#1 Lens -- Total Traffic: 975 visits this week
#3 Lens -- Total Traffic: 949 visits this week
#9 Lens -- Total Traffic: 462 visits this week
#15 Lens -- Total Traffic: 306 visits this week
#28 Lens -- Total Traffic: 474 visits this week
#38 Lens -- Total Traffic: 248 visits this week
#58 Lens -- Total Traffic: 265 visits this week
#66 Lens -- Total Traffic: 447 visits this week
#80 Lens -- Total Traffic: 1,432 visits this week
#81 Lens -- Total Traffic: 841 visits this week
#82 Lens -- Total Traffic: 269 visits this week
#83 Lens -- Total Traffic: 17 visits this week
As I am quite familiar with one of these lenses listed above, I know that it's best lensrank overall has been #4. It's had a lot of Google love for quite some time after being created in late 2007. This lens is a rather niche-like topic and not the standard fodder for most lenses. But, this lens has gained in popularity since 2008 thanks to the online buzz and also thanks to Martha Stewart.Well, obviously online buzz and Martha Stewart can only do so much to contribute to a Top 100 ranking for a lens. It's been noticed that this lens has slipped in rankings. So, what has changed? There is a hypothesis that such a slip in the ranking of this lens is due #1 to a change in algorithm or #2 a lack of squid angels' blessings or #3 more squid angels' blessings for other lenses or #4 the dreaded squid angel ding -- but, we don't think #4 is the reason as we are optimists and believe that the lovely people behind the scenes would see that a high-ranking lens had received a ding and then swiftly remove it.
Many factors are considered when objectively ranking lenses -- perhaps the number of lensmasters who have rated the lens and favorited it; number of click-outs; total sales; and a variety of other factors that can be implemented to keep you on your toes and working on keeping your lenses fresh and loaded with quality content.
2 comments:
That is a very interesting observation. For that one lens to be ranked so much lower than the ones above it while still having a large amount of hits seems very odd. I guess the Squidoo lensrank algorithm must have some secret ingredient that affects it. Clickouts would be the next statistic I would compare for those same lenses, just for curiosity. Gosh, I could spend hours trying to analyze a group of lenses like that, but then something would probably change. I wish I could clone myself and have one of me work on interesting research like that and the other do the rest of the things I have to do. Just as well that I can't, I guess. Anyway, interesting post.
Thanks Susan for dropping by today and for taking time from your busy schedule to comment. Well, I've personally stepped back to make more time for some observations and research things that interest me or make me thing, "Now, I wonder why that happens to be." I hear ya! There just isn't enough time in a day to do all that we want and need to do! ;)
Post a Comment