![]() ![]() |
Membership Admin & Moderator![]() ![]() Group: Membership Admin & Moderator
Joined: 6-January 07
Posts: 2,189
|
Dec 23 2007, 03:08 PM |
|
|
The DazzlinDonna shares some stats ( Comparing Traffic From The Big Three Search Engines) and makes an extremely important comment:
QUOTE This is when you realize that no matter how hard you might want to break away from Google, you see just how ridiculous that concept is. Unless you get lots of traffic from places other than search (which is always nice), Google has to play a large part in your traffic strategy - like it or not. I have seen similar stats that range G from 60-90+%, Y from 6-28%, MSN/L from 1-16%, the differences probably due to the niches and demographics involved. That does nothing to alter her two main points: 1. "Google has to play a large part in your traffic strategy". When optimising for search Google has become the default. One can survive on Google alone and even prosper. However, that additional 16-17% (her numbers) of seach traffic could be the difference mere surviving and a comfortable living - an additional 20% potential revenue is well worth pursuing...even for rich folk. There is also the conversion factor: not all traffic from all sources to all niches converts equally. It is quite possible, for example, for Yahoo traffic to provide the same actual number of conversions as a much greater volume from Google. You need to know your numbers. 2. "traffic from places other than search" This is the big black hole in the floor that everyone walks around while pretending it doesn't exist. Yet this 'alternate' traffic is often the best converting traffic by a logarithmic factor. Yet 'search' is king. There are none so blind as those who will not see. There is an increasing awareness of social media as an alternative traffic source, primarily because some in the SEO community (and others who view SEO as passé) are pushing SMM hard. There is much less of an understanding of it's actual value, often a deliberate obfuscation. Shout traffic volume, praise traffic volume, hurrah for sheer volume; it's easy to generate, looks great in reports, impresses the clients; conversion rate and ROI are so Web 1.0. The 'ancient' alternative of direct type-in/bookmark traffic is still the best converting category. Why do you think domainers buy as they do? Leveraging type-in errors is one big reason. We hear more and more about type-in and domain squatting and less and less about type-in as valuable for all sites. Hurrah for the tabloid bloggartsphere. Those who come direct to you are pure gold. Woo them well. The 'original', 'before Google', indeed 'before search' and still critical traffic source is the backlink. Unless it is of the PR-chasing junkbond variety. Like traffic volume, pure link volume is easy to generate but an exceedingly short term outlook. A quality backlink provides highly converting traffic. A high quality backlink supplies high volume highly converting traffic. That it also juices PR is a nice added feature. To put all your livelihood on one number, on one supplier, on one client, is a inherently hazardous choice. Make your own risk assessment, your own business plan, and proceed... |
||
| Offline | ![]() |
Quarter Grand PosterGroup: Members
Joined: 18-November 05
Posts: 410
From: Greater Washington DC area
|
Dec 26 2007, 05:24 PM |
|
|
The volume of traffic and percentage of it that came from google were pretty astounding. Kudo's to Donna for getting that across the board ranking.
Those numbers are both anecdotal representing only one web site for some unkown phrase, but also significantly different from what the market research companies report. Yet similar anecdotal evidence comes from webmasters all the time. Here are two links to the same dominance issue of Google from another perspective. It also raises different issues relative to the dominance of google: http://blumenthals.com/blog/2007/12/22/loc...g-lucky-or-not/ and http://www.seorefugee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8596 Years ago there was an active anti trust element within the govt that pursued businesses within industries that accumulated extraordinary market share. If memory serves me right on what I studied decades ago 83% was considered monopolistic. It is important to spread your sources of traffic and marketing. Sometimes its hard when the great preponderance of potential customers relies on one source. It is very challenging. |
||
| Offline | ![]() |
Moderator/Blog Editor![]() ![]() Group: Site Admin
Joined: 18-January 05
Posts: 5,375
From: Olympia WA, USA
|
Dec 27 2007, 05:20 AM |
|
|
Whenever I read these conversations I remember the first time I used view>source to see how a link was written. I knew NOTHING about the web, or really much of anything computer related. It was the early 90's.
When I found matching anchor tag and link text it still didn't make sense to me, any more than seeing puppies being born explains the miracle of life. I sat there and thought, "People click on this and are connected." Magic. Everything else is... stamp collecting... though other kinds of knowledge (and fascination) may come along for a ride. This post has been edited by AbleReach: Dec 27 2007, 06:35 PM |
||
| Offline | ![]() |
|
|
| Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 9th February 2010 - 07:10 PM |
| Meet our Moderators: | cre8pc : projectphp : sanity : Black Phoenix : bwelford : EGOL : Ruud : rustybrick : AbleReach : swainzy : joedolson: eKstreme: dazzlindonna : SEOigloo: iamlost : RisaBB |