There's good traffic, and then there's bad traffic
by
on Friday, January 26, 2007
We all bow down to the gods of traffic, but the reality is that not all traffic is created equal. Perhaps if you’re selling junk page views to an ad network for rock-bottom prices, it’s all the same, but for most pages on most “quality” content sites, some kinds of traffic are definitely better than others.
Digg and other social news sites have captured the imagination of publishers because of the massive amounts of referral traffic that Digg in particular can drive, leading to the obvious comparisons to Google and search engine traffic. Danny Sullivan points out that, in terms of raw traffic, sites like Digg seem to beat out non-Google search engines. (TechCrunch’s referral sources was an important reference point.)
But mounting evidence suggests that Digg traffic in particular is less like networking with like-minded individuals at a social event and more like getting attacked by a pack of wild dogs, who leave nothing of value in their wake, other than lessons learned on closing comments and crashed servers.
I hadn't given it much thought about the type of traffic coming to a website, but in this interesting (and short) article, a distinction is made between “good” traffic (traffic that leads to sales, say, or people sticking around to view more of your site) and “bad” traffic (a ton of people who aren't interested in your site thundering through and possibly leaving rude comments in their wake).
It's one thing to have your website inundated with traffic (that the server may not be able to handle) with people that are interested in your site; it's another to have your server taken down by people that are overly critical. So, just because you can “digg it,” doesn't mean you want to be “dugged.”