rocketman421 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 (edited) interesting site: alexa.com like say here you can see scienceforums.net is ranked 96,329 and ~.0011% people who went on the internet yesterday visited this site, compared to 33.72% for google.com, yahoo.com was 1st and google was 2nd until ~2009 when it switched. google.com yahoo.com youtube.com facebook.com live.com msn.com blogger.com wikipedia.org baidu.com yahoo.co.jp myspace.com google.co.in google.de qq.com twitter.com microsoft.com rapidshare.com sina.com.cn bing.com google.fr Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThread closed. Edited July 20, 2009 by rocketman421 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Alexa rankings are really only useful if you're concerned about market share for a particular product. The overall ranking is not really an issue for anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Also, a comparison to google isn't really suitable in our case. A comparison should be for two similar sites; you can compare most sites to google and they'll seem tiny. However, if, in comparison to other scientific forums we are larger, then that turns the entire analysis over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman421 Posted July 21, 2009 Author Share Posted July 21, 2009 ok ok i'm sorry i realized this is stupid as soon as i posted it... compared to science madness: its a lot better than science madness: Rank: SF: 96,329 SM: 315,078 Visits: SF: 0.0011% SM: 0.00025% although i don't know how accurate it is, depending on the way they're calculated it must have some bias Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Also take into account that the ranking is out of all the sites alexa "follows", which is a whole lot of 'em. Being number 96,329 out of 100,000 is very low ranking, but being 96,329 out of hundreds of thousands or a few millions is quite a lot better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now