18 December 2004

Aggregator ranking data: There are limits to their utility and usefulness

Bloggers: Who are you actually competing against?

Let's consider how many firms are using the "ranking" as a basis to negotiate advertising revenues. Here is the 97+/- most popular site on a random aggregator. That's right: just http:// ... without a complete URL.

No content. No valid links. Not taking you anywhere.

And...this blank-http://-link just moved a certain instant-poondit out of the top 100.

You still want to pour more money into aggregators giving you "this" kind of "information"?

You need better, independent data that measures more than rankings and link-backs, but something that actually tells you "whether there is content, eyeballs, and something that is sustainable."

I don't see it. I see empty URLs and high rankings. That makes no sense.
Bloggers: Who are you actually competing against?

Let's consider how many firms are using the "ranking" as a basis to negotiate advertising revenues. Here is the 97+/- most popular site on a random aggregator. That's right: just http:// ... without a complete URL.

No content. No valid links. Not taking you anywhere.

And...this blank-http://-link just moved a certain instant-poondit out of the top 100.

You still want to pour more money into aggregators giving you "this" kind of "information"?

You need better, independent data that measures more than rankings and link-backs, but something that actually tells you "whether there is content, eyeballs, and something that is sustainable."

I don't see it. I see empty URLs and high rankings. That makes no sense.
" />