RE: Killing caches (was RE: Pay-Per-Click Question)

From: Alex Chudnovsky <alexc_at_jungle.com>
Date: Tue 05 Jun 2001 14:31:34 -0500

RON SHERIDAN <ron_at_ronsheridan.com> WROTE:

> I've always found Alexa numbers to very reliable.
> Accuracy is another thing.

Now thats interesting, its reliable but not accurate?
Well, if its not accurate (which I questioned in the
first place), then whats the point of its
"reliability"? Reliably inaccurate is only good if
you know exactly by what margin they are inaccurate,
somehow I think their margin of error is far far from
being a constant (ie different for different sites),
and thus their numbers can be VERY misleading.

Read on to see why their numbers had 0 value for me.

> They track a user base that has installed the Alexa
> "browser buddy" app, and is using it at any given point
> in time.

Yes, I am aware of that, and this method of tracking
doesnt' inspire big confidence in me. To put it simply
there are far too many factors that would influence
people to install this app. Some sites (no names but
you can easily find them) actively promote Alexa's
app, which surely booosts their ratings because this
app gets downloaded by people who visit YOUR site.

> I tell my clients the Alexa numbers are representative
> and when used to compare one site to another with
> respect to traffic they are pretty solid.

How do you know numbers are "solid"? Well, would you
mind telling me what makes Alex's number REPRESENTATIVE
of WHOLE internet? Their research methods totally
depend on people's desire to download their tracking
client software. This is even worse than choosing a
random focus group, clearly their numbers are ONLY
representative in respect to those people who downloaded
their client. Now, these people might well be
representative for YOUR site, I however found that they
are completely irrelevant to ours.

Unfortunately Alexa seemed to have discontinued their
free service, so I cant check out current numbers,
however, a few months back I checked their stats,
and I could not even find "jungle.com" in their list.
While we can argue to death which site has more
visitors, there is a general consensus
that our site (Top 10 UK etail site in MediaMetrix for
many months) is highly trafficked one, so its absense
from Alexa's ratings was rather telling, at least
for me. Whats more I find many of their numbers are,
shall we say, "strange" looking.

I have access to our log files, so I can (and do)
check all numbers myself.

> I've not found anytiing else with the same reach and
> relevance.

Well, I'd say MediaMetrix's data look a lot more accurate.
Their focus group approach does seem to be alot more
credible for me. Sure their data costs money, and you
have to pay on obtain information,

Don't get me wrong, I am not jealous that someone got
in Alexa's list, and we didn't, its just already
questionable methods of their research proved to be
seriously flawed, and thus I questioned their OTHER
numbers.

Regards,

Alex Chudnovsky



Received on Tue Jun 05 2001 - 14:31:34 CDT