Are Searchmetrics.com simply making this stuff up?
Or are they simply one of the many clueless companies out there who are good at tracking useless data?
They’ve published a list allegedly of the 100 best and worst performing websites after Google’s recent Farmer update, which Google confirmed rolled out across the UK on April 11th.
And Techwatch is listed as one of the worst performing websites, losing -78.27% of Google traffic according to their claims.
Yet here is our actual traffic data for April to date:
As is perfectly visibile, there is no sudden 78% fall in traffic from the week before - as claimed by Searchmatrics.com.
Sure, the stats aren’t that high - TW averages around 25-30k unique visitors per day, which among the Tech news sites might not be that huge.
But, hey, we’re a little independent publisher, and don’t have the support of a multi-million pound parent company as many tech news sites do.
And we’ve certainly not seen our traffic plummet as claimed.
Yet the BBC has just published a story built around the Searchmetrics.com data - and then curiously notes that Electricpig.co.uk, far from losting 94% of its traffic, has lost maybe 0.5%.
Dear anonymous BBC journalist - perhaps that was a clue that the data was not all that reliable. You might have wanted to consider that before publishing the story to the world’s biggest news company.
If this is an example of Searchmetrics.com’s “leading SEO analytics software” then it’s obviously a product right up there with pulling figures from a hat shoved up someone’s arse.
In the meantime, there are “lies, damn lies, and statistics”.
But it would be nicer if journos didn’t claim a whole slew of businesses were being killed by Google - all on the grounds of a single blog post by a new business publishing data it doesn’t even explain how it developed.