Baron
ET Founder
NihabaAshi,
I respect your opinion but I agree with almost nothing you said. You are so far off base with your assumptions that I don't even know where to begin.
Using your first example of Traders Laboratory.
Our site traffic is over 10 times the amount of TL.
If the impact of their social networking links were so amazing, it would be reflected in their traffic. If you think that the success and value of a web site depends on freakin' twitter and facebook links, you are completely misguided. I can assure you that the days of valuing web sites bases upon goofy metrics like that are long gone. There's only one metric that counts for all sites except for possibly the top five sites in existence, and that metric is profit.
Regarding your comment that sponsors are "paying close attention" to these social networking links as a basis for the worth of a site for sponsorship, again you are dead wrong. We have over 35 sponsors here at ET and the sponsor list grows every month. Traders Laboratory currently has 2 sponsors and their list has been shrinking over the past year.
And how do I know? Because TL is currently for sale and I made an offer to buy it last week. I'd hate to see the whole thing just disappear or be bought by a larger company that has no business running a community website like that, so I decided to make the owner an offer. Only time will tell if it all works out in the end.
But back the social networking links for a second. Have you ever thought that the inbound traffic from those sources might suck? Have you ever thought that a site like ours might NOT want the self-promotional idiots from Twitter to come over here and try to pull the same shit? Have you ever thought that we don't want a bunch of clueless penny stockers to find their way over to here from places like Facebook? Have you ever thought that the reason why we don't include social networking links is that we want to be the exact opposite of the sites and people who are using those tools ad nauseum, like Timothy Sykes?
I respect your opinion but I agree with almost nothing you said. You are so far off base with your assumptions that I don't even know where to begin.
Using your first example of Traders Laboratory.
Our site traffic is over 10 times the amount of TL.
If the impact of their social networking links were so amazing, it would be reflected in their traffic. If you think that the success and value of a web site depends on freakin' twitter and facebook links, you are completely misguided. I can assure you that the days of valuing web sites bases upon goofy metrics like that are long gone. There's only one metric that counts for all sites except for possibly the top five sites in existence, and that metric is profit.
Regarding your comment that sponsors are "paying close attention" to these social networking links as a basis for the worth of a site for sponsorship, again you are dead wrong. We have over 35 sponsors here at ET and the sponsor list grows every month. Traders Laboratory currently has 2 sponsors and their list has been shrinking over the past year.
And how do I know? Because TL is currently for sale and I made an offer to buy it last week. I'd hate to see the whole thing just disappear or be bought by a larger company that has no business running a community website like that, so I decided to make the owner an offer. Only time will tell if it all works out in the end.
But back the social networking links for a second. Have you ever thought that the inbound traffic from those sources might suck? Have you ever thought that a site like ours might NOT want the self-promotional idiots from Twitter to come over here and try to pull the same shit? Have you ever thought that we don't want a bunch of clueless penny stockers to find their way over to here from places like Facebook? Have you ever thought that the reason why we don't include social networking links is that we want to be the exact opposite of the sites and people who are using those tools ad nauseum, like Timothy Sykes?

