|
sassy senior
|
Posted 8:58 am, 12/13/2012
|
I do both but Go wilkes is my favorite. 
|
|
I am Mr Bush
|
Posted 8:53 am, 12/13/2012
|
http://www.analytics-ninja....ytics.html
The �unique visitor� metric was never meant to describe the number of �unique people� that visited a site. Admittedly, this terminology can be confusing for the average person. While web analysts have known that �unique visitors� refers to a count of unique cookie values in the browser, I find it quite nice to be able to quantify this in numbers. Indeed, from the data above, it appears that the number of unique visitors reported is somewhere between 25% � 39% greater than the number of people who visit a site.
----
Seems while Unique Visitor numbers are fun to crunch, they're not totally accurate.
|
|
GoWilkes
|
Posted 3:33 am, 12/13/2012
|
those unique hits he keeps spewing is coming from search engines, he thinks this site is gold,
Sorry, but that's not quite how it works. You may find this article interesting on how Google Analytics counts traffic:
For your reference, Alexa now considers GoWilkes to be the 26,498th most popular site in the United States. That's in line with Secret.com, USANetwork.com, and HostessCakes.com. Which, granted, isn't a Top 10 sites or anything, but not bad for a county-specific site, in my opinion 
i remember when he use to say it was his hobby and didn't make money from it lol right It did used to be a hobby. But as I've pointed out earlier in the thread, the site has grown since then. A lot. It's well past the point of being a full time job now. The content on this site is a selling point?
Hey, advertise on my site if you're lucky, they will be trashing your competition. The smarter business will always put their marketing dollars where their customers are, and if they target Wilkes county residents then those customers are on GoWilkes.
The best selling point of all-time was overlooked.
Prank Call Of Cthulhu. :) Speaking of which, I saw a movie a few days ago about Cthulhu. Not a bad movie, but maybe a little bit of a rip off from the original Night of the Demons.
|
|
Prank Call Of Cthulhu
|
Posted 2:08 am, 12/13/2012
|
The best selling point of all-time was overlooked.
Prank Call Of Cthulhu. :)
|
|
islesurfer
|
Posted 1:23 am, 12/13/2012
|
"Other selling points are demographics, location, server up-time, and even content."
The content on this site is a selling point?
Hey, advertise on my site if you're lucky, they will be trashing your competition. 
|
|
Lee001
|
Posted 11:10 pm, 12/12/2012
|
those unique hits he keeps spewing is coming from search engines, he thinks this site is gold, i remember when he use to say it was his hobby and didn't make money from it lol right
|
|
ILoveChickens
|
Posted 8:55 am, 12/12/2012
|
To get back to the original question, I have had good success (personally) with running classifieds on gowilkes as opposed to poor luck on fb.
However, the company I work for cringes everytime they are mentioned on community voice because people will post flat-out untrue and inflammatory remarks that have hurt many a business in Wilkes.
For that reason, my employer chooses to stay as far away from gw as possible.
|
|
GoWilkes
|
Posted 2:32 am, 12/12/2012
|
Grayson, I'm simply at a loss. I don't know how to more effectively explain the meaning of a direct relationship to you.
By definition, a direct relationship is a relationship between two variables where an increase or decrease in one variables causes a proportionate change in the second variable. This is not the case between site traffic and revenue, because the changes aren't proportionate.
For example, we've had plenty of days where there was a burst in traffic (usually when a major event has occurred), but that had no impact on ad revenue. Or, it's just as possible that site traffic could go down, but ad revenue could still go up. This is because there's not a direct relationship.
Site traffic is a selling point, yes. Other selling points are demographics, location, server up-time, and even content. But none of those are in direct relation to revenue.
You may disagree with the definition, and if that's the case then I apologize for the confusion. But when I refer to a direct relationship, this is what I mean.
|
|
rh1962
|
Posted 2:09 am, 12/12/2012
|
Color me racist, but I'm anti-semantic
|
|
rh1962
|
Posted 2:05 am, 12/12/2012
|
Debating at it's finest! No insults (overtly) and a well thought out presentation of opinions.
Well done gents.
|
|
islesurfer
|
Posted 1:17 am, 12/12/2012
|
Who would have thought that Jason would say that GoWilkes would be the better place to advertise.
|
|
grayson
|
Posted 1:04 am, 12/12/2012
|
"prodive"
I don't suffer from dyslexia...I enjoy it.
|
|
grayson
|
Posted 1:02 am, 12/12/2012
|
"You are correct that you're mistaken:"
I'd disagree. I'd argue that there is a very logical reason why your bounce rate and your new user rate are so close. It seems reasonable to me to assume that it is because only .02% of the new user traffic actually move beyond the first page. But hey, thanks for putting forth the effort to prodive us with a link from GA to demonstrate the ins and out of your site-traffic only to provide us with yet another link to point out that the previous link's statistics were erroneously calculated and therefore misleading. (lol...seriously, that's kinda' humorous)
"Umm, no, I've ever once implied that we had 1.2 million new people per year. That's just ridiculous. In fact, I think I've made it very clear that I'm referring to monthly statistics."
I stand corrected again. The link that you provided to demonstrate the site growth boasted of 91,000 new users in the month provided...and that's just over 1,000,000/year.
(91,000 * 12 months = 1,092,000)
"No, because you're not accurately paraphrasing my earlier statements. In fact, I question whether you are being intentionally misleading, or if you simply do not understand what is being said."
I provided direct quotes from you reposted by you as a reference to my paraphrasing and I think that your statements speak for themselves.
"In this instance, you're overlooking specific keywords. In the statement: traffic doesn't directly influence any of the 4 sources of revenue" you are clearly overlooking or misunderstanding what I mean by "directly". I've never denied an indirect influence; naturally, as the site becomes more popular, we pick up more clients and advertisers (which I believe was made pretty clear when I replied to kathyb1976 earlier). But that doesn't imply a direct correlation, by any definition."
Are you serious? It's simple cause and effect dude. Advertisers are seeking out potential consumers. If there are no consumers, there are no advertisers. One doesn't have to have an advanced degree in marketing to crack that code. Once again, if there wasn't a direct correlation between site-traffic and advertisement, you wouldn't continuously remind potential advertisers of the site traffic. I can't even wrap my mind around why you'd even suggest that traffic doesn't directly influence revenue.
I'll tell you what, contact the folks over at CBS and try to buy an ad on CBS during the upcoming Superbowl at a regular prime-time rate. When they give you **** about it, just give them your crazy-*** spiel about traffic not having a DIRECT correlation to revenue and what not and see what their response is. If they'll concede that traffic doesn't directly impact revenue and sell you a 30-second Superbowl Ad at a regular prime-time rate, I'll do what I can to help you raise the pesos for the ad at the prime-time rate. However, until then, I'll maintain the same attitude that I imagine that CBS would respond with when you 'splain to them what the word "directly" means.
"That's not "semantics" or "blowing smoke", it's a simple matter of you misunderstanding the statement."
Yeah. I understand your statements and I'm still smelling smoke and feeling warm air flowing steadily against my sphincter.
|
|
hustler
|
Posted 12:02 am, 12/12/2012
|
I believe Jason done laid down the smackdown.
|
|
GoWilkes
|
Posted 11:59 pm, 12/11/2012
|
Be that as it may, the picture that you offer is a somewhat biased illustration. It is a small sample of the site's traffic
How do you figure that?
if I'm not mistaken, doesn't the "Bounce Rate" statistic (21.13) that is almost identical to your "New Visits" statistic "21.15" indicate that these "new" and "unique" visitors are essentially taking the proverbial wrong turn in Albuquerque and immediately correcting the issue- which is to say that, unless I am mistaken, it indicates that you are trying to take credit for people that land on the site by mistake and immediately leave. Unique "users" indeed...
You are correct that you're mistaken:
http://www.analytics-ninja....ified.html
If my inference is correct, I still have to stick by my original assessment that you are being a little less than honest about the site's traffic because the indication (as I understand it) is that the numbers that you are quoting are intended to mislead the potential customer to believe that over 1.2 million new people (willingly and intentionally) utilize the site (at least once) per year. Umm, no, I've ever once implied that we had 1.2 million new people per year. That's just ridiculous. In fact, I think I've made it very clear that I'm referring to monthly statistics.
Are you sure that I'm not paraphrasing as opposed to misquoting? Would you find my stating that you are trying to grossly minimize the impact of site-traffic for the purpose of this debate more appropriate? No, because you're not accurately paraphrasing my earlier statements. In fact, I question whether you are being intentionally misleading, or if you simply do not understand what is being said.
In this instance, you're overlooking specific keywords. In the statement:
traffic doesn't directly influence any of the 4 sources of revenue
you are clearly overlooking or misunderstanding what I mean by "directly". I've never denied an indirect influence; naturally, as the site becomes more popular, we pick up more clients and advertisers (which I believe was made pretty clear when I replied to kathyb1976 earlier). But that doesn't imply a direct correlation, by any definition.
That's not "semantics" or "blowing smoke", it's a simple matter of you misunderstanding the statement.
|
|
hustler
|
Posted 11:58 pm, 12/11/2012
|
|
|
|
grayson
|
Posted 11:57 pm, 12/11/2012
|
|
|
|
grayson
|
Posted 11:55 pm, 12/11/2012
|
For the record, on most days, I like Jason. This discussion is one that we've had before. For whatever reason, we don't see eye to eye on this issue. Like most of you, I enjoy the site as well- some times more than others, but still...
At any rate, one doesn't have to agree with someone else on every issue and I believe in being honest with people. For now, I'll tell Jason that he's trying to blow smoke up my rump and he'll 'splain to me that I'm being an uninformed jerk. At the end of the day, it's all gravy. Although we are each entitled to our individual prospective, it's his site and as such, I 'spect that he'll do what seems most right to him- as all good men will do.
|
|
grayson
|
Posted 11:17 pm, 12/11/2012
|
"I heerd about this guy with a mullet that drives a camaro too fast that likes to fight...i believe they call him grayson"
Why you's always gots to be outing me!!???
|
|
grayson
|
Posted 11:14 pm, 12/11/2012
|
"Sorry to disappoint, Grayson:"
You didn't disappoint me. At worst, I'm indifferent to your success; at best, I wish you well. Be that as it may, the picture that you offer is a somewhat biased illustration. It is a small sample of the site's traffic and, if I'm not mistaken, doesn't the "Bounce Rate" statistic (21.13) that is almost identical to your "New Visits" statistic "21.15" indicate that these "new" and "unique" visitors are essentially taking the proverbial wrong turn in Albuquerque and immediately correcting the issue- which is to say that, unless I am mistaken, it indicates that you are trying to take credit for people that land on the site by mistake and immediately leave. Unique "users" indeed...
If my inference is correct, I still have to stick by my original assessment that you are being a little less than honest about the site's traffic because the indication (as I understand it) is that the numbers that you are quoting are intended to mislead the potential customer to believe that over 1.2 million new people (willingly and intentionally) utilize the site (at least once) per year.
"Let's be accurate here, because you're grossly misquoting. The actual statement was..."
Are you sure that I'm not paraphrasing as opposed to misquoting? Would you find my stating that you are trying to grossly minimize the impact of site-traffic for the purpose of this debate more appropriate?
"If you had asked, though, I would have explained that GoNC has 4 sources of revenue: national ads, local ads, website design, and website hosting. Our goal is to be able to have a presence in each county in the state, which allows us to increase the revenue in all 4 facets."
First off, I'd like to point out that two of these four sources are associated with ads that you sell in-part by pointing out site traffic...and it is only reasonable to assume that those who advertise herein do so because they expect there to be enough traffic to warrant the venture. (i.e, when peeps advertise, they do so to market something to potential customers, not because it's a great way to spend their downtime)
Secondly, I'd assume that it is safe to say that a fair portion of your website hosting and design revenue is generated by folks that happen upon the services AFTER visiting this website- which means that website traffic herein also probably greatly influences the revenue generated via these services. (You know, in the same way that some folks may not have planned on having Subway Restaurant cater their Superbowl Party before seeing the sign advertised on the counter whilst buying a sub for lunch)
"You're assuming that the number of posts on a website is somehow proportional to the revenue of the site."
No. I wasn't assuming that. You were telling me what I was assuming in order to mount a defense against my stance. For the record, I imagine that there are a great many peeps that read the Community Voice regularly without posting.
"This isn't true at all; in fact, traffic doesn't directly influence any of the 4 sources of revenue."
Here's where the paraphrasing eluded to earlier generated from. This was my initial statement on this very thread...
I think that it's funny that Jason keeps spouting off (what I imagine to be greatly exaggerated) numbers on how many people visit this site, but not so long ago was arguing with me herein that the site's traffic doesn't really offer a meaningful contribution in so far as its relevance to the site's revenue*. He got all pissy with me when I pointed out that he was blowing smoke up everyone's rump by minimizing the importance of site traffic, but if site traffic is irrelevant, why does he keep referencing it when attempting to drum up business with potential advertisers? Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but if the "GoNC has 4 sources of revenue: national ads, local ads, website design, and website hosting" and "traffic doesn't directly influence any of the 4 sources of revenue," how are my previous statements regarding your blowing smoke up everyone's rump erroneous?
"I never said that the amount of traffic was irrelevant to the advertisers. I said that the number of posts on a website is not directly proportionate to the revenue of the site."
Yeah...that's just more misleading smoke in the form of semantics. You were the one suggesting that I was referencing the number of posts as opposed to site traffic on the thread that you're referring to. You've tried to do the same thing here when it should be obvious that I'm not referencing user participation, but user traffic. I feel as though I was relatively clear then, just as I do now. Also, I'm pretty sure that stating, "traffic doesn't directly influence any of the 4 sources of revenue" is clearly also not referencing user participation.
"I can say in all honesty that if we are able to grow according to plan, then there will be no less than 40 employees within the next 6 years. With the assistance of a grant, though, we can jump-start this by about 3 years."
Ya' got me. I stand corrected. I look forward to meeting the 40 employee workforce in 2018.
|
|
|
