Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Sorry about the name typo (<pre coffee excuse>). Although the absolute numbers are always wildly inaccurate, Compete tends to be fairly good at viewing the traffic trends for a site. Or does the chart look nothing like your own internal ones?


I'm not even sure that's true anymore. Compete's always low-balled my traffic numbers (at least in comparison to Google Analytics) but I have a fairly small blog so I've always given Compete a pass because I can understand why it would be harder for them to measure a site with only a modest readership.

But a couple months back I got linked to by Mathew Ingram and, while Michael Arrington was covering Mr. Ingram's post on Techcrunch he also shot me a link. As you can imagine that generated a huge bump. But Compete actually had my numbers trending down for that month (cut in half in fact) and the month after as well (which was completely contrary to my Analytics readings).

So now I don't even have much faith in the site for trending data.


Compete tends to be fairly good at viewing the traffic trends for a site

No it doesn't. Their graphs for Justin.TV traffic aren't even usually the same shape as the real thing.


Same with GitHub.


Same with Kongregate. Alexa is somewhat better. We use Quantcast's tracking pixel so you can see the real numbers.


The shape of the graph for grader.com is pretty close to the real thing (and eerily the same as Stackoverflow.com).

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/stackoverflow.com+grader.co...

(Which is surprising. Grader.com is nowhere near as useful).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: