Google
 
Day 4 of the big commenting experiment

We have broken the great 50 unique hits! Slightly misleading, we have in total surpassed the magic 50, so far today we have only got 14. Probably minus 2 as I have been on the site from a couple of places, ah well, Rome wasn’t built in a day- although it looks like they could have spent more time on it ;-) Joke… I love Rome.

Anyway, looking at the referrals makes me wonder how we managed to get some hits, our best referral is from a website called graphics.com, god knows how, they are not part of this experiment and I can’t see a link on their site. Weird… However, they do stick around to read all the posts whoever they are, better than the John Chow people, they are off in a hurry! Guess I didn’t tell them how to make a million pounds by doing nothing so they left, darn.  I think although they might get me the most hits during the commenting stage, they won’t give me the quality that I am after, and that is readership! Tyler Cruz still gives us the longest average time on site with 1.16 although it doesn’t sound much there isn’t much on here to read yet ;-). Oh well, I am up on the top commenter’s board on a couple of sites so I guess I am working quite hard at this, we will have to see how good a tool this really is.

Speaking of tool ;-)

Tags:

RSS feed | Trackback URI

1 Comment »

Comment by pit
2008-04-29 20:22:53

Hey man,

You will see that commenting on other people’s blog is not really worth it. The traffic you get from it is minimal and it requires a lot of effort.

Instead, you should be looking at SEO and coining a few terms on google. The traffic that you will get from google will be much better for two reasons:
1) It will bring in more traffic
2) The traffic will keep coming

Cheers,

pit

 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.