4 ms·
The problem is: Are all 499 sites above them measured the same way? And all the ones below? The answer is no, of course. Most sites don't run the QC tracking p
by chaosmachine 16y ago
The problem is: Are all 499 sites above them measured the same way? And all the ones below?
The answer is no, of course. Most sites don't run the QC tracking pixel. That makes any ranking they give fairly questionable, in my mind.
- citricsquid 16y agocase in point, we (http://minecraftforum.net http://minecraftforum.net & http://minecraftwiki.net http://minecraftwiki.net) have 60m page views per month (as Stackoverflow does -- according to Joel) and we're nowhere near the top 500 according to QC.
- df07 16y agoThe ranking is based on visitors, not page views. Based on the graphs posted a few weeks ago at http://imgur.com/a/haHHz http://imgur.com/a/haHHz, it looks like you have about 2.8 million unique visitors per month to SO's 8.6 million in Quantcast
- citricsquid 16y agoThis is uniques? Ah, that changes things then ha. Although none of those graphs there list our uniques (I don't think? Don't match the figures I have here and GA calls them "Uniques" explicitly, they're visitors in those graphs) we are definitely lower than the 8m SO has. I checked, the graphs you linked are visits. As of today our visits is at just shy of 11,000,000. Edit: Ah, you're right. I see, under "visitors". Yeah, that looks about right, we have closer to 3m uniques. So many different terms in stats :D I wonder what the value of uniques vs. page views is.
- mrkurt 16y agoUniques are what count for big ad campaigns. Well, mostly. Uniques get the campaigns which you then have to fulfill with pageviews.