4 ms·
89,094% Traffic Increase: Data on the Slashdot / Digg Effect
- swombat 18y agoYep, that matches up with my experience when my blog got slashdotted and dugg and all that. The thing they don't know yet is they'll get a good 2-800 daily hits from the residual effects of being linked by so many other sites, many months in the future.
- jfarmer 18y agoTraffic sharkfins aren't something to be proud of, really.
- brandnewlow 18y agoexplain. It's better than a sharp stick in the eye, right?
- jakestein 18y agoAgreed. I think it's unrealistic to hope that level of traffic from the first 2 days of being on slashdot and digg would continue. And it's clearly a good thing that our new company blog got lots of exposure. So I'd greatly prefer a sharkfin to a flatline. Especially since, as swombat suggested, we have been getting residual traffic as well.
- brk 18y agoVery true, not to mention the S/N ratio of Digg and Slashdot traffic (especially Digg traffic) is really pretty horrible. My personal experience (3 slashdottings about 5 years ago, 2 diggs and a techcrunch in the last year) are that those traffic spikes have very few nuggets of valuable hits in them.
- gojomo 18y agoTwo things that I wouldn't mention except that the source is a metrics company, and so these fine distinctions may be worth considering... () when reporting an 890x rise in traffic, precision to the percentile ("89,09_4_%") is a bit silly. Hell, I'd just round up to 900x. () the very idea of reporting the increase as a percentage or multiple is suspect; the peak traffic is not a function of the earlier traffic. Rather, it's an absolute spike based on keen interest in the article topic, and the arbitrary multiple tells us more about how small the pre-spike traffic was than the size of the slashdot/digg effect. The real number of interest is the absolute value: ~110K page views over the peak 3 days.