Deception In Definition

From the beginning, the terminology to describe Web site visitor activity was almost deceptive by design. For example, the term “hits” refers to the combination of text content and graphical elements delivered to a browser. Specifically, if one of my columns contains text and 10 graphical images (or 5 graphical areas with Java rollover images), someone could say (without fear of contradiction) when the Web page is accessed it produces 11 “hits.” How crazy is that? By my definition, a visitor reading one column on the Web generates one page view. The weekly menu (the front door in net-parlance) or menu screen page views, because they do not qualify as articles, do not count in the million total. Alternately, one hears the term “unique visitor.” The software used to record visitor data (Web site activity is captured by the Web site host using activity logs) does not record each user with a distinct identity. For example, if someone goes to a public library and surfs the Web, the remote Web site has no idea who is visiting. Unique IP (Internet Protocol) addresses of individual visitors are captured via activity log entries. However, if Web site activity logs show 20 visits from say, Pakistan, the page view count is often much higher.

Search engine (SE) sites, like Google.com, cache busy Web sites. This means articles requested frequently will be stored (cached) on Google’s computers. Caching results in faster delivery of information. Google is one of the fastest SEs on the Web. When searchers use Google to find information about say, Spyware, Google’s computer will deliver a cached article (and graphics) directly instead of sending the user to The Newtown Bee or other Web site matching the search phrase. Caching results in undercounting of Web site activity. With the advent of SE caching, overzealous Web site owners had some justification for using “hits” instead of page views to describe activity.

Incentive To Inflate

When the Web was young and venture capital abundant, half-baked Web sites popped up all over cyberland. Lacking both guidelines and regulations, traffic figures given to investors and advertisers were provided in nebulous terms. The term “hits” became tightly coupled with Web site visits to an audience who desperately wanted to see wild activity through rose colored spectacles. Times have changed. The spring ‘00 collapse and consolidation of poorly performing Web sites blew fresh air into a fantasy land of so-called Web activity reporting. LA Times staff writer Joe Menn documented some of the many abuses in an April 17 article titled “Web Firms May Vastly Inflate Claims of ‘Hits’” (http://www.latimes.com/busine ss/updates/lat_traffic000417. htm).

Excellent read. Frankly, much of what Menn reports continues today. Here is a tip. Whenever Webmasters use “hits” to describe Web site action, they are probably covering up low activity on a poorly performing site.

In My Experience

The Web now sports over 200 million Web sites (and growing rapidly). Gaining recognition to attract visitors becomes harder by the minute. Attaining high page view activity results when a Web site offers consistently strong, fresh content, garners top SE placement (first or second page on Google, Hotbot/Lycos, AlltheWeb, and others) and draws visitors using links from other Web sites. The use of banner ads to increase activity has proven to have lost efficacy. Click-through (mouse clicking on the banner to reach an advertised destination) rates keep dropping. Have you clicked a banner ad in recent memory? The vast expanse of the Web has resulted in a diffused cyber landscape. High SE placement, once a guarantee of strong visitation, lost much of its punch to increase Web site activity. Well-funded sites (Iwon.com comes to mind) have resorted to giving away millions of dollars as a traffic builder. Will people still show interest when the money dries up? We will see.

A Million Here,

 A Million There

We return to the million page view mile-marker. Along the way, many people offered encouragement, fresh ideas, and appreciation at attempts to make the Internet understandable. When I started the column in May 1996, there was no Google, no Napster, no high speed cable access, no free phone, no free FAX, no eBay, no Carnivore, and very little spam. The Internet had lots of geeks, few women or people outside the US. E-mail was exclusively text based. Juno was a baby. Almost everyone used the Netscape browser. Pagejacking had not been invented. Stephen King only had dead trees available to print books. One thing is certain, plenty of new ideas await around every bend on the Information Superhighway. Thank you for reading “Internet Info for Real People.” It has been fun writing about the adventure.

URLs (Uniform Resource Locators) of interest: http://www.latimes.com/busines s/updates/lat_traffic000417.htm

(This is the 223rd of a series of elementary articles designed for surfing the Internet. Next, “eBay Power Sellers” is the subject on tap. Stay Tuned. Until next week, happy travels through cyberspace. Previous issues of Internet Info for Real People can be found: http://www.thebee.com. Please e-mail comments and suggestions: rbrand@JUNO.com or editor@thebee.com.)