Take the 2-minute tour ×
Webmasters Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for pro webmasters. It's 100% free, no registration required.

there is quite extensive discussion about this topic on another website and I am really losing my confidence. The thing is that I claim that the amount (count) of visits is NOT a criteria for increasing the PR of the particular web because:

a) Google just doesn't know about every single visit on a webpage (in case it's not using GA)

b) Google just would not rate by something what Google actually affects

Thanks for your opinions.

Peter.

share|improve this question
add comment

3 Answers 3

up vote 5 down vote accepted

As @John stated your logic is correct. I'll add that even with Google Analytics, Google wouldn't try to correlate and analyze the traffic data from it to affect your ranking because GA is just another web service. I just don't see them using it to analyze your sites.

share|improve this answer
1  
+1 - If they did have this in place, then they would have T&C in place stating that artificially inflating your stats is against the rules. As it stands if you inflate your stats the only person you're tricking is yourself. –  Mark Henderson Oct 7 '10 at 1:12
add comment

No. They do not. And your logic is spot on.

  • They don't know how much traffic any sites gets unless it is using Google Analytics which is only a tiny portion of all websites.

  • Traffic is not an indicator of content quality or relevance.

  • It can be easily manipulated. You can have your own bots reload your pages constantly or run an ad campaign that boosts your traffic. Or just trick people in coming to your site. A visit is a visit.

  • It's a self fulfilling prophecy. Sites that rank #1 in Google will get more traffic then the sites below it. As a result it will get more traffic which will help keep it ranked above the other sites.

  • It doesn't take into account how long someone was on a page. If someone visited the page and then immediately left because they didn't like it or it wasn't what they were looking for it still would be a visit.

Update

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks, sounds reasonably. Btw., what's the "spot on" expression, you have used? English is not my native language, so maybe you could explain that. :-) Thanks and sorry for off-topic question. –  petiar Oct 6 '10 at 13:50
2  
"Spot on" is a slang term meaning "absolutely right", "extremely accurate", or "exactly correct". :) –  John Conde Oct 6 '10 at 13:58
    
I think the "self fulfilling prophecy" point is the most valid. For nearly all sites, the rank on Google determines the amount of traffic a site gets. The opposite would not make sense. –  DisgruntledGoat Oct 7 '10 at 13:40
1  
Also Matt Cutts answered the Analytics question specifically: youtube.com/watch?v=CgBw9tbAQhU Of course there are other sources of traffic stats like Alexa but it's implied that Google do not use any traffic stats in ranking anyway. –  DisgruntledGoat Oct 7 '10 at 13:41
    
Traffic is not an indicator of content quality or relevance. is true for many many other spectra of life too, like television broadcasting/viewers statistics, visitors to architecturally recognised buildings, neighbourhood cooking workshops, sporting events and other cultural activities... Albeit that quality measurement is also a subjective measurement, too. –  Sam Jan 31 '11 at 23:13
add comment

I have read that some use the iMacros Firefox/IE browser addon to simulate traffic.

Does it work? Some claim yes, but did never try it myself.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.