I'm giving up comparing websites using Alexa.com's data. Checking the accuracy of Alexa data using ABCe numbers led me to believe they were good enough to rely on. But the Times reckons the Alexa numbers in my latest post relating to referrals from the BBC were rubbish - and the Guardian agrees.

Alexa data vs the Times's own

Drew Broomhall's tweet about Alexa's data

Alexa had claimed that 4.1% of Times visits are referrals from the BBC.

But Drew Broomhall, the search editor of Times Online, tweeted to say the figure was in fact just 1.4% - just a third of what Alexa is claiming.

Alexa data vs the Guardian's own

Martin Belam's tweet about Alexa's data

Martin Belam, Information Architect at the Guardian, saw the exchange and offered to reveal the Guardian's figure for BBC referrals if I found out the Alexa one.

So I did: Alexa claims that 4.44% of visits to the Guardian were preceded by a visit to bbc.co.uk, making it the Guardian's 3rd most important referring site.

Martin's reply: "Well for a start, the BBC only just scrapes into our top ten referrers for last month, not third highest"

Conclusion

There's only one obvious one - let's not rely on Alexa data for making comparisons of websites ...

You might also like

1. Alexa data: how accurate is it – using audited ABCe figures to check?
2. Hey, James Murdoch: How about thanking the BBC for all your traffic?
3. How sticky are visitors to UK newspaper sites?
4. Sites that drive the most USA traffic to UK newspaper sites
5. Guardian wins newspaper URL tweet war