Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | yabbadabbadoo's comments login

TrafficGun isn't about SEO/links. Its about gaining real, live visitors.

To this end, we strongly encourage all users on our platform to nofollow all links.


Wait --- how do the real live visitors get to your site if not a link?

I don't follow how nofollow makes it not a link web ring?

No sarcasm, I used webrings in 1996 to great effect. Not for SEO. For real live visitors.


Ahh, my bad. I thought you were implying this was some sort of link exchange scheme for SEO.

But yes, cross-promotions work great for growing traffic long-term. See this comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9459902


Does it presume that most people have more time to devote to reading stuff online?

On a niche-by-niche basis, yes. For instance, I keep a list of personal finance blogs that I check out regularly. When one of those blogs features a personal finance site I haven't seen before, I check that out as well and consider adding it to my list.

One of the best ways to grow your blog traffic long-term is getting other bloggers in your niche to write about you. TrafficGun makes this easy.


Exactly!


Hey Stan,

pls ping me at help@trafficgun.com with your username - and I'll be happy to take a look at your account :)


Hey! Thanks for the feedback :)

'highly un-targeted' is the keyword in your comment. With TrafficGun, there's no spamming ppl with unwanted requests. Every user on the platform is amenable to cross-promotion.

As for PayPerPost, SponsoredReviews etc - our focus is primarily on cross-promotions b/w bloggers who vet each other.

Finally, re:Google - We encourage all users on our platform to nofollow all links. TrafficGun isn't about SEO/links. Its about gaining real, live visitors.


Content for the sake of exchanging traffic by means of links. I'm not convinced this is much different (if any different) than what I mentioned. SponsoredReviews focuses on bloggers writing ads for products. Your idea is to have the arrangement be two-way so that both sites write about the other but then you have the issue of all these sites stacking up two-way links which looks like link exchanges. I doubt Google is going to be thrown off by the nofollow links. It's been abused to stop pagerank 'leak' to the point of losing its original meaning. I don't think emphasizing the use of nofollow is going to save anyone from Google realizing sites are putting out farm-style content.


Yes. If you find a site who metrics - traffic, niche etc - that you like, you can send them a request to write about your site/product in exchange for a fee. The fee is set by the owner of the site.


We strongly encourage all users on our platform to nofollow all links.

TrafficGun isn't about SEO/links. Its about gaining real, live visitors.


Encourage instead of require? Any particular reason for that?


It's in the best interest of the site owner to nofollow, so we figured encouragement is good enough :)


That clarifies it a lot. Thanks


You're welcome :)


Hi guys, I'm the co-founder of TrafficGun - a platform to make cross-promotions b/w bloggers easier.

Happy to answer any questions.


Can you provide more details on one-way traffic?


Sure! If you find a site who metrics - traffic, niche etc - that you like, you can send them a request to write about your site/product in exchange for a fee. The fee is set by the owner of the site.


So it's basically a link exchange for blogs?

What's the incentive for a popular blog to link to less popular or newer blogs?


When you get a request for cross-promotion, you can see the metrics of that site (traffic, niche, age etc). If the metrics aren't to your liking, you can simply decline the cross-promotion request.

Also, it's actually not about exchanging links - in fact, we strongly encourage all users on our platform to nofollow the links. This is about teling your readers "Hey! There's this interesting blog you should check out" - and getting the same in return.


Why call it TrafficGun? Feels like a weird name and carries bad connotations.


Maybe something related to mailgun.com ?


The best actionable advice I've read to date regarding giving money to kids without spoiling them - For every dollar they earn, give them $N. That way they have to work, but they don't have to work a repulsive yuppie job to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle.

http://philip.greenspun.com/materialism/early-retirement/


If two different families are doing this, then it's exploitable: Alice earns 1 dollar, receives 5 dollars from her parents, gives them to Bob, Bob tells his parents he earned them, receives 25 dollars, gives them back to Alice, Alice tells her parents she earned them, receives 125 dollars... Or even in one family, the child could "reinvest" part of the $N received this month to get more money next month. The obvious workaround is for the parents to check the child's salary slips, but if the child's employer is in on the scheme, that won't help.


"Hi Mum, I earned $125k a month working at the local Food Bank...again! Can I have my $625k now please?"


Need not be two different families. Two kids from the same family can pull of this trick as well ?


Let me quess - you are Russian?


In my family I could imagine this being pretty ruinous. Being in the software field, it's a lot easier for me to get a job, and one that pays more, than my sisters. I can tell there is already resentment towards this, but if it also meant that I was being given even more by my dad, than I don't want to think what that would do to our relationships.


I imagine the idea is applied to teenager, where it's supposed to teach them hard work and the value of money.


Perhaps you could use some kind of squashing function on the amount given. The more you earn, the less money you get for every additional dollar.


I understand the logic behind it, but I disagree. If you are a very wealth person and your children decide to become volunteers for the red cross, you'll give them less money than if they decide to become bankers on Wall Street?


I think just setting up a baseline income for life would be sufficient. Say 100k/year. Enough that they can comfortably pursue whatever makes them happy, without being rich.


I know someone with that kind of plan, and it isn’t such a good idea: her, and her family pretty much fight over money a lot (and how to work around the situations unexpected by the trust fund rulings); they work soul-crushing yuppy jobs because they were raised to think 100k is nothing, and you can't live without 250, but they all have short-term gratification issues, meaning holding anything that makes 150k/y is near impossible. Most female members of that family can be described as gold-diggers that use the 100 as seed for that endeavour: you'd never suspect how expensive is the re-starter kit for that profession.


That's quite sad. Would they be better off with the entire sum in the long term, or would their problems simply escalate?


Essentially a family-only basic income guarantee? Sounds like the best idea in the thread so far.


The best rent vs buy calculator I've ever used - https://www.smartasset.com/first-time-home-buyer/affordabili...


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: