Apr 282008
 

Setting aside, for the moment, the fact that more than five months after its release, IzeaRanks.com is still missing a significant number of both site visitors and page views, the IZEA development team really needs to take a closer look at how their various platforms (IZEARanks, Social Spark, and PayPerPost) communicate with each other. I’ve seen other blog posts and threads on IZEA’s own forums about other people’s situations, but I’ll leave them to tell their own tales. Instead I’ll focus on what’s been happening here at Philaahzophy…
IZEA Real Rank
This first screen shot (taken about 10 minutes ago) shows Philaahzophy’s page at IZEARanks.com.

I circled the relevant portion for you-

One Week Avg Daily Page Views – 226

One Week Avg Daily Visitors – 153

3 Month Avg Daily Page Views – 210

3 Month Average Daily Visitors – 155

Social Spark profile
This second screen shot (taken seconds after the first) is of Philaahzophy’s Social Spark page.

Again, I circled the relevant portion in blue-

Daily Avg Visitors – 98

Daily Avg Views – 142

Am I the only person that thinks the numbers reported in SocialSpark should match some number reported at IZEA Ranks? Sure, my RealRank islisted as the same at both sites (actually, it’s the same at PayPerPost as well), but what’s te point of sharing my traffic numbers with potential advertisers if they are not only going to be inaccurate, but also nonsensical?

The whole point of RealRank is to have a transparent and reliable ranking system for blogs.  The fact that the majority of bloggers seem to have their traffic stats set to private removes the transparency.  And its reliability is thrown into serious question by the fact that not even the various IZEA properties seem to be able to accurately report current numbers.

Unfortunately, my second recent example has no accompanying screenshots, so you’ll have to take my word for it.  Yesterday, all three IZEA sites were reporting the RealRank of my hometown blog (Aahz Reviews Morgan Hill) as 4,387.  However, I was unable to select that blog for a PayPerPost opp whose only requirement was that the blog be in the top 50% of RealRank.  With IZEARanks showing 9,167 blogs with RealRank, the top 50% would be anyone with a RealRank of under 4,583.  Yet, the PPP site didn’t seem to be aware of this simple fact.

Don’t get me wrong!  I still believe that RealRank is the best website ranking system available to us, but it still needs a lot of improvement.

  2 Responses to “IZEA Needs To Improve Internal Communication”

  1. I see how this is confusing, but the numbers are accurate, it’s our ‘labeling’ of the numbers that needs adjusting. Let me explain:

    In IZEARanks, the averages you see are for 1 week and 3 months. However, the averages in SocialSpark are 1 month averages and is not clearly labeled so. You do not see 1 month averages in IZEARanks, so I can see how it would look inaccurate.

    One of the reasons we use a one month average of Unique Visitors and Page Views in SocialSpark is for your benefit when an advertiser chooses to add segmentation to their opportunities (based on these numbers).

    1 Week averages are too small… suppose you go on vacation, or just have a writers block for a few days, then chances are your numbers will go down, causing you to miss opportunities.

    3 Month averages really don’t allow newer blogs to compete in the marketplace.

    I will submit an internal bug report addressing that we should probably look at using a better description in SocialSpark when it comes to those figures.

    Thanks for pointing this out! And thanks for using SocialSpark! 🙂 If you find any other issues, feel free to contact me directly.

    Dan G

  2. Thanx, Dan. That makes much more sense. Personally, I think just adding the 1 month figures to IZEARanks would do the trick because then there’d be a set of numbers that corresponded at both sites. And there seems to be more screen space available there than in SS.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)