Wickedfire is the new digitalpoint I'm out of here..
Umm riddar depends on placement and ad copy of course. But you can think around .2-.5% of total traffic to the site. Then calc it on that...
You're a fucking idiot so shut the hell up and leave - bitch. If you had a brain and more than a 5th grade education, you'd know there are actually people who do something called "business projection" before they go out and spend money..
Ever heard of a valuation model ass hole... "capm"? No, of course not. There is nothing I abhor more than idiots who waste precious 100001000 when an individual asks an intelligent question and former felons like you give this kind of answer......
It's the kind of stuff that makes n00bs like you (check my rep and check yours inmate)...give up or ask questions for fear of sounding stupid - Vel primus vel cum primis - what about you?! (go and google it...and no you will not find the answer on urbandictionary.com)..
People like you are the kind that made the kids I used to teach and mentor turn on a wrong path. Seriously, you have really pushed my button especially for someone who is a nobody on WF.....
(Not that I the head master at the WF "Riddarhuset" myself....but I visit here often and try to learn and give back...).
Now that I am have finished venting - thanks smaxor. And on a more positive note, thanks again from you PM's I've made reg fees back multiple times just from some of the testing you suggested :d..
I think that the amount of traffic you will get from a backlink largely depends on it's placement. Take the example of a backlink to the front page of digg compared to the traffic value of a link from yahoo directory. Totally different scenario..
If they are your sites, you can use google analytics overlay to show you where people click, so you can estimate the visitors depending on the onpage traffic. Or another script that shows you the heatmap. Here is an old but interesting article Click Survey Analysis & Heatmap.
Also, heatmaps for certain site structures are basically the same, for example this is google:.
Forum heatmaps are also mostly the same. Hope that helps...
Thanks! this is an awesome suggestion..
Just to elucidate my thinking, as I'm sure you know, link quality and quantity effect domain valuation. The reason why I ORIGINALLY asked the question (before the above guy p-d me off) is that in a very rough way I am trying to come up with some sort of valuation matrix whereby I can assign some sort of correlation between the number of links a domain has and the estimated traffic one can expect. As an example, if a domain has say 100 links from quality articles that have been around for 5 years, it is probably a different beast than one that has 1000 links that will probably drop off in the short term. Or am I wrong? All open to feedback and insights....
Now that I have cooled off I can say that I don't usually fire on someone but stupid comments get on my nerves more and more lately.....
I understand what you mean. You want to come up with a "scale" of predicting incoming traffic from links. What is not clear, is for what purpose exactly you want to do this for..
You will need a significant amount of statistical data to start seeing patterns..
The real flaw in this still is the link placement..
Dont get me wrong, I am not shooting down your concept, I am just saying my point of view..
Do you want this to weigh bought links?.
Some tips on backlink value are on tla's pdf. The hints are good for any backlink, regardless if it's bought or not..
To be honest, I've never gotten any decent referral traffic from any of the aforementioned sources (articles, directories, social bookmarking etc). Usually they come in a short burst - like a brief spike immediately after submission but dying down within the next few days. The real benefit came in the long term SEO with organic search traffic coming in a few months after submissions.
Then again, I did notice a few ebook sellers with more than 10,000 articles (yes, 10,000) on ezinearticles, so I would imagine somehow it must be worth the effort to them...