Google Analytics Benchmarking
If you use Google Analytics for your website statistics, you might be interested in the new benchmarking option. If you agree to share your data (anonymously), Google will give you a comparison showing your traffic stats against other similar sites.
The benchmarking service has been collecting data for the last couple of weeks and it went live today. I had a lot of fun seeing my stats against industry standards. However it's pretty much a once-off buzz at the moment. There's not much to look at, and once you've seen how a site fares there's not much point going back to that report again.
Still, Google has a solid record of starting simple and building things into something no one else saw coming. This could be the beginning of a revolutionary way to measure statistics. I'm optimistic.
Categories
Importantly, all sites are divided into three categories: Small, medium and large. Statistics for a site can only be compared against other sites in the same category. The trouble is, you don't know which category your site is in, so how can you tell what you're really being compared to?
I don't have the whole answer (yet) but I've got a reasonable estimate. Because I have a few dozen websites that get various levels of traffic, I've been able to pin down the range of statistics in each category to some extent. It's still quite rough, and the data will change anyway as the service matures, but here's how I see it:
Small: The benchmark for sites in this category is around 5 visits per day. It includes sites that get up to somewhere between 15 and 50 visits per day.
Medium: The benchmark is around 200 visits per day (2100 page views). The range is from around 50 to somewhere between 1000 and 10,000 visits per day.
Large: The benchmark is around 10,000 visits per day. The range is from somewhere between 1000 and 10,000 visits per day upwards.
I currently have one site in the large category (Google thinks I'm large - now there's an aphrodisiac :)). The site is of course mediacollege.com, which is ranking 57% higher than the benchmark for large sites. Woohoo!
Now here's an interesting idea for Google - what about being able to share data between consenting accounts, so for example, I could agree to share data with some of my competitors and we could all measure up against each other. I don't know how many people would buy into it but I'd be a starter for sure. Nothing like a bit of in-your-face competition to get you motivated.
Labels: MediaCollege, WebEntrepreneur
Transferring a Website
Today I became aware that one of our clients had initiated a less-than-perfect domain transfer to a new server. As I type this, their site is unreachable and won't be up and running for a while yet.
If you rely on your site in any way, this wouldn't be a good turn of events. So, I posted a quick article on the best way to transfer a website from one server to another. If I've missed anything please let me know.
Labels: MediaCollege, WebEntrepreneur
Google Shares Drop
Google shares have dropped around 8 percent after a U.S. industry report showed a decline in a key measure for how Google gets paid by advertisers.
While some investors are alarmed, other commentators are downplaying the slump, citing factors such as:
- Google recently changed the clickable area of Adsense ads, which should mean a temporary drop in publisher income but a better long-term return for advertisers (and therefore publishers).
- comScore had recently revised the way it measures visits to Web sites, which made comparisons to previous trends difficult.
- This isn't a good time of year for tech stocks, and the market isn't doing well overall anyway.
Personally I'm not too concerned. I don't think there's any need for us publishers to panic (my Adsense earnings are actually up at the moment). I'd even consider buying Google stock right now while the price is down.
Labels: WebEntrepreneur
Get More Relevant Adsense Ads
If you're an Adsense publisher you may find that the ads sometimes aren't relevant to the main content of your page. This can happen, for example, when one part of the page is interpreted by the Adsense bot as being more important than it really is. It's happened to me a few times - I remember including a reference to a particular product as an aside in an article. The Adsense ads were all about that product instead of the article topic.
You can get around this problem using section targeting. Add the appropriate tags to the page content to tell Google which text should be used (or ignored) when targeting ads.
Of course you also need to make sure the page does contain the sort of text that will attract the advertisers you want, but I assume you knew that already :).
Labels: WebEntrepreneur
Does traffic affect search engine rankings?
In my last post I mentioned the conflicting SEO advice that webmaster "Sally" was given. She was told that increasing her website traffic would result in higher search rankings, so she contacted friends and asked them to visit the site once each week. I told her this would not work, hence the conflict. Naturally I think I'm right and here's why...
- Search engines don't have access to Sally's traffic statistics. That could be the end of the argument but let's continue anyway...
- Search engines could theoretically use tracking tools (e.g. Alexa Toolbar) to gauge traffic but this is hopelessly inaccurate. It would hurt SERP quality more than it would help.
- You could argue that higher traffic creates flow-on effects that lead to higher rankings; for example, a corresponding increase in new backlinks from visitors who like the site. This can be true when the traffic is genuine but it won't work with artificial methods such as the one Sally is attempting.
- High traffic is not necessarily an indicator of quality. Search engines know this.
- Search engines avoid having things in their algorithms (rules & calculations) that can be manipulated. Traffic is very easy to fake and therefore would make it easy to manipulate SERPs. Not going to happen.
Don't take my word for it. Like I said in the previous post, this stuff is debatable so you should look around for other opinions. I thought I'd find a thread or two to get you started and the first one I found was this wonderfully concise discussion so I'll leave it at that. Okay, it doesn't offer much information but the guy answering the question (stymiee) knows the industry well.
BTW, notice how my arguments above involve seeing things from the search engines' point of view and imagining how search engines would want things to work. This is an important point that I'll come back to in another post.
Today's tip: There aren't many (if any) sneaky tricks or magic solutions that increase your SERP ranking. Google is too clever to be manipulated by obvious rigging tactics. If it sounds easy, there's a fair chance it's a waste of time (or even harmful - more on that later). Research!
Labels: WebEntrepreneur
Conflicting SEO Advice
Tonight I received an email from a website owner, who I'll call Sally, asking what to do when faced with conflicting SEO (search engine optimization) advice. Sadly this happens a lot in the SEO world.
SEO is based on a set of loosely-defined rules about what to do and what not to do in order to climb higher up the SERPs (search engine result pages). Do all the good things, avoid the bad things and it should work.
The problem is that no-one knows exactly how all the search engines perform their calculations so there is some uncertainty about how valid certain rules are. Some rules are undisputed (e.g. don't get involved in link farms, don't put 100 h1 tags on your page), but many rules are the subject of ongoing debate (e.g. don't buy text links, don't trade irrelevant links).
The best thing you can do is search webmaster forums for topics covering the advice you've been given. You'll probably need to wade through a lot of annoying arguments and it might take up to half an hour to read enough opinions to form your own. You'll also encounter a lot of jargon that you might not understand but don't worry about it - in most cases there's a reasonably clear majority opinion that you should be able to recognize.
One of the best webmaster forums is sitepoint.com. You could also try our own web design forum.
In my next post I'll look at the conflicting advice Sally received and pronounce my verdict (go there now).
Labels: WebEntrepreneur
Circle URL, pt 3
I wasn't going to keep posting about about the circle URL idea but it's such a good case study, I can't help milking it. From an entrepreneur's perspective it's worth a closer look at exactly why I think it can't work.
Firstly I should say that I'm a bit confused about what the auction is selling so I hope I'm not too far off base with my comments. The auction seems to be for the domains, but there's already a service running at gfr56y.com so I guess that's what the product is. Initially I thought the plan would be to sell or use individual URLs for different websites but then I started thinking maybe the owner is expected to keep all 264 domains, so the same website would be found by typing any circle URL. It would certainly work better in the latter case.
It's still a dog though. Here's why...
- It's unconventional, meaning that it breaks the normal convention people are used to. That can be a good thing in some cases but most of the time it's a handicap. In this case the existing convention is so strong and the new convention is so different, it's going to be a big problem.
- For a new convention to work "in the wild" it has to reach a critical mass, i.e. it must reach the point where enough people know about it that you don't need to keep explaining it. Since there are less than 300 domains in this package (and possibly only one actual website) that's unlikely to happen. I don't imagine the general public ever knowing what I mean if I say I have a circle URL.
- The point above would be negated if the website in question was popular enough. For example, if Google launched this website people might adapt and "get it" because it's Google. However people aren't going to make the same effort for an unknown brand. It's a catch-22: The gimmick won't work until the brand reaches critical mass, but you are relying on the gimmick to get there.
- If I'm right so far, every time you give someone a circle URL you also have to give them instructions on how it works. That's bad in so many ways I don't know where to start. The best example is the auction itself - it takes several sentences just to explain what a circle URL means. Try that in the mass market where people make browsing decisions in a split second. BTW most people don't read help files or instructions.
- Circle URLs are not easy to remember or use. I still have to think consciously about how to enter the URL. Call me a linear thinker but the circle shape on a keyboard is not at all obvious to me. I watched someone else try it and she didn't really get it either (two people don't make a scientific poll but it's a bad start). If I was doing it every day it might become second nature but that's not going to happen.
- The URLs don't just look terrible, they look like spammer URLs. Ouch.
- The idea is that the domain owner owns a "shape" just like Nike owns the swoosh. The problem is that the swoosh is a simple, consistent, easily recognizable logo that competes with other shapes in a known convention. The circle URL is none of those things, it's just confusing.
- The cost of maintaining all the circle domains needs to be factored in, although if you're spending $750,000 you probably don't care.
- In summary, this is a question of whether it's easier to remember a traditional (word) URL or a circle URL. I can't accept that even the most difficult word URL is more difficult to remember and use than a circle URL.
You can do a lot of promotion for $750,000. A better business proposal would be to get a standard domain name and promote it well. No gimmicks required.
Despite my feelings about this as a business idea, I congratulate nottiger on having the idea in the first place. It's a fine example of lateral thinking. I would eat my hat with tabasco sauce if the circle URL convention becomes popular, but I'd be willing to bet that nottiger has some genuinely good ideas somewhere in his head. I wish him well.
One last point - this auction does raise the issue of limited domain names. nottiger is onto something there. The market is hanging out for a better way to remember URLs, or indeed a replacement system for URLs altogether. TNBT?
Labels: WebEntrepreneur
Is Cruel Cool?
Yesterday I posted a
very harsh criticism of an auction being run by someone called "nottiger" at
sitepoint.com. After I posted it, I looked back and thought "Man, that is
rough. Is it really cool to diss someone's idea so brutally, no matter how silly it seems or how much it smells like a scam? What if it turns out that nottiger is a really nice person, but depressed, and this idea was his big attempt at restoring self-esteem? What if he reads my blog and it's the final straw that breaks his back - how would I live with myself if he topped himself over this whole thing?"
Unlikely, but
what if? It certainly wouldn't help my own self-esteem much.
Well it turns out nottiger did read my blog and he contacted me this morning to respond. As an aside, he's a Kiwi (like me), or at least I assume so from the content of his message.
Fortunately nottiger doesn't seem depressed and he handled my criticism well. He did stoop to having a dig at my home town but I'll let that go.
Back to the question "Is it okay to be so harsh?". It's not normally my style because I have seen the effect such criticism can have on people.
The situation is quite similar to working in TV production when you're faced with the "personal harm vs public good vs entertainment value" dilemma. Sometimes you decide to cause potential harm to a small group of people in order to benefit the wider community. If you lack ethics (which many TV producers do) you might be comfortable harming people simply to increase entertainment value. Personally I use what I think is a fair balance between public good and personal danger, but I'd never want to hurt someone just for kicks or ratings.
And that's what made me uncomfortable about yesterday's post. Was I doing it for the public good or for ratings? There is certainly a public good aspect - I feel that the product being auctioned is worthless and so falls into the consumer protection category. You could argue that no one is being forced to bid in the auction but consider this:
- It's highly unlikely that nottiger will commit suicide over my blog post but it's such a bad outcome that it's worth talking into account.
- In the same way, it's highly unlikely that a naive person would unwittingly waste $750,000 on a worthless idea, but the outcome is bad enough that it's worth trying to prevent. Just look at
Randi.org to see how plentiful suckers are.
In retrospect I could have had the same effect without being so cruel. I'd probably do it differently now but I'll stop short of an apology because the seller's auction was so public, so expensive, and so inviting of a strong response. He's certainly getting a response at the
auction and
reddit - the poor bugger is getting flayed alive.
If you're reading this nottiger, I meant what I said about calling in for a coffee or beer. I've become good friends with people who I didn't initially get on with. I like your creativity and tenacity. We might be a fiery mix but you never know - we might have some interesting conversations over a lager.
Labels: Ponderblog, WebEntrepreneur
Circle domains
I believe I've just seen the stupidest idea on the internet.
This auction is for a collection of 264 domain names that use letters in a circle on the keyboard. For example, rfcxse.com (forming a circle around the letter d). The seller is convinced that these domains are easier to remember than actual words, which in his opinion makes the whole package of domains worth a choking $750,000 USD.
It's so unbelievably stupid that you have to read the guy's pitch and let it sink in for a while to appreciate how fully stupid it is. The level of stupidity required to buy into this bizarre idea is so outrageously stupid you can't imagine that anyone in the world could be so stupid.
Does this guy seriously think he can make a case for this idea? Apparently so and he's getting upset with people who doubt/mock him.
And yet I notice a few comments on places like
reddit.com suggesting that this hilariously inept idea could appeal to some people. In fact I'm reluctant to completely write it off myself, merely because some stupid ideas do hit the spot with stupid people who have money and buy stupid things. Still, it's hard to imagine even Steve Ballmer* parting with
3/4 Million dollars for this tarted up pile of poo.
Seriously,
Todays' Tip: Do some objective research before you invest time or money in an unusual idea. Just because it seems logical or cool to you, doesn't mean the same will apply to anyone else. The "circle domain" auction holder seems oblivious to the problems people are having following the "simple" instructions (e.g. where does the circle start? Which direction does it go?). It wouldn't have taken much effort to test his simplicity theory and learn the truth before making a fool of himself.
*
Labels: WebEntrepreneur
Web Entrepreneur Blog
I thought I'd start a separate topic called "Web Entrepreneur" to cover all the things related directly to this line of business. This is the topic to follow if you're interested in making money online.
Let's clarify one thing: I make good money from the web (and it's getting better all the time) but I'm no Sergey Brin or Larry Page. Although I fantasize about building a multi-billion dollar online empire, it's more likely that my estate will be worth less than a single billion. For me it's more about building a decent passive income that will give me a great lifestyle and eventually be passed on to my kids. So far it's gone swimmingly — I pulled back from full-time work in 2000 and left my last part-time job in 2007. I doubt whether I'll ever have a real job again.
I'm 41. It took me almost 10 years to build my online income to the point where I could eschew employment, but a lot of that was spent making wasteful and time-consuming mistakes. One thing that helped keep me on the right path was reading other people's stories and benefitting from their experience. By maintaining this blog I hope to give something back and maybe help you decide which things will work for you and which things to avoid.
BTW I hate the term "Web Entrepreneur" because it's such a nasty cliché. Why did I use this term? Well, that could be the subject of an upcoming post. Stay tuned.
Labels: WebEntrepreneur
