Replies

Actually for your conclusion to be valid, the assumption has to be that the traffic to Drudge Report would be declining (over half would decline to return due to the popups)

Only if everybody who visited Drudge's website in the entire period from Feb to Jul had done so for the first time in their lives on Feb. Otherwise, the first time hits from the 70% who do not come back will be uniformly distributed across the months from Feb to Jul and, when combined the 30% who continue to return throughout the entire period after comming the first time, cause an increase in traffic.

What evidence is there to support this article?

"A study, commissioned by Hostway, a Chicago-based Web site hosting service,"

Now, I'm going to ask you for the last time, do you have any data to post that actually backs up your statement or are you just trying to cover for your first stupid comment by posting random statistics that you can't logically link to your claim?

Indeed, your point might have carried just a tiny portion of weight if MyWay maintained a similar or better line than DrudgeReport. Instead, you completely ignored that two news portals with two completely separate theories for revenue stream, one in compliance with the assertions of the article, the other in opposition, resulted in real world data that the one not in compliance increased their traffic by a million readers, vs the one in compliance which lost a million readers.

Drudge not acceptable? Let's try the NY Times vs MyWay.com The NY Times has popups, interstatial advertising, required registration and a pay component. MyWay has none of this.

The page views do not change significantly for either of them.

MyWay.Com vs LaTimes.com - the LA Times website includes banner advertisements, flash animations and required registration. Statistically a flat line over time.

You don't agree? Wonderful. Don't care. Once the conversation degrades to assertions of stupidity, it isn't worth continuing. Perhaps others might find the graphs interesting.