Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> __/ [ John Bokma ] on Saturday 16 September 2006 18:18 \__
>
>> bob_jenkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>> My site (with its admittedly strange access patterns) says 47.54%
>>> direct request, 11.45% Google, at least 1.67% cumulative from
>>> Wikipedia, 0.69% Yahoo, 0.26% MSN, 0.10% Ask, and 0.09% for the
>>> first non-search-or-wikipedia referrer.
>>
>> Which software + version?
>
>
> Could it be like the BBC 'thing'? Wikipedia does not do search, but if
> no results are found for a query, I suspect the visitor is referred to
> Google. Having just quickly checked this, it no longer appears to be
> the case (not sure it ever has been).
IIRC you're right: when (again IIRC) the load was heavy Wikipedia used
Google. But WikiMedia comes with a search but it's not an SE.
>>> There are several mysteries here -- the implausible number of direct
>>> requests (from spiders?)
>>
>> spiders, other bots, bookmarks, and people who block referers.
>> Probably the majority is garbage bots.
>
> Yes. It gets worse by the day. Referrer spam, crackers and arbitrary
> junk that's stuffed with the aspiration of getting attention through
> stats.
Yup, I have plans to put some time into it and see if I can reduce the
garbage.
>> I wouldn't call Wikipedia a SE, but I guess you have some links
>> there, or a link on a page with a lot of visits. And yes, it's
>> perfectly possible that *in your case* wikipedia delivers more
>> traffic that all other SEs except for Google.
>
> Wikipedia will be listed as a referrer rather than a search engine,
> wouldn't it? Maybe it's to do with the way the stats package
> interprets the logs.
Yup, my guess, hence the question what software and version is used.
--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:
--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html
|
|
