Comjuice is like Alexa, only far less accurate
When you've got competitors (and what business doesn't?), it's always interesting to try and figure out how they're doing. Is the grass really greener on their lawn? Do they get more visitors than you do? That's what third-party Analytics services like Comjuice try to help you with. It integrates some metrics from Alexa and Compete.com, and adds some of its own. Unfortunately, it appears to be very inaccurate.
I tested the service using my own company's domain, because I'm in charge of Analytics and I know exactly how many visitors we have, as well as just about any other statistic. What Comjuice gave back was so inaccurate, it could have been made up for all it's worth. It was a tiny fraction of the actual traffic, and included completely random statistics such as "Estimated ad revenue" (which had numbers in it), when we don't even carry paid ads (it's a site for a business company). The "Unique visitors" graph count was also completely wrong, although this comes from Compete (still, why include it if it's so inaccurate?).
Possibly the metrics which are easier to figure out were correct (number of pages indexed by Google), but even that was totally misrepresented; it said we have "3,400 pages" indexed by Google, when in fact 95% of these are not even real content pages and are clearly marked as such on the site (totally different system, and different subdomain). So Google may index them, but Comjuice sure isn't smart enough to tell the difference; had it been a competitor of mine (and not my own company), I would have gotten a completely skewed picture of what their site performance is like. This is one tool not to trust.
I tested the service using my own company's domain, because I'm in charge of Analytics and I know exactly how many visitors we have, as well as just about any other statistic. What Comjuice gave back was so inaccurate, it could have been made up for all it's worth. It was a tiny fraction of the actual traffic, and included completely random statistics such as "Estimated ad revenue" (which had numbers in it), when we don't even carry paid ads (it's a site for a business company). The "Unique visitors" graph count was also completely wrong, although this comes from Compete (still, why include it if it's so inaccurate?).
Possibly the metrics which are easier to figure out were correct (number of pages indexed by Google), but even that was totally misrepresented; it said we have "3,400 pages" indexed by Google, when in fact 95% of these are not even real content pages and are clearly marked as such on the site (totally different system, and different subdomain). So Google may index them, but Comjuice sure isn't smart enough to tell the difference; had it been a competitor of mine (and not my own company), I would have gotten a completely skewed picture of what their site performance is like. This is one tool not to trust.













Comments
3
Subscribe to commentsFoxgloveApr 21st 2010 4:02AM
Funny how this kind of thing doesn't surprise me in the least; especially when I have had other analytics sites rate the net worth of my web based file storage which was passworded so only I could access it, in the $300k range.
The only thing I seem to see in common with most of these sites is that they use faulted algorithms for displaying just about all of their data.
RobApr 21st 2010 5:07AM
I don't think its bad actually.
It got the closest to the actual number of visitors of my blog than Alexa or compete. I guess it varies for different sites.
Perhaps, What I would like to know though, is how they formulate the suggested ad revenue.
TomMay 31st 2010 3:45PM
This is from April 20.. the website doesn't even look like that anymore, their data is actually more accurate now than most of the other public analytic services-