your offering looks incomplete.

Anyway, at odd times, we would get traffic to low volume pages. Quite distributed, not doing anything particular. Sometimes up to 20% of page views could be attributed to this non-engaged traffic in random places it really had no need to be in.

And then it would all switch off.

ETA-
On any given PAGE the zombie traffic might not be statistically significant. It was the horde that was detectable. Trying to pin it down was useless. Any given visitor might be human, might be zombie. I gave up analysing it for a long time, then suddenly it was widespread. Now it's a bit like FUD; often heard, concrete examples harder to find.

[mosxu]

I think that everybody here has a sneaky feeling to what really zombie traffic is but we always are trying to be politically correct when trying to define it. Reality is that talk only is not enough. Let's think of ways to prove it exists.

[superclown2]

I wonder how many compromised machines, worldwide, are clicking on links, to order. Some on the SERPs and some on the ads. Thousands? Millions? And if you were google, would you admit to it?