Just because your site traffic drops, it does not mean that their is evidence of Content Filtering. In my last post, I described two blogs which are so dormant that their are no visitors and the information is so stale that there are few Google referrals. Still, this type of stagnant site does not happen overnight. It’s like turning an oven up or down. If you turn it up to speed cooking, it will take 15 minutes or so before you see the obvious effects and when you turn it off, the meal will keep on cooking as long as the temperature is above 140 Fahrenheit.

Following the procedure outlined in the last post, we can check for a stable relationship between site visitors due to Google referrals, regular visitors and how much of a viral effect there is. It’s pretty obvious where the break in the following data is, but even this part of the analysis does not prove that a sudden change occurs, it just proves there is a stable relationship.

Google referrals———–Total Visitors

141———————–291

113———————–231

123———————–250

157———————–340

102———————–231

45————————115

33———————— 81

37————————103

37———————— 92

The relationship is as follows with an incredible correlation coefficient (R squared) of 99%.

**visitors** equals 1.93(**Google Referrals**) plus 23.4(**Regulars**)

At this point, we know we have a stable relationship between visitors and Google referrals and the drop is obvious but is it significant enough to prove Google Content Filtering.

Well for the 21 days prior to the day with 340 visitors there had been a relatively constant rise starting from 112 visitors a day. The equation was:

**Visitors** equals 7(**Day**) plus 109(**Regulars**)

Now the correlation coefficient was somewhat low at only 67% but considering day to day variations in frequency of posting and the strength of the content, that is still a strong relationship. The weaker correlation lead to large Standard Error of the estimate of 32. Putting this in layman’s terms on a day where you expected 200, 95% of the time it would be between 136 and 264, and 99% of the time it would be between 103 and 297.

This broad range seems like we are shooting at the broad side of a barn but after the 24th day when we would have expected 277 or above 180 at the 99% confidence level we only had 115 visitors and after that it got even worse.

It’s pretty obvious, that there was a change and my most popular post at the time could no longer be found short of a direct entry of the title which was “Youngerbabes.com Hack This Site”. I can’t figure out why a rant about a know kiddie porn site which is still on line should have been blocked unless it’s protected government property.

## Leave a Reply