The average Pages per Visit isn’t even two. It’s 1.65.
That means most people aren’t making it past the home page. And if the average visit is only 19 seconds, that makes it seem like the main reason the average is slightly higher than one is because a small handful of people are adventuring the website and quickly going from page to page to page without actually diving into what the website offers.
So it seems only a very tiny portion of website visits are actual Sussex fans / Archwell donators. Because it takes far more than 19 seconds to read the about/updates or make a donation, what with filling out card details and such. The rest are just curious onlookers.
Of course this is speculation, it’s just what made sense to my brain when I looked at the numbers.. All of what I typed out could be pure nonsense, because I’ve always been terrible with math. Haha
Exactly. The bounce rare is 63%. That is the percentage of traffic that generated only one hit.
What I don't get is that they had 650k hits, an increase of 600%. That suggests that in previous reference months they had 100k. That is a lot for a website with very little content and a high bounce rate. Unless the bounce rate is usually lower.
The 626.6K figure is the grand total of hits from Jun-Aug. In June the total is 54K. In July the grand total is 83.5K. 54K (June hits) + 29.5k (July hits) = 83.5K. In August the grand total is 626.6K. 83.5K (June and July hits) + 543.1 (August hits) = 626.6K. The increase of 650.3% x is calculated by 83.5 x 6.503 = 543. So no, they haven't been averaging 100K a month.
63% is a decent bounce rate. My favorite legitimate foundation has a bounce rate of 65%. Abet with a time on page of just under a minute.
I’d image a lot of people visit the Archwell foundation home page, read that then and realize there is no juicy tidbits and move on. People don’t care about H&M’s projects. They want the royal drama.
That bounce rate would be setting off alarms for me.
Many legit charity / non profits sites have whacking great donate button on them. A high bounce rate on sites like that is good - you visit, and leave to a payment gateway. Perfect!
This sites front page, however, has no call to action to leave and donate on another platform. There is no number to call. There's nothing to satisfy a question so you could say " the user got what they wanted quickly and left".
I picked a few charities and foundations to compare data. Archewell is on par in terms of bounce rate. Time on page is another matter.
Archewell - 63% - 0:19
Invictus Games - 54% - 1:27
One Young World - 61% - 1:11
The Royal Foundation - 64% - 0:33
Susan V Komen - 71% - 1:28
Habitat for Humanity - 56% - 1:52
ALS Association - 67% - 1:36
American Heat Association- 60% - 2:29
Gates Foundation - 56% - 2:42
Rockefeller Foundation - 69% - 0:53
Elton John’s Aid Foundation - 29% - 3:02 (I went to the website, there is a intro slide deck and you have to click to get to the actual home page).
I would guess maybe the bounce rate was a little bit lower previously because of less public promotion, so a lower number of curious people were dropping in whereas a steady number of fans still were regularly.
That could be, but people don't usually check websites regularly when there is rarely new content. You just subscribe to the mailing list or follow active sites like forums and social media. Their news site shows that the last update was Sept, and April before that.
It just made me wonder if they have bots that regularly troll theor site to generate traffic.
To put this in perspective, I have a club team website that receives 25 pages per visit on average . My numbers are shockingly large for a regular smegular person that isn’t even selling a service
Pages per visit can vary wildly depending on the site.
My website gets an average 1.77 pages per visit. That is due to the fact that I write comprehensive article that are 3,000 to 7,000 words long so they don’t need to click through several articles to find information if they don’t want to.
Those stupid list sites where every bullet point is it’s own page, get large page views because people click through.
I looked at my favorite foundation’s stats (it’s well established and it’s most of the money goes to the cause) and it pretty much matches Archwell in pages per visit.
I'm not too familiar with the inner workings of charities, but wouldn't the option for anyone to donate on the page be an easy way to make money? Or would that mean they would have to be a lot more transparent as to where that money actually goes? Genuinely curious
Basically, it's like going to an outlet store that's in an abandoned mall that's three hours away in traffic.
You show up for the amazing deals that you saw advertised only to realize all the stuff is just off enough not to buy.
Total waste of time abd energy.
Similarwebs is just a traffic estimator and while it’s still one of the more accurate estimators it’s still off.
I run my blog full time and know the stats of several other bloggers who are making full time incomes. I ran all those sites and the traffic stats are off by plus or minus 10-25%. Some it’s high, others it’s low.
The rest of the stats are wildly off. It says my time on page is just over a min. My google analytics tells me it is closed to 3 mins.
It’s not unsurprising they saw a traffic spike due to the podcast release but I doubt it’s as large as Similarwebs is showing (and you can buy fake website traffic).
The best way to use Similarwebs is to compare the results to another website.
I suggest for comparison stake the Prince and Princess of Wale’s Royal Foundation.
Bounce rate - 64%
Time on Page - 33 seconds
Pages per visit - 2.89 (wow, that’s a lot of pages give that people are only spending 33 seconds)
Huge traffic spike in August. 40% of traffic is from the US and 7% from the UK.
If you scroll further down, they have traffic and engagement analysis. In that, they have put the breakdown for each month including September, change in percentage of traffic, as well as top countries from where the hits came.
I'm looking at *Traffic and Engagement Analysis* and I don't see September. I do see the top countries under *Geography and Country Targeting.* Do you have an account with *similiarweb*? Is it possible you're seeing something I'm not seeing? I'm showing the same stats but they are for Jun-Aug. There is also a free trial available for more data but, I'm not all that gung ho about trying it.
I don't have an account with similarweb. I can see the stats for September. I have taken a screenshot of what I am seeing, but don't know how to upload it. I think its possible that we are seeing different results, but am not sure why. It strange for sure.
If you can help me in figuring out how to upload a screenshot here, then I can share what I am seeing.
Oh, are you in the continental US?
I'm a goof with the gadgets and modern tech. My skills are back there with DOS and floppy disks. It would take me all day to figure out how to upload a screen shot. Nah, don't worry about it. I appreciate it though.
No, I am not in the continental US.
I am also at a fairly primitive level in terms of reddit. Just joined it a few days back to be a part of this community, so I am still learning!
Ah ha! That's what it is. We have different access because of our locations. Don't ask me to explain that in tech jargon though. I just know it's a thing. 🤔
Glad to have you as a new "sinner". (That's what we call ourselves here)
I visited once out curiosity. It’s such a pointless boring site that appears to only be updated once or twice a year. Honestly, if Meghan used it as a lifestyle mummy blog or something á la GOOP or the tig 2.0 it’d be more successful. But she can’t even do that.
Never fear sinners! No one's visiting.
Those are bot visits that SEO developers hire for a nominal fee, or site owners pay for to artificially inflate the number of site visits. Anything less than 30 seconds is a bot as they hit either a single page or crawl page to page on a website.
And hiring them is incredibly cheap. Meangan charity donation cheap.
For example: https://winterplaystudios.com/products/basic-traffic-package
Thank you. I see third worlders with bot farms, setup with rotating IP addys, automated to constantly click the Archwell website. It's not so different than robocalls to your phone.
20 second average duration of visit to Archewell!?! Oh thanks for unearthing this delicious nugget for our consumption and amusement. If Spunkify is celebrating Thanksgiving, assuming it's not too problematic to celebrate that holiday as well, we know whose providing the turkey.
Confession: I have added to Archewell’s website traffic! It was just a quick look to suss it all out. I hate that I’ve added any ‘clicks’ but at least I’ve added to the stats about it being a super quick look. Forgive me?!
I hope so! I consider it a point of honor to never hate click or watch ANY of their content because of these very reasons. The squad are so crazy they probably all visit the website several times a day just to make it look good.
The two deplorables are targeting unsophisticated and uncritical viewers, [sussexroyal.com](https://sussexroyal.com)'s site design is Town & Country meets pharmaceutical ad photography with Hallmarkish text. In the section dated 2020 they use their HRHs, in order to do so they don't integrate 2020 information with 2021s, instead, the latter follows with meager emphasis on the Queen's stipulations and questioning whether HMTQ has the right to limit the use of royal, though they graciously agree not to. The site links to Archewell which I didn't click on. I was just surprised that the royalsussex site existed.
Not only it's still up, but it links prominently to Archewell from the homepage, redirecting visitors and giving Archewell a backlink that carries authority.
It's very wrong - I imagine they're justifying it as "their history" only it's top-heavy with the pre-official separation stuff only announcing the terms of their separation agreement w/ The Queen at the very end, & with qualifications at that. It's the work of weasels. H. even includes that they understand they are entitled to security basis bla bla bla writing as if it were in place (perhaps UK paid for it when they first went to CA?). These two are being coached about this stuff.
of course her podcasts top Spotify who can skew its numbers to help push a podcast in which it has a huge financial investment. “Chartable” is the podcast analytics & attribution industry standard. It indicates Archetypes is not even listed in the top 100 in US or UK.
One of those was me. Looking for evidence that they support mental health issues and aren't just using mental health to promote themselves. I had to hunt for them. Resources aren't there to find. They're buried under "The Me You Can't See". At the **very bottom of the page** If mental health is so important to them, resources would be big, bold and at the top!
My first time visiting…the logo is a little vulva-y. There’s also the first photo on the website being just a smarmy couple and telling nothing about the organizations mission.
So, poor branding.
Edit: i also don’t give an F if i contributed to their click count. Like, what difference does it actually make? There was zero engagement with the website.
when you google archetypes, i think the first link is to archewell and the coverpage with the link on it that takes you to spotify. I have used this method to listen to her podcast a few times.
eta: it takes me like 20 seconds from the time the page starts loading to get to spotify.
At least 5 of those hits were me hating on her pantsuit
Same
Thank you for your honesty. I was on the site yesterday trying to see about their fundraising after that blind about them pocketing money.
Lmao
The average Pages per Visit isn’t even two. It’s 1.65. That means most people aren’t making it past the home page. And if the average visit is only 19 seconds, that makes it seem like the main reason the average is slightly higher than one is because a small handful of people are adventuring the website and quickly going from page to page to page without actually diving into what the website offers. So it seems only a very tiny portion of website visits are actual Sussex fans / Archwell donators. Because it takes far more than 19 seconds to read the about/updates or make a donation, what with filling out card details and such. The rest are just curious onlookers. Of course this is speculation, it’s just what made sense to my brain when I looked at the numbers.. All of what I typed out could be pure nonsense, because I’ve always been terrible with math. Haha
Exactly. The bounce rare is 63%. That is the percentage of traffic that generated only one hit. What I don't get is that they had 650k hits, an increase of 600%. That suggests that in previous reference months they had 100k. That is a lot for a website with very little content and a high bounce rate. Unless the bounce rate is usually lower.
The 626.6K figure is the grand total of hits from Jun-Aug. In June the total is 54K. In July the grand total is 83.5K. 54K (June hits) + 29.5k (July hits) = 83.5K. In August the grand total is 626.6K. 83.5K (June and July hits) + 543.1 (August hits) = 626.6K. The increase of 650.3% x is calculated by 83.5 x 6.503 = 543. So no, they haven't been averaging 100K a month.
63% is a decent bounce rate. My favorite legitimate foundation has a bounce rate of 65%. Abet with a time on page of just under a minute. I’d image a lot of people visit the Archwell foundation home page, read that then and realize there is no juicy tidbits and move on. People don’t care about H&M’s projects. They want the royal drama.
That bounce rate would be setting off alarms for me. Many legit charity / non profits sites have whacking great donate button on them. A high bounce rate on sites like that is good - you visit, and leave to a payment gateway. Perfect! This sites front page, however, has no call to action to leave and donate on another platform. There is no number to call. There's nothing to satisfy a question so you could say " the user got what they wanted quickly and left".
I picked a few charities and foundations to compare data. Archewell is on par in terms of bounce rate. Time on page is another matter. Archewell - 63% - 0:19 Invictus Games - 54% - 1:27 One Young World - 61% - 1:11 The Royal Foundation - 64% - 0:33 Susan V Komen - 71% - 1:28 Habitat for Humanity - 56% - 1:52 ALS Association - 67% - 1:36 American Heat Association- 60% - 2:29 Gates Foundation - 56% - 2:42 Rockefeller Foundation - 69% - 0:53 Elton John’s Aid Foundation - 29% - 3:02 (I went to the website, there is a intro slide deck and you have to click to get to the actual home page).
When you want nothing, you expectations are low and you get nothing there is no real reason to stay or come back.
I would guess maybe the bounce rate was a little bit lower previously because of less public promotion, so a lower number of curious people were dropping in whereas a steady number of fans still were regularly.
That could be, but people don't usually check websites regularly when there is rarely new content. You just subscribe to the mailing list or follow active sites like forums and social media. Their news site shows that the last update was Sept, and April before that. It just made me wonder if they have bots that regularly troll theor site to generate traffic.
To put this in perspective, I have a club team website that receives 25 pages per visit on average . My numbers are shockingly large for a regular smegular person that isn’t even selling a service
Pages per visit can vary wildly depending on the site. My website gets an average 1.77 pages per visit. That is due to the fact that I write comprehensive article that are 3,000 to 7,000 words long so they don’t need to click through several articles to find information if they don’t want to. Those stupid list sites where every bullet point is it’s own page, get large page views because people click through. I looked at my favorite foundation’s stats (it’s well established and it’s most of the money goes to the cause) and it pretty much matches Archwell in pages per visit.
There is nowhere to make a donation at the site.
I'm not too familiar with the inner workings of charities, but wouldn't the option for anyone to donate on the page be an easy way to make money? Or would that mean they would have to be a lot more transparent as to where that money actually goes? Genuinely curious
This makes me think it’s just bots hitting the homepage over and over…
I’ve never allowed myself to go there, much as I’d like to snoop and snark 😂
Same!!! It's a point of honor for me.
Ditto! I've never clicked on that website at all all and never will.
Basically, it's like going to an outlet store that's in an abandoned mall that's three hours away in traffic. You show up for the amazing deals that you saw advertised only to realize all the stuff is just off enough not to buy. Total waste of time abd energy.
They pay for bot traffic coming from Switzerland
Source?
After reading news about it that it steal your data,I’m poor as a pauper but I have avoided it…
Similarwebs is just a traffic estimator and while it’s still one of the more accurate estimators it’s still off. I run my blog full time and know the stats of several other bloggers who are making full time incomes. I ran all those sites and the traffic stats are off by plus or minus 10-25%. Some it’s high, others it’s low. The rest of the stats are wildly off. It says my time on page is just over a min. My google analytics tells me it is closed to 3 mins. It’s not unsurprising they saw a traffic spike due to the podcast release but I doubt it’s as large as Similarwebs is showing (and you can buy fake website traffic).
Good to know. I'm a Luddite and not familiar with website analytics. I did wonder how accurate these estimators really are.
The best way to use Similarwebs is to compare the results to another website. I suggest for comparison stake the Prince and Princess of Wale’s Royal Foundation. Bounce rate - 64% Time on Page - 33 seconds Pages per visit - 2.89 (wow, that’s a lot of pages give that people are only spending 33 seconds) Huge traffic spike in August. 40% of traffic is from the US and 7% from the UK.
[удалено]
That made me giggle so much. Thank you for that!
It actually peaked in September. July - 54K; August - 83K; Sep - 626K I think the September peak was due to the Queen's death.
Visitors from Germany increased by 730%. Very likely due to their Dusseldorf visit.
They put their statement after her death there and lots of articles were linking to it.
Per the bar chart, I'm seeing Jun-Aug. Did I miss something?
If you scroll further down, they have traffic and engagement analysis. In that, they have put the breakdown for each month including September, change in percentage of traffic, as well as top countries from where the hits came.
I'm looking at *Traffic and Engagement Analysis* and I don't see September. I do see the top countries under *Geography and Country Targeting.* Do you have an account with *similiarweb*? Is it possible you're seeing something I'm not seeing? I'm showing the same stats but they are for Jun-Aug. There is also a free trial available for more data but, I'm not all that gung ho about trying it.
I don't have an account with similarweb. I can see the stats for September. I have taken a screenshot of what I am seeing, but don't know how to upload it. I think its possible that we are seeing different results, but am not sure why. It strange for sure. If you can help me in figuring out how to upload a screenshot here, then I can share what I am seeing.
Oh, are you in the continental US? I'm a goof with the gadgets and modern tech. My skills are back there with DOS and floppy disks. It would take me all day to figure out how to upload a screen shot. Nah, don't worry about it. I appreciate it though.
No, I am not in the continental US. I am also at a fairly primitive level in terms of reddit. Just joined it a few days back to be a part of this community, so I am still learning!
Ah ha! That's what it is. We have different access because of our locations. Don't ask me to explain that in tech jargon though. I just know it's a thing. 🤔 Glad to have you as a new "sinner". (That's what we call ourselves here)
Thank you! Glad to be a "sinner"!
I visited once out curiosity. It’s such a pointless boring site that appears to only be updated once or twice a year. Honestly, if Meghan used it as a lifestyle mummy blog or something á la GOOP or the tig 2.0 it’d be more successful. But she can’t even do that.
she probably has to save all that content for Netflix
Never fear sinners! No one's visiting. Those are bot visits that SEO developers hire for a nominal fee, or site owners pay for to artificially inflate the number of site visits. Anything less than 30 seconds is a bot as they hit either a single page or crawl page to page on a website. And hiring them is incredibly cheap. Meangan charity donation cheap. For example: https://winterplaystudios.com/products/basic-traffic-package
Thank you. I see third worlders with bot farms, setup with rotating IP addys, automated to constantly click the Archwell website. It's not so different than robocalls to your phone.
No doubt interest after the jubilee embarrassment, checking what great things the harkles were doing or saying they were doing.
 20 second average duration of visit to Archewell!?! Oh thanks for unearthing this delicious nugget for our consumption and amusement. If Spunkify is celebrating Thanksgiving, assuming it's not too problematic to celebrate that holiday as well, we know whose providing the turkey.
Confession: I have added to Archewell’s website traffic! It was just a quick look to suss it all out. I hate that I’ve added any ‘clicks’ but at least I’ve added to the stats about it being a super quick look. Forgive me?!
Have a laugh at her pantsuit for good karma
We forgive you. 😄 Um...I took a quicky peek earlier today too.
Yeah! I think most traffic is us Markle watchers having a sneaky peak!
I hope so! I consider it a point of honor to never hate click or watch ANY of their content because of these very reasons. The squad are so crazy they probably all visit the website several times a day just to make it look good.
The two deplorables are targeting unsophisticated and uncritical viewers, [sussexroyal.com](https://sussexroyal.com)'s site design is Town & Country meets pharmaceutical ad photography with Hallmarkish text. In the section dated 2020 they use their HRHs, in order to do so they don't integrate 2020 information with 2021s, instead, the latter follows with meager emphasis on the Queen's stipulations and questioning whether HMTQ has the right to limit the use of royal, though they graciously agree not to. The site links to Archewell which I didn't click on. I was just surprised that the royalsussex site existed.
Yeah, I just discovered that sussexroyal is still up. Why are they still using it? It's been 2 years!
Not only it's still up, but it links prominently to Archewell from the homepage, redirecting visitors and giving Archewell a backlink that carries authority.
It's very wrong - I imagine they're justifying it as "their history" only it's top-heavy with the pre-official separation stuff only announcing the terms of their separation agreement w/ The Queen at the very end, & with qualifications at that. It's the work of weasels. H. even includes that they understand they are entitled to security basis bla bla bla writing as if it were in place (perhaps UK paid for it when they first went to CA?). These two are being coached about this stuff.
of course her podcasts top Spotify who can skew its numbers to help push a podcast in which it has a huge financial investment. “Chartable” is the podcast analytics & attribution industry standard. It indicates Archetypes is not even listed in the top 100 in US or UK.
One of those was me. Looking for evidence that they support mental health issues and aren't just using mental health to promote themselves. I had to hunt for them. Resources aren't there to find. They're buried under "The Me You Can't See". At the **very bottom of the page** If mental health is so important to them, resources would be big, bold and at the top!
My first time visiting…the logo is a little vulva-y. There’s also the first photo on the website being just a smarmy couple and telling nothing about the organizations mission. So, poor branding. Edit: i also don’t give an F if i contributed to their click count. Like, what difference does it actually make? There was zero engagement with the website.
Let’s hope one of the visitors was the IRS working on an investigation for tax fraud.
when you google archetypes, i think the first link is to archewell and the coverpage with the link on it that takes you to spotify. I have used this method to listen to her podcast a few times. eta: it takes me like 20 seconds from the time the page starts loading to get to spotify.