Boats and Ships

The primary evidence is that they're not getting much traffic. That information is available from public sources. Like any shop, if you're not getting people through the door then you're not going to making many sales. That much is simple common sense. To go into it in a bit more detail requires a knowledge of how traffic generally correlates to sales, something which I do know about as that's an important part of my job. Now, obviously, you don't have to accept that I'm telling the truth about my knowledge and experience (although why would I lie?), but if you're certain that I'm wrong then it would be trivially easy for you to come up with figures which show me to be wrong.

I say I'm right because of my experience and knowledge, and because of publicly available information which backs up my claim. Obviously, that's not going to convicen you, because you're certain that you're right no matter what evidence is placed in front of you. But it's not you that I'm trying to convince.

Mark

Reply to
Mark Goodge
Loading thread data ...

: : The primary evidence is that they're not getting much traffic.

So you have access to all **their web stats**?!

Reply to
Jerry

Yes, I did. But I didn't use Google rankings to back up my assertion. I used Google, plus my own knowledge, to come up with a basic list of some of the more popular model railway retail websites. And then pointed out that only a few of them were getting any significant traffic, based on Alexa rankings.

No, you still can't read.

I could have used Bing or Yahoo to generate that list. It's not the search engine that matters, it's the traffic. And you've just quoted the bit which shows that you didn't read it the first time.

Mark

Reply to
Mark Goodge

Not in detail, no. But I have access to publicly available traffic stats that give a good approximation of actual visitor numbers. Those are the figures I quoted previously.

Mark

Reply to
Mark Goodge

: : No, you still can't read. : : I could have used Bing or Yahoo to generate that list.

You still don't get it do you, search engine ranking is meaningless, the only way you are going to prove anything is to either cite company trading results of their web stats - not a search engine as not everyone goes through a search engines.

So Mark,. either put-up or shut-up, quote either company trading results or company web stats.

Reply to
Jerry

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

: >: : >: The primary evidence is that they're not getting much traffic. : >

: >So you have access to all **their web stats**?! : : Not in detail, no.

Thus you can't prove a thing... Thank you, now apologise

Reply to
Jerry

Yes, that's why I used publicly available *traffic* stats as evidence to support my claim. Now it's your turn - since you think I'm wrong, you come up with some evidence (maybe some actual sales figures from a site with low traffic stats) that supports your opinion.

Mark

Reply to
Mark Goodge

Ah, deliberate misrepresentation by means of misleading snippage. Jerry, you really are showing all the signs.

Mark

Reply to
Mark Goodge

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

: >

: >: : >: No, you still can't read. : >: : >: I could have used Bing or Yahoo to generate that list. : >

: >You still don't get it do you, search engine ranking is : >meaningless, the only way you are going to prove anything is to : >either cite company trading results of their web stats - not a : >search engine as not everyone goes through a search engines. : : Yes, that's why I used publicly available *traffic* stats as evidence

But they support nothing, nothing at all, and you know it...

: to support my claim. Now it's your turn - since you think I'm wrong, : you come up with some evidence (maybe some actual sales figures from a : site with low traffic stats) that supports your opinion. :

No I do not have to, *you* are making assertions - **you prove them**, back them up with facts or shut ***your*** ignorant trap..

Reply to
Jerry

: Jerry, you really are showing all the signs. :

...of being right and proving that you are bigger in the mouth department than you are in the hat department!

Reply to
Jerry

Tell you what, I bet you a tenner that you can't resist following up to this post. Deal?

Mark

Reply to
Mark Goodge

That's odd, because just a bit further up this thread you said that I needed to cite web stats. And I have. Now you're saying they mean nothing. Ah well.

Ah, now we move on to the abuse stage.

Mark

Reply to
Mark Goodge

youve got to be joking (please). I think of myself as reasonably knowledgable on using websites and complexity of train tickets (being a reader of uk.railway) but get totally confused as to what options are available. One particular confusion is find am about to purchase single tickets when want (and have asked for) returns.

Cheers, Simon

Reply to
simon

Think Jerry has a point as there are a number of variables in this situation. The cited stats may be useful to a substantial online company that uses a standard model for its business but when it comes to the cottage industries - which is likely to apply to model railway shops - then the numbers may be too small to be statistically viable. Consider the case where a shop owner has enough computer knowledge to set up his own website, takes card information over the phone only. Costs minimal so doesnt need to generate many sales to make it profitable. Then of course there is the hits to sales ratio - how accurate is this when there are few hits. What about the person whose average sales are of a higher price say at least GBP100 with high margins compared to someone whose average is nearer to GBP20 with low margin.

Cheers, Simon

Reply to
simon

That's a fair point, yes, and I'd agree that a niche retailer is more likely to have a better sales/visitor ratio than a less specialist operation. But, on the other hand, this stuff is what I do for a living, so I do have some idea of what I'm talking about :-) And, as it happens, the two most important ecommerce websites I've worked on are at opposite ends of the scale in terms of average value - one sells products that typically vary from about a fiver up to just over a tenner, while the other mainly sells products that go up to the multiple hundreds with the average being in the high double figures. And yet, in both cases, the Alexa traffic rankings correlated extremely well with sales trends. Obviously, the second site makes considerably more money overall, as it deals in higher value and higher margin products, but the total quantity of sales for both sites has pretty much the same relationship to the Alexa rankings (within the normal margin of error for such stats). So I think I'm on pretty firm ground in asserting that there aren't many model railway retail websites which are significant income generator for the owners.

Your second point, though, is definitely true - a website costs very little to set up and run, so any additional sales it generates are a bonus over and above sales through traditional methods. If a shop sells 100 items a day without a website, but 110 a day with a website, then the website is worth having even though it's only contributing a small proportion of sales. The point I was making wasn't that websites dn't contribute anything, or aren't worth having, it was simply that very few of them will be contributing more than a relatively small proportion of total sales.

Mark

Reply to
Mark Goodge

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.