Green Grass still isn't growing

[williamc]

williamc Wrote:And it had virtually 50 hits a day before it got ranked. Of course it now has traffic as it is #2. But it did not have before then.

hmmm...
you were getting traffic before?? (where did you rank before, before??)

As I said, the site is 2.x months old. It did not rank at all before.

now you rank #2 but have traffic??

Thats a given, rankings bring traffic. Not the other way around.

seems like your traffic got you to #2

Incorrect. Proper optimization and relevant IBL's got it to #2. Google has no way of seeing inside my sites stats to determine what traffic I had. Google has also stated analytics data is not used in rankings, which by itself puts your theory in the trash bin. Further, if my traffic had got me to #2, then I would have never gotten there, as in #3 I had less traffic that the previous #2 site would have had.

plus you rank a very high 38,000 in Alexa which indicates you are getting a ton of traffic, which warrents you in a #2 slot. and according to Marketleap.com you have a ton of inbound links at over 7,800 seems like you are a traffic machine, Good Job!

I checked the other sites in google with your keywords and guess what?? the site above you has an Alexa ranking higher than you at 5,800 which is why it is #1 and the sites below you are 178,000 and 805,000 You happen to be #2 in traffic!

#1 hint: Alexa is worthless as far as their ratings go. The data is 100% skewed. Their rankigns come from only users using their toolbar which is a low figure. Not to mention that the figure is further skewed by the fact that it is mainly webmasters using the toolbar so that webmaster sites get better rankings comparatively. Basing anything on alexas data is setting yourself up for a large disapointment.

You can assume the site above you gets more traffic and the sites below you get less.

It is a known factor that the #1 serps gets the lions share of googles traffic, and that #3 gets proportionately less than #1 or #2. If google used click data for rankigns those serps would never change. When the site was #3 it got less traffic than #2, however it took #2 anyway.

Heads are good for other things than hat racks.

Seems like you just proved my point.

Sonds like some good Ganja.

I just won in overtime :)

Read above comment.

Once again, your theory holds no water and is not even remotely able to be intelligently defended.

[hbonline]

You are going around in circles, I bet if your site was not getting the traffic it would not rank as high.

That's why it's a catch 22 you need traffic to get rankings, and the high rankings perpetuate your ranking in the search engine, by getting you traffic.

Like I said show me a site that has no traffic that ranks high. Yours is not an example of that. You get tons of traffic, and rank high that's the way it works.

If you think rankings in search engines are the only way of getting traffic your really trippin. You should be aware of that since you have 7800 inbound links if you get just one click from each of those sites a day you would be getting 234,000 visits a month! you don't need a high ranking to get traffic.

[williamc]

Like I said show me a site that has no traffic that ranks high. Yours is not an example of that. You get tons of traffic, and rank high that's the way it works.

No, that is not the way it generally works.

The site I showed is an exact example of that. It went from no traffic and no rankings, to rankings. Period. It ranked before it had any real traffic. It really is that simple.

Your theory is worthless.

As for search engines being the only way to get traffic, I actually preach against that theory the same as you. However that is not what we were talking about. We were specifically talking about a site ranking with no traffic. ArticleSender did exactly that months ago. What it has NOW does not matter in the least. What mattered when it first started ranking did.

Also you obviously did not read the marketleap report very well, as the number 7800 is an aggregate total of links across all search engines that their service scans. That is not the actual number of links the site has.

[SPC2]

hbonline. Please stop wasting people's time with silly statements and arguments about a site's traffic getting it ranked well. It only takes 2 or 3 brain cells to realise how silly that idea is.

Sorry to be so blunt, but I see no point in explaining something that is as plain and obvious as the proverbial nose on your face as that is, and silly ideas like that only serve to confuse poeple who really don't know about it.

[Mel]

Where on earth did anyone get the idea that without traffic you cannot get rankings????


Think about it for just 30 seconds - If the high ranking sites are getting virtually all the traffic and the high traffic sites are getting the rankings then the serps would never change and the rich would only get richer and new sites could never rank.

WilliamC has clearly shown that new sites can rank and of course once they rank they start getting traffic, but do not believe for one moment that Alexa is a true or even fair approximation of the amount of traffic a site really has.

TRAFFIC IS NOT NECESSARY FOR RANKINGS, BUT IT DOES COME WHEN YOU HAVE RANKINGS

[janeth]

I'm going to build me a dating site.

Then I'm going to sit here and refresh my browser until it ranks #1 for dating.

Does anyone know how long this will take?

[williamc]

I'm going to build me a dating site.

Then I'm going to sit here and refresh my browser until it ranks #1 for dating.

Does anyone know how long this will take?

Well, your finger would be rubbed down to the bone before it happened :P

[aaron2005]

all joking aside, traffic does increase activity in the engines when people post comments in my blog. that is just one fraction of the whole pie. My new blog seobuzzbox shows no signs of sandbox and is competing well with the old boys.

BUT I got a pet site that is over a year old, I didn't see any movement until 11 months and it still has a long way to go. Huge competition in the pet market for sure and when you finally make it to #20 in Google you got a pile of very old sites whoring single pages ranking better than your entire god damn site dedicated to the freakin subject, follow me? ;)

Vaneth rocks!

[williamc]

all joking aside, traffic does increase activity in the engines when people post comments in my blog.

Yes, but that is due to fresh content, which we know spiders like, not the traffic count itself. You could have exactly 3 visitors daily total who post a comment each and get the same effect.

[williamc]

Hoptoo exactly.