Online Media Cultist

Web producer, writer, online media cultist. That's how I roll.

Good traffic, bad traffic, silly traffic, traffic traffic

Hang out with any website publisher long enough, and the subject will eventually turn to traffic. Numbers. Depending, the terms uniques, page views, impressions, or even hits may be tossed around. All web publishers are interested in the subject, even if some take a pointed disinterest in knowing how many people are visiting their site.

A Seth Godin piece called Silly Traffic got me to thinking about the subject last week. He smartly points out that most traffic that hits any site, perhaps 75% or more, is “unfocused” and therefore largely useless in a general sense except in beefing up site page views and, perhaps, fragile publisher egos.

In other words, most of the time, a vast majority of people who land on any website aren’t sure what they’re looking for, are confused once they land there, and are apt to take off again within a few seconds or less. The best a publisher can hope for in such cases is that they’ll accidentally or purposefully click an ad on the way out!

A great majority of this unfocused traffic is driven by search, particularly Google search. For some reason, a story I wrote on the most popular websites in the US in February ranks very high on Google for searches for “most popular websites,” so I get a lot of traffic hitting that story. But most of the time Site Meter records that the visit length was one second, so where’s the value in that?

Godin advises that publishers should simply ignore unfocused traffic (as opposed to stressing out over SEO or seeking ways to “lure the bouncers”) and instead focus on deeply engaging existing users.

In other words, return visitors are treasures for publishers, highly valued entities that need to be tended and minded and catered to. That’s why I was so excited to trumpet about hitting 200 RSS subscribers yesterday. All of y’all are people who arrived here – somehow, someway – and found the experience valuable enough to take action to add the RSS feed so that future posts would be automatically sent to you.

So while I’m apt to “stats junkie” out as much as the next guy/gal/geeky web publisher extraordinaire, I definitely try to keep the silly traffic quotient in mind. Google search is fine, and traffic stemming from StumbleUpon, Digg, and Reddit is all well and good, but return visitors are the prize which must be eyed.

How do you generate return visitors? Well, that’s a subject that can take some time to get into. I suppose the simple and not terribly magical answer is to write great content consistently, network with publishers and influential types who write similar kinds of content (and read and engage on their sites), and then hope to get linked.

Those links will bring focused traffic: people who know what they want and recognize it right away when they get there. Those are the kind of folk most likely to convert to regular visitors.

On a personal note, I’ll throw three sites out there that have been greatly beneficial of late: Techmeme, Twitter, and Friendfeed. Knowing what’s being said (and not said) on Techmeme, and engaging in the Twitter and Friendfeed communities is a dynamite tool for people writing about Internet-related topics to generate links, focused traffic, and regular visitors.

Other people have also been talking about stats and their relationship with them of late. Jason Kaneshiro at Webomatica is distracted by blog statistics, and has limited himself to checking them once a month. Louis Gray, on the other hand, provides in depth analysis of his site’s remarkable growth over the last four months or so. As a stats fiend, I love that kind of stuff!

Post Metadata

Date
May 1st, 2008

Author
Eric Berlin

Category
OMC

Tags

  • Congrats on 200, Eric. I've been asked the question between hits vs subscribers a couple of times and I definitely agree that subscribers are much more powerful because they WANT the content from your blog and are willing to be repeat and engaged visitors. I'd take them over random hits anytime.
  • Thanks so much Daryl! The trick in the end is finding your topic(s) and then engaging people on that topic consistently and well. If you do that you'll probably tend to bring in more repeat customers over time.

    That doesn't mean that it's easy though -- far from it !
  • Hutch Carpenter
    Eric - I just posted something with a similar sentiment. I'm suddenly seeing a rise in hits for an old post related to tips on writing a farewell email to co-workers. These are search-generated hits, on a topic that differs from the web 2.0 content that's on my blog.

    My simple response is to post a message to these visitors on the blog, letting them know what the blog is about and inviting them to look around. It's something of an experiment right now. My home-grown visitor conversion experiment. Maybe I'll have to be a little more innovative.
  • It's always a challenge, figuring out how to explain to site visitors exactly who you are and what's going on very very quickly -- and trying to do that for an insanely wide spectrum.

    I wonder if Godin's "silly traffic" argument applies here though: do you think the people coming in to read the farewell e-mail to coworkers via search traffic are going to tend to be people who might convert to return visitors for your more typical web 2.0 topics? I wonder if the effort is worth it, or like Godin suggests you might be better served spending time/resources on making your regular visitors happy.

    I'm not sure what the right answer is, by the way. Please try and stop back into OMC though and let us know how it's going. :-)
  • In the print world, a lot of magazines are judged by how many pages go unread by their audience (a lower number is better, obviously). This isn't something that non-direct response environment can handle, but editors get a good idea of what people are reading and not reading.

    The web is somewhat similar. I've read (I think) at least 40% of all Seth Godin posts on his site. That's a lot.

    It would be interesting if this was a useful metric for users and site owners. I guess Google already knows this (knows everything about my search history), but it's not useful info between forms. In other words, what if onlinemediacultist could map:

    - X return uniques, who have on average consumed (_) amount of all OMC pages, over (_) days

    And what if me, as a web person, could map:

    - where I've visited, (_)% of (_)site, when

    This is probably way more complicated than it appears in my head, but your post seemed to trigger something in me that I think would be valuable: a better way to understand usage on both sides of the equation.
  • How I translate this -- and please tell me if your thinking is different Reilly -- is this: I'd love an easy / free metrics package that gives me page views, uniques, and return visitors per story, and then nicely breaks down how all three of those groups arrived at my site. I'd then want to be able to see compilations of data versus individual "drilldown" stats, and finally have pretty graphs and charts for everything.

    I know that Google Analytics does some and perhaps all of this, but it does take some expertise and know how and in some cases real technical skills to yank the exact data that you want out.
  • Yes, but I'd like to be able to do so from a reader's perspective, as well. I think Google and HBX do a good job of this on the publisher side, but because of cookie limitations it's never really completely accurate. On the reader side, nobody is doing this besides Google that I know of -- and I think some people get a little freaked out by this, too.
blog comments powered by Disqus




Privacy