On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 10:04:24 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>__/ [davidof] on Tuesday 07 February 2006 09:55 \__
>
>> Paul B wrote:
>>> On 6 Feb 2006 13:02:04 -0800, "Chumley Walrus" <springb2k@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>How accurate, or credible is alexa.com summarizing website traffic for
>>>>a given URL.
>>>>
>>>>thx
>>>>chumley
>>>
>>>
>>> IMO, very inaccurare, and the results can be fudged.
>>
>> I'm sure mathematicians can work this out but I had one site that had
>> 5,000 page views per day last year and was around 300,000 in Alexa. I
>> installed the Alexa toolbar on my browser and visited the site once per
>> day and it went into the top 100,000. That would imply to me that the
>> few people have the toolbar installed.
>
>Based on all the numbers that I see in my status bar, my very rough guess has
>been (for quite a while) that around 100,000 people have the A9 and/or the
>Alexa toolbar installed and set to 'history enabled'. A similar estimate for
>Netscraft...
>
>I wonder if a Web search could reveal the answer. They must perceive it as a
>very precious secret. It could shatter the value of their figures, which are
>grossly 'massaged'.
>
>Roy
I've never given their figures any value.
BB
--
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/art-prints-sitemap.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/brian-baker-collection/index.html
kruse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Gifty! Shiny! BB!
|
|
