13
$\begingroup$

What fraction of visitors first find the site via Google, other search engines, links from other sites, tips from friends or colleagues, etc.?

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I reached Cross Validated from Stack Overflow. And I reached SO from a colleague tip. $\endgroup$ – Andre Silva Feb 1 '15 at 18:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I first got to Cross Validated because Rob Hyndman mentioned it somewhere (likely on his blog); it's possible I saw it pointed to by another blog, or on one of the stats groups on reddit (but I'm pretty sure it was a direct message by Rob that I saw so if it was reddit he may have posted there) - this is while it was still in beta. (I was already on SO.) I came and checked out the beta, and made an account at some point or other. Then after a little activity I pretty much forgot about it for a while (nearly 18 months I think). Then I realized I hadn't looked in a long time and came back. $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Feb 2 '15 at 23:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Silverfish's answer was quite interesting. Would still like to hear from anyone with access to site statistics. $\endgroup$ – rolando2 Feb 4 '15 at 13:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Google sent me here $\endgroup$ – Aksakal Feb 4 '15 at 15:10
11
$\begingroup$

I cannot tell you how people first find this site, but I can share some statistics provided I am not too "specific." During the lifetime of this site (including pre-beta and beta phases, up through the beginning of February 2015, four and a half years in),

  • A strong majority of visits were referred by search engines.

  • Half of the rest were referred from other sites. Most of these were google.com or stackoverflow.com.

  • The remainder were direct traffic.

Most of the search engine visits used an unknown search term. The most popular search phrases among those that are known include "statistics stackexchange" and "statistics stack exchange," which perhaps should be considered "direct traffic." But these are a tiny fraction of the new visits.


Here are some related numbers to ponder. Most of them can be gleaned from information readily available to anybody.

As anyone who looks at our main page can tell, we have had 50,000 questions asked. The number of answers posted is almost the same. These are a minuscule fraction of all visits.

I don't have information on the number of comments posted, but would guess there would be several times as many as the number of questions plus answers: perhaps a half million total, just a few percent of all visits. (Some of us average many comments per visit, btw. :-)

The total number of votes (up, down, accepted, etc.) is roughly 1.5% of the number of visits.

The number of edits is less than 10% of the total number of posts--very few posts are edited by the community.

The vast majority of visits therefore involve passive interaction only: no posting or voting of any kind.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Thank you very much. I wonder why and by whom you are enjoined from being more specific on some points. I'm also curious as to why you don't count google.com as a search engine (did you really mean that?). $\endgroup$ – rolando2 Feb 5 '15 at 0:16
  • $\begingroup$ @rolando2 The database separately reports on search engines--of which Google is by far the major contributor--but also lists "google.com" as a "referring site" (albeit with a tiny fraction of the referrals). I couldn't tell you what distinguishes the two kinds of referrals. I am enjoined by the SE team from sharing the "specifics" of the statistics to which I, as a moderator, have easy access. (But many of these are available, with a little time lag, to anyone willing to write a little SQL transaction against the SE database.) $\endgroup$ – whuber Feb 9 '15 at 20:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Looking over the last 60 weeks, comments per week typically run at something around 3-4 times the rate of questions per week (sometimes up to 5x), while they are typically at around 3.5-5 times the rate of answers per week. $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Feb 9 '15 at 22:25
6
$\begingroup$

Possibly this should be a comment rather than an answer as I do not have access to any site statistics, but judging from traffic levels to questions I have asked or observed, it seems there are several different audiences who come across the content.

I have asked several questions whose viewing figures are low, averaging just a handful of views per day, but almost all those views occurred in a couple of spikes: these occurred when there was activity that promoted the question to the main page for a few hours, or sometimes (e.g. on reporting Welch degrees of freedom) over a couple of days when I put a bounty on. My guess is that most of these viewers were regular SE users, probably registered and occasional contributors on CV.

Questions which make it to the "popular questions" sidebar across SE sites also seem to get a boost in traffic but generally temporary and in the hundreds. I'm guessing the boost mostly comes from SE users who are not CV regulars.

I recently received the "famous question" (10,000 views) for Real life examples of distributions with negative skewness. That came within one year of the question being asked, which judging by other "famous questions" (browse the full list here) is a fairly short but by no means record period of time - some examples take a couple of years to accrue the pageviews. Such traffic is implausible from internally generated traffic and I think it's safe to presume very few readers are registered SE users. In that case it is very likely that the traffic is search engine based: when I search google, that question is 2nd ranked for "negative skew example", 3rd for "skewed distribution example", a front-page result for "skew example" and "negative skew" and has even reached the third page for the very wide search-term "skewed distribution".

This is an indication of the effectiveness of SE at SEO! It also suggests we are writing for different audiences at different times. I think for a lot of the more technical and obscure content our users are basically writing at and for each other. But other content that has a wider and more general audience, which perhaps ought to change the way we approach it. On realising so many people were making use of my question I recently copy-edited it down to make it more useful and readable (~20% reduction in wordcount). While I was tempted to delete some of my initial discussion of examples of symmetric and positively skewed distributions, I realised that since the search engine rank was so high for "skew" and not just "negative skew", for many of the search-engine landers that content might actually have been what they were looking for! Presumably questions like this figuring highly in search results increases awareness of the site but I don't know how this works in terms of conversions to new users.

Other questions have had big spikes in pageviews due to sharing of links on external sites, but at least sharing by our own users seems to only account for a handful of the 369 "famous questions". Compare the publicity badges:

  • Announcer - shared a link to a question that was visited by 25 unique IP addresses, 249 awarded
  • Booster - shared a link to a question that was visited by 300 unique IP addresses, 12 awarded
  • Publicist - shared a link to a question that was visited by 1000 unique IP addresses, 3 awarded

It would also be interesting to know whether such external traffic spikes are temporary. Obviously even CV users could share a "plain" link to the question that doesn't identify them as the referrer, and people who are not registered on CV could not use this option, and none of this is tracked on the badge system. A couple of questions have been reddited for instance.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "I think it's safe to presume very few readers are registered SE users." - I think that's a very safe bet. The "people helped" prototype query that's planned to be used (likely in some modified form) on the new user pages (whenever they happen) - a measure which is based on views - put me at well over a million "people helped" (and several users have much larger figures than that). There's no way SE registered users generate those sort of stats. Many more people than are currently users are seeing what we do $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Feb 3 '15 at 0:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Glen_b I think it's worth distinguishing between "registered users" and more general "users" (i.e. people who use the site, but "lurk" rather than contribute, and are not registered) against a wider pool search-engine arrivals or people who arrive by link, but probably see a smaller fraction of our content. While it's true that "Many more people than are currently users are seeing what we do", my impression is that's concentrated on a very small fraction of questions. $\endgroup$ – Silverfish Feb 3 '15 at 0:13
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah, I'd say that's right. $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Feb 3 '15 at 0:16
  • $\begingroup$ @Glen_b Just to clarify (though I think you got the impression from my post), I don't simply mean that some questions have more page-views than others - clearly they do - but that the audience composition varies substantially from question to question. Questions which don't rate highly in SEO and are not link targets presumably have almost entirely internal traffic. $\endgroup$ – Silverfish Feb 3 '15 at 0:16
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It's interesting that in spite of >10000 views on that question, no answer has more than 6 upvotes, and the question only has 10. That does suggest almost all those views are non-active users. At least a few of those viewers will look around and become interested in the site. $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Feb 3 '15 at 0:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .