5 ms·
They just got 20 times the amount of page views though. If they provided a list that means you could have skipped through and decreased their page views.
by transition 16y ago
They just got 20 times the amount of page views though. If they provided a list that means you could have skipped through and decreased their page views.
- dansingerman 16y agoReally? I stopped at the second one and decided to read this thread instead (where the currently top voted comment is a pertinent summary)
- haribilalic 16y agoThat's still twice the page views that they would have received if it was all on one page.
- dansingerman 16y agoBut way less user engagement / time on site / likelihood of me coming back
- icefox 16y agoA data point to back this up: after reading high quality articles presented in a good fashion I have actually typed in and gone to http://www.theatlantic.com/ http://www.theatlantic.com/. This was a good article presented as if it was on aol.
- iisbum 16y agoI wish people would stop worrying about page views, its a broken metric, always has been.
- mgkimsal 16y agoIt's not a broken metric when you're selling ad impressions on each page view. It's how you make money.
- iisbum 16y agoi understand that's how ads are sold, but it does doesn't work. the numbers are inaccurate, varying wildly depending on how you measure it (web server logs, analytics, etc), and its a horrible way for advertiser to measure ROI.
- mgkimsal 16y agoi don't think it's horrible, it's just not the only way. "display advertising" isn't going away. just because someone doesn't click on something (or otherwise 'engage') at the moment of viewing doesn't mean that it was wasted. People remember stuff, and often won't act until they see something 8-10 times. Just because there are other ways of measuring doesn't mean that using 'impressions' to gauge ROI is 'horrible'.