BoxRec

How many hits does boxrec get? Just out of interest does anyone know?

Alexa isn't accurate anyway. With some sites it over 90% out.

For example I know that SecondsOut's monthly hits are over 500,000 whereas WBN only did just over a million in a whole year (according a facebook post made by their editor) and yet according to Alexa rankings WBN is higher. WTF?

Wake up call wrote:Alexa isn't accurate anyway. With some sites it over 90% out.

For example I know that SecondsOut's monthly hits are over 500,000 whereas WBN only did just over a million in a whole year (according a facebook post made by their editor) and yet according to Alexa rankings WBN is higher. WTF?

Quite. Terry has tried to explain it to me but I'm too thick to take it in so I just believe uber-geeks like Gomez and Shep know more than he does on this matter.

The Guardian's boxing website, as this month's Boxing Monthly will inform you, had half a million hits on its Haye v Klitschko round-by-round alone. Amazing.

Yet it ranks waaaay below the site to which you refer. That alone tells me it's a crock.

And I don't say this because BoxRec is ranked lowly - it's the highest rated specialist boxing site last time I looked...number two on their chart after Yahoo.

Alexa isn't really even an educated guess.

'Hits' actually means 'server hits' which is misleading. This is just one piece of info (such as an image or a script) that is downloaded from a site. Unique visits are usually measured by IP address, meaning that if 100 people are in the same building (office networks, using a wifi connection, or shared IP, for instance), hitting the same site, it measures as one unique user under most systems. Agreed, for most websites, this is irrelevant, but for industry specific websites, it can be argued that unique visits means fVck all on its own.

When you start to getting into repeat visits, time spent on the site, pages served it gets interesting, particularly through Google Analytics, but this isn't exactly trusted either. It has been alleged many times that Google are in the business of manipulating traffic data for their own purposes (Ie to favour anyone that uses their paid products, or to favour its own clients. It has a near monopoly on search and ad serving). It's all very fishy. Google changes the way it ranks search nearly every day. Google would argue that this is to stop dodgy SEO software, cheating etc but if you look a bit further into it, its a lot more complicated than that.

There are many, many ways to fabricate site visits, depending on who or what is doing the counting for you. And that's on the technical side. On the content side, its a different ball game altogether.

Take the horrible black and gold site for instance - gets loads of vists/responses to the articles, but the content is biased crap, written (badly) specifically to get hits, not to be of any use to anyone.

King Geedorah wrote:
My calculations had BS.com as the top news site -- I kid, I kid, it was World Boxing News.

Ironically, I don't visit that many websites but I'd probably say BS is the biggest specialist site for global boxing news (in terms of users).

But I'm only guessing.

I'd imagine fightnews gets a lot of unique hits on a Sunday morning?

For a bit of fun, Google Trends: http://www.google.co.uk/trends?q=boxing ... all&sort=0

Thomas Hauser wrote an article about Boxrec.com a couple of years ago.
Lots of info in it - http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thoma ... e-website2

-KOKid- wrote:Thomas Hauser wrote an article about Boxrec.com a couple of years ago.
Lots of info in it - http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thoma ... e-website2

John Sheppard is an absolute legend. The boxrec massive salutes you!

Never read that before, great read !