The hypothesis — that Web 2.0 is "over and out" — rests on a few charts from the popular Amazon-owned measurement service. According to Alexa, sites such as Techcrunch, Michael Arrington's highly influential tech news and reviews title, are on the decline. His reach, according to the Alexa chart, has dipped from about 0.30% of web users at Techcrunch's peak in November, to about 0.22% last month. Other specialist web news sites have shown similiar falls.
Seemingly conclusive. Except that Alexa is totally unreliable. It has long overstated the audience for the geekiest sites because the readers of those sites, who include many web marketers, are more likely to have Alexa's toolbar installed on their machines, and so show in the company's sample. But, now, not even the trend lines can be trusted.
A source at Alexa says all US sites are being handicapped, because of an explosion in use of their toolbar in China and India. It's not clear how much this is to do with genuine growth in internet use in those countries, or downloads of the unit's toolbar by Asian spammers. In any case, the effect is to dilute the reach of US sites as measured by Alexa. Only the most rapidly growing, such as Wikipedia, are holding their own.
The proof is easy. Techcrunch, bravely, publishes its own traffic stats, as measured by a Sitemeter tracker. The site continues to grow, reaching a record 3.4m pageviews in January during the tech trade show season, nearly 60% above its level of August 2006, as the chart shows below. Since November, Alexa's estimate of Techcrunch's audience has declined by 26%; its actual traffic has increased by the same percentage. Alexa is wrong.

Despite the methodological amateurishness, Rip's item seems to have touched a nerve; the post is the talk of other weblogs and news sites. Expect to see a batch of print articles on the coming backlash.
For the hype to be punctured so accidentally would be poetic. It was Alexa's inflated numbers for geek sites that sustained the hubris of entrepreneurs, and the wide-eyed enthusiasm of the press covering the new tech boom. Now — largely because of Alexa and China, the twin obsessions of many web entrepreneurs — some of that confidence will evaporate. This is like one of those stockmarket corrections, much overdue, triggered in the end, not by a change in the fundamentals, but by a seemingly trivial glitch in the trading system.











Comments
Peter Rip, one of the smarter guys in silicon valley, wrote a not-bad post about web 2.0. But he used a well noted slump in Alexa ratings to back up his point, dragging TechCrunch and GigaOm and Technorati into the fight by saying these sites have peaked in traffic and are all now on the decline.
I suggest using Compete.com
One should always check multiple sources of data (Compete, etc) before reaching such a sweeping conclusion. Peter should know better.
For a more complete picture check www.attentionmeter.com
Uhmm...it's perfectly possible for reach to go down while page views go up. Duh.
@ron_burgundy: Yes, Ron, of course, if, for instance, Techcrunch was becoming less popular, but better at maximizing pageviews per visit. But there's been no change to the Techcrunch design which would explain such divergence. Or do you have some other explanation? What's more, Alexa also estimates pageviews, and its take on that measure is equally misleading.
I want to point out that TechCrunch has an Alexa score under 550 and only does 3-4mm pageviews per month. In comparison, Time.com has an Alexa rank of 1027: http://www.alexa.com/search?q=time.com
Which do you think get's more traffic? Now you know why Alexa is so handicapped, it's getting gamed to hell...
Ian,
You're right.
Both Compete.com and Quantcast say Time.com is much more heavily trafficked than TechCrunch. Alexa is the only one pointing the other way.
2 out of 3.. Yet another great case for triangulating data.
http://www.attentionmeter.com/?d1=www.time.com&d2=techcrun...
It's not just true of techcrunch, take a look around at a few other web properties.
I can only speak for ourselves, but Emurse.com is in the midst of our largest month since July. Looking at our sad, sad alexa growth would make you think we were comatose. ;)
We aren't a big enough site to garner accurate compete numbers, but at least the trend is closer to being right.
Earlier in the week I corrected Lee Gomes piece that said Netscape moving to a new format cause the traffic to crash. He based his numbers on "share" numbers from HitWise from what I understand.
I'm glad more and more people are questioning Alexa data. Take a look at my recent research comparing real data from a mainstream site with a online marketing site:
http://www.webconnoisseur.com/blog/uncategorized/please-st...
Alexa's data is even further off than most people have noticed.
I think you got it all wrong: you compared Alexa Reach (which represents the number of unique visitors per day) with Techcrunch's pageview number. Not an apple-to-apple comparison!
If you compare pageviews from Alexa and pageviews from techcrunch's sitemeter pageviews, they match quite well.
I put together some graphs to show that on my blog:
http://lifeisaventure.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/how-to-use-...
Start a discussion:
Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?