Well, obviously it shouldn't be used as the sole
way of making a decision,
but if it has a high Alexa rank, it means a lot of people who use that Alexa
toolbar visit the site. That should give some indication. Also, if none of
them visit a certain site that says something as well.
Google is often useless as well, because of it's sensitivity to being
googlebombed and abused in other ways.
One shouldn't use any single indicator alone to make a decision.
Mgm
On 10/1/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> G'day David,
>
>> Given the number of people who seem to use Alexa 'rankings' as the basis
>> of an Afd decision on website articles, I thought you guys might be
>> interested in this article:
>>
>>
http://www.johnchow.com/index.php/why-alexa-is-worthless/
>>
>> It has been clear for a long time that Alexa 'rankings' are utter crap,
>> as they are based not on website visitors and links (as Google or Yahoo
>> rankings are) but on the activities of those infected with Alexa's
>> spyware-esque toolbar.
> Pray allow me to be the first to drop the facade of maturity and cry
> out: "Well, DUH!"
>
> Alexa is now, always has been, and almost certainly will be in the
> future, utterly useless ... their rankings *and* their stupid little
> toolbar. Anyone silly enough to take the rankings at face value needs
> to be whacked with a Cluebat.
>
>
> --
> Mark Gallagher
> "I've got to start listening to those quiet, nagging doubts."
> -- Calvin & Hobbes
Unlike Alexa, the thing with Google is that you can skim through some of
the results and see if a lot of them are the result of spamming or
googlebombing. If so, you can often refine your search to exclude such
pages. I use Google a lot in getting an idea of how notable the subject
of a new article is, because I can see what kinds of sites mention it.
--
Minh Nguyen <mxn(a)zoomtown.com>
[[en:User:Mxn]] [[vi:User:Mxn]] [[m:User:Mxn]]
AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn(a)myjabber.net; Blog: