The University of Florida, Florida State University found that physically attractive people almost instantly attract the attention of the interlocutor, sobesednitsy with them, literally, it is difficult to make eye. This conclusion was reached by a series of psychological experiments, which were determined by the people who believe in sending the first seconds after the acquaintance. Here, a curious feature: single, unmarried experimental preferred to look at the guys, beauty opposite sex, and family, people most often by representatives of their sex.

The authors believe that this feature developed a behavior as a result of the evolution: a man trying to find a decent pair to acquire offspring. If this is resolved, he wondered potential rivals. Detailed information about this magazine will be published Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

In turn, a joint study of the Rockefeller University, Rockefeller University and Duke University, Duke University in North Carolina revealed that women are perceived differently by men smell. During experiments studied the perception of women one of the ingredients of male pheromone-androstenona smell, which is contained in urine or sweat.

The results were startling: women are part of this repugnant odor, and the other part is very attractive, resembling the smell of vanilla, and the third group have not felt any smell. The authors argue that the reason is that the differences in the receptor responsible for the olfactory system, from different people are different.

It has long been proven that mammals (including human) odor is one way of attracting the attention of representatives of the opposite sex. A detailed article about the journal Nature will publish.

- James

Quantcast shows me getting an estimated 5,050 unique US visitors a month (With about 400 US visitors a day), http://quantcast.com/pimpnflyguy.com shows 5,147 US visitors (With no more then 4 visitors a day), http://quantcast.com/betterworld.net shows 4,677 US visitors (No more then 25 visits a day), http://quantcast.com/archimedes-lab.org has 10,080 US visitors (even though they have had only 1 visitor since Jan 24 and stats for them end on Jan 29).

So using the information I have listed for you, which you can check yourself, please tell me who Quantcast is actually working correctly for?

I had a wake-up encounter with “Compete” when one of VCs we know pointed at them as a source of info on our (Fotki.com) traffic “falling”. Now, at Fotki, we have the ever-increasing traffic and fast growing usage, making us buy more and more servers (soon getting to 100 mostly 2U and 3U machines) , serving hundreds of millions of monthly pages so, when I hear things like that I laugh with not much joy in my giggles, to say the least. So, I went to Compete.com and saw for myself – wow… 600K uniques, huh? Google Analytics and our internal logs are in more than 90% sync showing 5M uniques – 50% of them in the US – so, that’s 2.5M, 4 times more than Compete shows.

So, I wrote to Compete.com telling them that their stats are off by a LOT – what do I get as a reply? – A letter stating that for sites with small traffic their data may be significantly off

Now, interestingly, even on Compete.com we are in top 3,000 (far cry from reality), and “Compete SnapShot provides information for the top 1,000,000 web sites”, so, basically, in their own words, their data should be wrong at least to 99.7% of sites they measure (since we are in their top 0.3% sites.)

I am far from saying that Compete is completely useless (I simply don’t have time or need to do a research) but it’s completely useless to me. One should look at HOW Compete gets its “2M unique panelists” – and a lot of questions will be resolved. So, folks at Compete, if you really want to, um, *compete* with Alexa – tables like these – http://www.compete.com/help – don’t really go far, what does is accuracy. Reconsider the way you get your sample, listen to people like Matt and adjust, rather than trying to argue for how good you are. – Then and only then Seth Godin, Om Malik, Esther Dyson and other influentials, as well as millions of users like myself will be using you.

Cheers,
igor

Now why is this notable? Because when this saga started on Feb 24, 2007 pimpnflyguy.co was ranked 257,380, which was about 300 ranks ahead of me (He was the next highest quantified user I could find). Now here it is a week later, and while I have moved up 10.5k ranks, pimpnflyguy has moved up even more then that, but still has no more then 4 hits a day since Jan 23, 2007.

archimedes-lab.org has moved up 18k ranks, and still shows 1 hit since Jan 23, 2007 (And I think that was me). betterworld.net has dropped 6k ranks, but is getting more hits per day then either pimpnflyguy or archimedes-lab.
Is there any logic in what they are using for stats?

I agree it’s important to try and compare using similar methodology, but the problem is the assumption that they have normalized the bias.

Compare CarDomain.com to StreetFire.net (5x difference)
http://snapshot.compete.com/cardomain.com+streetfire.net+

And on Alexa (smaller difference)
http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=725&h=340&r=2y&y=r&a=1&z=5&u=streetfire.net&u=cardomain.com

And in reality, I know for fact that CarDomain has equal traffic to StreetFire.net (we work closely with CarDomain and have visibility into their analytics).

I would agree there is a normalized bias on pixel tracking or measuring actual server logs in the same manner, but when it comes to survey methodology it’s incorrect to assume the results themselves are properly normalized.

The market currently relies heavily on visitors and page views to measure performance, but we both know these metrics can be gamed.

Time, on the other hand, is finite and selfishly managed by the user making it harder to game. Therefore if a site can garner more of an individual’s time it should be considered a good thing, right?

With that said, I know there are exceptions (Search for example), which is why we haven’t presented Attention as the king of all metrics. We see Attention as an additional piece of the puzzle.

For example:

- MySpace attracts 16% of all pageviews on the internet (U.S.)

- However, U.S. users only spend 11.9% of their time on MySpace

- MySpace provides a service valued by consumers (11.9% Attention Share), but the site is terribly designed and thus inflates misleading engagement metrics like pageviews