In January 2015, the Internet Live Stats website, stated the number of active websites currently online, to be around 876,812,666, a number which is known to fluctuate on an hourly basis.
At the time of writing, however, the number currently stands at 936,152,576.
So with that in mind, and going on the increasing number of people who appear to be obsessed by the amount of social media followers they have, and the number of visitors to their web sites – the Outlaw has been doing a bit of research into some of the claims in an attempt to gauge their accuracy.
Any website which can generate large numbers of visits, on a regular basis, in what has already become an over-saturated arena, brimming with all manner of information, both good and bad, and in many cases degenerate and disturbing, and which can easily overwhelm the average user, does deserve a certain level of respect.
There are innumerable numbers of websites, which cover almost every subject any one of us could possibly imagine, (plus some which very few of us would have even known existed) so getting large numbers of regular readers, is in the current climate, not particularly easy with a billion other websites to compete with.
That being said, and using this site as a comparison, I ran some of the more popular ‘alternative’ or ‘fringe interest’ websites through one of the better known web analysis sites, Alexa.
I chose six fairly typical sites that are regularly visited in the UK, and the numbers accompanying each, give their position or ‘rank’ – the lower the number, the higher it’s position in the UK rankings.
David Icke…. 1,538
UK Column…. 12,497
UK Paedophiles Exposed…. 13,828
The Coleman Experience…. 14,122
Chris Spivey…. 20,362
The Outlaw…. 55,663
These figures are based on UK-centric websites, regardless of where they are hosted, and should be viewed as such, as those numbers rise considerably when whole world rankings are used, and all of these numbers, again fluctuate on an hourly basis.
As the Owner/Administrator of the Outlaw, I am aware to the nearest digit, exactly how much traffic this site receives, and from where in the world that traffic is generated – Google Searches, links from other sites etc, so I am assuming that will also be the case with any website, including all of those on the above list.
Based on that, It is possible to gauge, with a degree of accuracy and some basic calculations, from the traffic on the Outlaw and it’s position in the UK rankings – the average figures of any or all of the sites I have included in the list above.
Not all websites show a ‘Hit Counter’, so for the reader, the only viable method to gauge how popular any website is, is to run the site name through a site like Alexa, or rely on the website owner to relay that information.
The Outlaw has anything between 800 and 2300 visitors a day, and has retained those figures for the past twelve months, and there has been no considerable gain, nor has there been any significant loss, which is, as far as I am concerned, way above any expectations I had when I began putting the site together.
Those daily views, give the Outlaw a UK position of 55,663, so using those figures as a guide, David Icke’s website, which is the top ranking site of this type in the UK, almost certainly receives anything between 100,000 and 150,000 daily visits, which is impressive by anyone’s standards, I should think.
So when people make claims about their daily traffic, you do not have to simply take their word for it, as there are many options available to test any claims made if there are any doubts.
The only site on the list I have compiled, that has publicly made claims in regard to their site visitors is Chris Spivey’s, who’s often quoted “between 30 – 50,000” daily views, when compared to the sites actual UK ranking, is probably accurate – and irrespective of any other claims he has made, that one is almost certainly correct.
However, those figures can be achieved in any number of ways, one of which I will discuss later in this article as it may well be applicable here.
I also did a bit of digging to see if there were any other website owners who were claiming large readerships, and found this claim on Twitter:
245,962 daily views (as were being alluded to on Twitter) is a phenomenal number for a blog, so should of course be recorded on Alexa at least, but typing in the name of the site concerned did not return any result under the UK rankings – which for a site that concentrates primarily on cut and pasted mainstream media articles about British Paedophiles and various Sexual Offenders, seemed somewhat unusual.
The image posted to Twitter just did not look right either, so I took a Screengrab of the Outlaws Statistics page to compare it against, as both sites are WordPress based – the differences are clear.
The image on Twitter looks very much like it has been manipulated in some way, and a darker block of text appears to have been superimposed over what are not daily figures at all, because if you compare the two images, there should be no hyphen visible when you display the daily stats page.
So why would somebody allege that their site receives that number of views daily, when it’s a simple matter of just viewing the site, where there is a hit counter visible, and shows clearly 561,801 at the time of writing, as the total number of views over the lifetime of the site?
I am not suggesting here that any of the websites I have mentioned above, have attracted their visitors by manipulating Alexa or any other web analysis sites in some way, as that would not be possible, but, there are various methods that are known to have been employed to increase website traffic with very little effort.
Even without using agencies known as ‘click farms’, (where for a small outlay, large numbers of website hits can be generated almost overnight in some cases – by using businesses that pay workers in poor countries to artificially boost the status of a client’s website or a product) large numbers of website ‘hits’ can be generated in any number of ways.
One Method that appears to have become popular recently, is by using large numbers of images, often gratuitous and overly sexualised and not specifically related to the main text in published articles, which when they show in an image search using Google for example, will generate a hit for the site it’s attached to, without the site even being visited.
There are also various ways to ensure that particular images also appear in totally unrelated searches, and one way is to implant ‘Metadata’ into an image, which Internet search engines use when adding pages to their index.
Metadata, or ‘Meta Tags’ can consist of single words or phrases that are trending on social networks, or are currently leading news items, hence popular in any subsequent online search.
However, if somebody wants to virtually guarantee that an image included in an otherwise unremarkable article, turns up near the top of an Internet search, there is a sure-fire method of achieving this when you consider the most widely-used search terms on the Internet.
Depending on which source you use, ‘Yahoo’, ‘Apple’, ‘Hotmail’, ‘Jokes’, ‘Pictures’ and ‘Games‘ appear on the surface to be the most widely used search terms, but, it will probably not come as a complete surprise to learn, that the words ‘Porn‘, ‘Teen’ and ‘Sex‘ regularly feature in the top five all-time search terms on the World Wide Web – and have probably done so since the internet became a part of everyday life for most people.
Which of course could mean, that any image published in an article containing Metadata associated with the most popular search terms, could in theory, also appear in any and all related searches for that particular subject – regardless of the actual content and subject matter of the article it’s contained within.
And very often does.