As I said, the site is 2.x months old. It did not rank at all before.Originally Posted by hbonline
Thats a given, rankings bring traffic. Not the other way around.now you rank #2 but have traffic??
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.seems like your traffic got you to #2
#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.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!
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.You can assume the site above you gets more traffic and the sites below you get less.
Heads are good for other things than hat racks.
Sonds like some good Ganja.Seems like you just proved my point.
Read above comment.I just won in overtime :)
Once again, your theory holds no water and is not even remotely able to be intelligently defended.