Comments on: Traffic Steroids vs. Natural Traffic

By: ???????? ???????

???????? ??????? — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 06:21:03 +0000

????????? ? ???????.

By: Eva White

Eva White — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:56:44 +0000

Love the term”steroid traffic”. Makes a wonderful comparision

By: StumbleUpon Traffic Guide - 50 Tips by 50 Authors

StumbleUpon Traffic Guide - 50 Tips by 50 Authors — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:58:12 +0000

[...] Nate Whitehill – Temper expectations, build traffic [...]

By: Mike C

Mike C — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:52:25 +0000

Having natural traffic if by far the best thing. Organic traffic is the way to go.

By: Alex - blogindiversity.com

Alex - blogindiversity.com — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 02:13:41 +0000

Love the article, hilarious yet creative. It’s completely true as well. I’ve used similar approaches such as: exchange chains of PR and Technorati.

By: Blogs for Money

Blogs for Money — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 11:54:12 +0000

You could look at all this another way… The steroids aren’t bad, you just need to take them more often

I started using StumbleUpon yesterday and my traffic more than doubled in an afternoon!

http://blogsformoney.com/post/Traffic-Results-from-Yesterdays-Stumbling.aspx

By: Jakob Dupont Knudsen » Why do you blog?

Jakob Dupont Knudsen » Why do you blog? — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:44:05 +0000

[...] Whitehill has a great article on his blog Nate Whitehill dot com called Traffic Steroids vs. Natural Traffic, where he compares the traffic you get from a digg effect to the muscle build by using steroids. [...]

By: Evsion Lab » 7 Ways To Get Readers Stick

Evsion Lab » 7 Ways To Get Readers Stick — Sat, 12 May 2007 06:28:25 +0000

[...] while back I talked about â€œsteroid trafficâ€ versus natural traffic. Steroid traffic is a term I coined to mean quick surges of traffic that donâ€™t necessarily [...]

By: TWIB: This Week in Blogs V » Mr. Gary Lee - Observations of an Aspiring Internet Marketeer

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:59:52 +0000

[...] Â Traffic Steroids vs. Natural Traffic – Nate Whitehill talks about the delusional grandeur of getting on the front page of Digg. [...]

By: coop

coop — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:49:38 +0000

digg traffic has done me some good but doesnt make me a dime… i suppose it would be better for humor sites that run video ads.

By: TeamTutorials

TeamTutorials — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:55:04 +0000

digg traffic shrinks your nuts.

By: mike

mike — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:30:04 +0000

It would only cost if you were out of your limit, then I’m sure it would hurt a little more. How much of your dedicated server do you actually use?

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:08:25 +0000

Nice job Nate. Yeah you’re right about Digg and other such sites.

Actually, When I got dugg some time ago, my blog post got filled with bad remarks and comments like this:

Digg Sucks! Digg Sucks!

I’m happy now that i don’t digg anymore.

By: How to Aim For Targeted Traffic | Nate Whitehill dot Com

How to Aim For Targeted Traffic | Nate Whitehill dot Com — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:44:16 +0000

[...] my last post, I talked about the disadvantages of attracting traffic from social media sites like Digg and how visitors from these types of sites never stick around to become loyal readers. In summary, [...]

By: Wealth Building Lessons

Wealth Building Lessons — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:17:03 +0000

Good post.

and nice masserati too!

By: Gary Lee

Gary Lee — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:48:36 +0000

The current trains I’m running are just getting me 1 page view per visitor, so I totally agree with you that these social media sites or viral campaigns are great to increase everything else but the most important metric – page views per visitor! Anyways, i’m looking forward to the next article cuz I really would like more readers too!

By: The Paper Bull

The Paper Bull — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:05:24 +0000

Good stance.
Albeit I’m still in my rookie blog season I find it strange that so much effort is spent upon backlink acquisition programs / schemes at the expense of attracting & holding new readers.

So many people writing for ratings and stats counts – and comparatively few tredding the paths of good one-on-one connection.

Sad.

By: Nate Whitehill

Nate Whitehill — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:38:57 +0000

Hey Scot, I don’t blame you – that’s how I feel about Digg now. As I went through my Digg-phase, I am now only interested in quality traffic.

By: Nate Whitehill

Nate Whitehill — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:28:18 +0000

Hey Jonathan, thanks for the comment. I have a dedicated server, with 1TB allotted/month so it cost me $0 in hosting!

By: Jane

Jane — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:51:21 +0000

I like the steroid comparison. It’s so true. The uniques I get from netscape never really stay. I have to keep making front page to keep getting the thousands of viewers. Maybe having an email grabber would help in retaining some visitors.

By: Jane

Jane — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:48:37 +0000

Now that’s funny

By: Scot Smith

Scot Smith — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 05:32:39 +0000

I’m not even interested in submitting my articles to the likes of Digg and other social outlets.

My returning viewer ratio is much higher than 50%, and a lot of my readers interact on my blog, which is good to me. I don’t mind if it takes a couple of months or even a year or two to grow my traffic– as long as it is quality traffic.

That’s 2 cents from a novice

Scot

By: Jonathan-C. Phillips

Jonathan-C. Phillips — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 04:47:20 +0000

Hey Nate, excellent article! it is true that natural traffic, as opposed to digg traffic means potentially returning visitors, and maybe regular readers and loyal “customers”. Question though, when you had this 30K traffic peak and made 26 bucks, how much did it cost in bandwidth/hosting? i’m a little curious.

By: Nate Whitehill

Nate Whitehill — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 02:57:47 +0000

LOL I can’t believe I wrote Alex. The funny thing is that I had you listed in iChat as Alex. Oops… Sorry man. I made the change though. Keep on bloggin!

By: Andrew Rouhafzai

Andrew Rouhafzai — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 02:54:56 +0000

Hey Nate

Great article and thanks for mentioning me and my quote.

Its perfect except my names not Alex

Its Andy/Andrew.

Lol.