Comments on: Are pageviews obsolete? Evan Williams thinks so… http://www.blogherald.com/2006/08/29/are-pageviews-obsolete-evan-williams-thinks-so/ The leading source of news covering social media and the blogosphere. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:18:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jessica Doyle http://www.blogherald.com/2006/08/29/are-pageviews-obsolete-evan-williams-thinks-so/comment-page-1/#comment-113853 Jessica Doyle Thu, 31 Aug 2006 06:20:57 +0000 http://www.blogherald.com/2006/08/29/are-pageviews-obsolete-evan-williams-thinks-so/#comment-113853 It would be nice to have a measurment that valued a site on grammer, interaction with commenters, regular updates (whether weekly, daily, monthly etc) and above all the content. I would like to see companies/individuals etc sponsor websites simply through a logo placement on a blog. This kind of sponsorship paid per month or better per year or bi-monthly could be ideal for many long-tail bloggers. I need to think on this more but wouldn't it be cool if companies (big ones) realized that they could gain by supporting bloggers who perhaps use their product or post about it a lot. This wouldn't be a pay-per-post type thing. It would just be a static logo that stays put for agiven amount of time. There are so many products that people <em>do not</em> purchase online but research online or could be simply reminded (targeted) by a simple logo placement. It would be nice to have a measurment that valued a site on grammer, interaction with commenters, regular updates (whether weekly, daily, monthly etc) and above all the content.

I would like to see companies/individuals etc sponsor websites simply through a logo placement on a blog. This kind of sponsorship paid per month or better per year or bi-monthly could be ideal for many long-tail bloggers. I need to think on this more but wouldn’t it be cool if companies (big ones) realized that they could gain by supporting bloggers who perhaps use their product or post about it a lot. This wouldn’t be a pay-per-post type thing. It would just be a static logo that stays put for agiven amount of time. There are so many products that people do not purchase online but research online or could be simply reminded (targeted) by a simple logo placement.

]]> By: iface thoughts » Blog Archive » Why Is The Web Quantitative? http://www.blogherald.com/2006/08/29/are-pageviews-obsolete-evan-williams-thinks-so/comment-page-1/#comment-113760 iface thoughts » Blog Archive » Why Is The Web Quantitative? Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:04:57 +0000 http://www.blogherald.com/2006/08/29/are-pageviews-obsolete-evan-williams-thinks-so/#comment-113760 [...] The number game has kept us looking for better alternatives but ended up in the same model, now even page views are considered obsolete (via The Blog Herald). The numbers don’t guarantee interaction, they don’t guarantee usage, and they don’t guarantee participation. But they are still considered, because they are the easiest to measure. We try to measure a site by measuring its metrics. The numbers can merely indicate popularity. The three keywords being can, indicate and popularity. No quality! [...] [...] The number game has kept us looking for better alternatives but ended up in the same model, now even page views are considered obsolete (via The Blog Herald). The numbers don’t guarantee interaction, they don’t guarantee usage, and they don’t guarantee participation. But they are still considered, because they are the easiest to measure. We try to measure a site by measuring its metrics. The numbers can merely indicate popularity. The three keywords being can, indicate and popularity. No quality! [...]

]]> By: Starked SF, Unforgiving News from the Bay » Blog Archive » Talk of the Town: Hump Day http://www.blogherald.com/2006/08/29/are-pageviews-obsolete-evan-williams-thinks-so/comment-page-1/#comment-113738 Starked SF, Unforgiving News from the Bay » Blog Archive » Talk of the Town: Hump Day Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:37:33 +0000 http://www.blogherald.com/2006/08/29/are-pageviews-obsolete-evan-williams-thinks-so/#comment-113738 [...] Are Pageviews Obsolete? [...] [...] Are Pageviews Obsolete? [...]

]]> By: John Evans (SYNTAGMA) http://www.blogherald.com/2006/08/29/are-pageviews-obsolete-evan-williams-thinks-so/comment-page-1/#comment-113646 John Evans (SYNTAGMA) Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:25:19 +0000 http://www.blogherald.com/2006/08/29/are-pageviews-obsolete-evan-williams-thinks-so/#comment-113646 And a media company may have other publishing interests outside its Web presence. If these are linked in and cross-fertilizing it becomes impossible to decide on the value of a network from it's face in pixels. And a media company may have other publishing interests outside its Web presence. If these are linked in and cross-fertilizing it becomes impossible to decide on the value of a network from it’s face in pixels.

]]> By: Tony http://www.blogherald.com/2006/08/29/are-pageviews-obsolete-evan-williams-thinks-so/comment-page-1/#comment-113570 Tony Wed, 30 Aug 2006 04:53:08 +0000 http://www.blogherald.com/2006/08/29/are-pageviews-obsolete-evan-williams-thinks-so/#comment-113570 I think this is what drove advertisers to a more better model for a return on their investment; who cares if a website has a bajillion unique visitors. If I was a prospective advertiser what I ultimately care about -- and you're bang on -- is how many widgets am I going to sell if I spend whatever amount of dollars on your website. The incidental number of eyeballs which pass through are almost irrelevant; they serve as a surrogate for the number of click throughs, which serve as a surrogate for how many "actions" are taken, which serve as a surrogate for all KINDS of things -- but ultimately, its a surrogate for sales. That's why I thought advertisers post web1.0 bubble were moving away from pageviews all that sort of nonesense and moving towards, at least, pay per click marketing ... that way you'd only really pay for clicks on your banner (or paid search) rather than just a viewing. And ultimately, I thought it was evolving into pay per "action" -- not even concerned with clicking through on your banner ... but with whatever they do after -- newsletter signup, freebie signup, download a free music track or whatever. Well far for it for the web2.0 to learn from the lessons of the first bubble ... ... after all, we'll always have dead2.0 (which is really an evolution of the fuckedcompany) ... :) Cheers t @ dji I think this is what drove advertisers to a more better model for a return on their investment; who cares if a website has a bajillion unique visitors.

If I was a prospective advertiser what I ultimately care about — and you’re bang on — is how many widgets am I going to sell if I spend whatever amount of dollars on your website.

The incidental number of eyeballs which pass through are almost irrelevant; they serve as a surrogate for the number of click throughs, which serve as a surrogate for how many “actions” are taken, which serve as a surrogate for all KINDS of things — but ultimately, its a surrogate for sales.

That’s why I thought advertisers post web1.0 bubble were moving away from pageviews all that sort of nonesense and moving towards, at least, pay per click marketing … that way you’d only really pay for clicks on your banner (or paid search) rather than just a viewing.

And ultimately, I thought it was evolving into pay per “action” — not even concerned with clicking through on your banner … but with whatever they do after — newsletter signup, freebie signup, download a free music track or whatever.

Well far for it for the web2.0 to learn from the lessons of the first bubble …

… after all, we’ll always have dead2.0 (which is really an evolution of the fuckedcompany) … :)

Cheers
t @ dji

]]>