Boats and Ships

I asked you for some figures from sites that you say are successful. You haven't provided any, yet. On the other hand, I've shown evidence that most sites don't get enough traffic to be a significant source of sales.

If you had actually read what I wrote, you would have seen that I wasn't referring to Google ranking. I was referring to Alexa ranking, which is a measure of how many visitors a site gets. I'm sure that even you would agree that a site with few visitors will also be a site with few sales.

So name such a site.

I'm aware of at least one which I know has good sales figures (and has a good Alexa ranking) but isn't all that high in the Google rankings, and that's Rails of Sheffield. Another couple of sites that do well, despite not featuring too highly in Google are OnTracks and Gaugemaster. But these are the minority. Most sites don't get enough traffic to be a significant source of income.

Incidentally, you're generally wrong about Google not being a significant source of traffic for successful sites. In my day job (which has nothing to do with model railways, but does have a lot to do with online retailing), I've been responsible for some of the UK's leading ecommerce websites in their respective fields. And, for all of them, Google has been the dominant source of traffic. Sure, some niche sites do well without Google, but selling RTR model railway products almost certainly isn't one of them.

I did, in my previous post, which you seem to have snipped without reading it. My original statement, since you seem to have forgotten it, was simply that most model railway websites don't generate significant sales income for their operators. I've provided evidence that the majority of sites have low traffic ratings, and my own experience in the world of online retail gives me a very good idea of how much traffic a site needs to get in order to be successful. So, unless all these sites you're referring to are bucking the trend in a very big way, there's no way they can be a major source of income. Mark

Indeed. And my assertion could very easily be shown to be false by someone with access to the sales figures for a few websites that I'd consider to be s**te :-)

So, if anyone is really certain that I'm wrong, it ought to be easy for them to demonstrate that I am by producing some hard facts.

Mark

: >

: >That is not what I asked and not what you tried asking me, were : >is your proof that these websites you imply are so hopeless that : >they could never be used to run a successful on-line business. : : I asked you for some figures from sites that you say are successful.

www.companies-house.... look them up yourself!

: You haven't provided any, yet.

...and nor have you, even though you are the one making the accusations that these on-line companies are likely to go bust.

: No. Once again you are twisting peoples words : to suit your own agenda.

LOL, "MBQ" looking in the mirror again....

Mr Goodge has made accusations about certain web sites, he is the one who has yet to back HIS words with some facts.

: : So, if anyone is really certain that I'm wrong, it ought to be easy : for them to demonstrate that I am by producing some hard facts. :

No Mark. you made the claims, you prove your arguments, put up or f*ck off.

I have. I've already listed the ones that I think are successful. My assertion is that most of the rest are not very successful. If you want to disagree with that, then provide examples of sites that I've said are not successful but where you know that they are.

Feel free to point out where I have made that particular claim.

Mark

: : I have provided evidence. It's your turn now. :

No you have not, all you have done is list Google ranking, that is not citing company results or other such proof of a companies ability to trade effectively.

: : I have. I've already listed the ones that I think are successful.

No you did not, you listed Google ranking, not the same thing at all.

Please go back and read my post again, since you clearly didn't read it the first time (or, for that matter, the second time, when I previously corrected this mistake).

Mark

Saying something doesn't make it true. Especially when anyone can go back and look at my post and see that what you're saying isn't true. There's a well-known saying about holes, digging and the advisability of cessation when inside one of your own creation. I suggest that yu take its advice :-)

Mark

: : Please go back and read my post again, since you clearly didn't : read it the first time (or, for that matter, the second time, when I : previously corrected this mistake). :

In which message did you cite company results in then, please give a message ID number.

: >"Mark Goodge" wrote in message : >news: snipped-for-privacy@news.markshouse.net... : >

: >: : >: I have. I've already listed the ones that I think are : >successful. : >

: >No you did not, you listed Google ranking, not the same thing at : >all. : : Saying something doesn't make it true.

Exactly! So when are you planning to cite company trading results that prove your 'theory' correct then?

: Especially when anyone can go : back and look at my post and see that what you're saying isn't true.

Like f*ck they can, but in case you have cited such company trading results perhaps you would be so kind to report them...

That's not the mistake I was referring to. I have never claimed to cite company results. But I haven't been citing Google rankings either.

Mark

I've never claimed to be able to cite company results. You're the one who claimed that you have proof that my assertion that most MR retail websites don't generate much income is false. I provided some figures which support that theory. So far, you haven't provided anything to contradict it.

You're still not reading what I've written. But you're still digging that hole.

Mark

But is thetrainline.com proof that a truly awful site can still generate income. Plus is that the worst site with high visits/sales ?

cheers, Simon

It operates in a near-monopoly, so it could be a lot worse and still get sales! And, actually, it's not too bad - it only gets one particular thing really badly wrong, and that's the requirement to register or log in before making a purchase. Otherwise, the sales process is reasonably straightforward.

Mark

: >"Mark Goodge" wrote in message : >news: snipped-for-privacy@news.markshouse.net... : >

: >: : >: Please go back and read my post again, since you clearly : >didn't : >: read it the first time (or, for that matter, the second time, : >when I : >: previously corrected this mistake). : >: : >

: >In which message did you cite company results in then, please : >give a message ID number. : : That's not the mistake I was referring to. I have never claimed to : cite company results.

Then how can you claim what you calimed, eithert put-up or fck-off

: But I haven't been citing Google rankings : either. :

Weasel words, everyone can see that (in effect) you did post such a list.

: >"Mark Goodge" wrote in message : >news: snipped-for-privacy@news.markshouse.net... : >: On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:46:25 -0000, Jerry put finger to : >keyboard and : >: typed: : >: : >: >

: >: >"Mark Goodge" wrote in : >message : >: >news: snipped-for-privacy@news.markshouse.net... : >: >

: >: >: : >: >: I have. I've already listed the ones that I think are : >: >successful. : >: >

: >: >No you did not, you listed Google ranking, not the same thing : >at : >: >all. : >: : >: Saying something doesn't make it true. : >

: >Exactly! So when are you planning to cite company trading results : >that prove your 'theory' correct then? : : I've never claimed to be able to cite company results.

So how can you claim what you claimed, were is your evidence that (to paraphrase your rant) these traders with 'crap' websites won't do much trade?...

You're the one : who claimed that you have proof that my assertion that most MR retail : websites don't generate much income is false. I provided some figures : which support that theory. So far, you haven't provided anything to : contradict it.

Sorry, you made the claim, you back your claim up, what you are trying to do here is be prosecution, witness, judge and jury - "I say I'm right because I say I'm correct"!...

: : >: Especially when anyone can go : >: back and look at my post and see that what you're saying isn't : >true. : >

: >Like f*ck they can, but in case you have cited such company : >trading results perhaps you would be so kind to report them... : : You're still not reading what I've written. But you're still digging : that hole. :

But what you write is irrelevant and you know it.

No I didn't. Go back and read it.

Mark