Reliable, affordable business hosting from Yahoo! Web Hosting
Home Sitemap


What to Expect after you hire us? A scope of work - anticipated results, analytics, follow-ups and more...


Egrageuos innacuracy of's statistics drove us nuts - how come a company whose general manager, Andrew Cohen spoke of's plans to data mine Twitter's news stream as a revenue source be so incompetent in its Clicks Statistics? So we went to check them out.


Clicks or Click Fraud? Clicks Animation

Check out animation about millions of bots clicks show at as "statistics"

Twitter: The Dark Side Study

Check out these Ads and Click ones of Your Interest




Twitter: The Dark Side | MILLION CLICKS DELIVERED (in fact 1,677,769)

According to the usually well-informed Wired Magazine, plans to expand its analytical tools to the point that companies will pay to use them. Are these companies going to pay for fraudulent or at least hugely inaccurate statistics? general manager Andrew Cohen says: “What we see are people, and marketers, coming to and using it almost as an ad server — running campaigns on Twitter, but becoming interested in the ROI (return on investment) on those campaigns,” he explained. “If I send out a tweet about dogs versus a tweet about cats, what is my average click rate normalized by the number of followers I have today?” Helping companies answer questions like that is another revenue opportunity.

Wired’s journalists Eliot Van Buskirk wrote about another potential revenue source for (and for Twitter, if it acquires the company) is that marketers could pay for deep data access and analysis. The service already lets anyone see how a given link is performing by adding a “+” after at the end of the URL. For instance, the link “” tells me that just over 500 people clicked on a link I tweeted about my Spotify-for-the-iPhone review. Were these really “500 people that clicked” on Mr Van Buskirk’s link? And then the really scary statement came: plans to expand those analytical tools to the point that companies will pay to use them.


Would you pay for “analytical tool” that gives you this data :



1,677,769 CLICKS AND NOT A SINGLE ONE COMING FROM A HUMAN!! We know, we created all of them, or, in all honesty, we created all of them but 315 clicks that came from other robots, crawlers, slurpers and other non-human entities that find a cozy place for their existence at


We already established that statistics provides is egregiously inaccurate at best and fraudulent at worst. presents users with phantom numbers that counts cyberspace’s ghosts and drones, robots and crawlers, presenting them as they are all humans, something they are not. plans to expand its so-called "analytical tools" based on its "statistics" to the point that companies will pay to use them. Such self-serving "analytical tools" are as accurate as politicians’ statements so we embarked on testing serious’s vulnerability – its utter inability to differentiate in between bots and humans.




Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only if they give the authors the credits and only for noncommercial purposes.
For on-line displays of the work and derivative works licensees must include SEO Artworks link as follows:





Valid CSS! Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional