URL Click Tracking Reports

When you log into your EzineArticles Membership account and click on MY ARTICLE REPORTS, you will find a new column added called “URL Clicks.”

URL stands for Uniform Resource Locater and it means essentially your website address.

This is the first time any site like ours has ever released this click through data so that you can see how many clicks your articles are generating from our traffic directly. It’s our hope that once you can see the quantity of clicks being referred your way that you will prioritize creating and submitting even more quality original articles.

URL Clicktracking is released as a beta feature and will be subject to tweaking for the next month or so. Let us know what you think of this feature?



That is great ! Better control.

Comment provided July 13, 2007 at 11:32 AM


Dan Goodwin writes:

Just wanted to say thanks for the new URL clicks column in my Article Reports.

Brilliant idea, I can now see which articles get most click throughs, and test similar articles with different resource boxes to see which gets best results.

It’s interesting already to see how some of my very recent articles with higher views have actually got only a couple of click throughs, but some with few views have many more click throughs.

Very valuable data, and another example of EzineArticles’ commitment to innovating and giving the best service to their authors.

Well done Chris and the rest of the team!


Comment provided July 13, 2007 at 11:39 AM



You are a genius. You and your staff continue to innovate, leading the pack and defining what an article site should be. For anyone using articles to market themselves, their products or business, this is another of the many reasons why EzineArticles is the best. Thank you!

Comment provided July 13, 2007 at 12:46 PM



No, our software developers get the credit for this one.

The genius in it all is that we didn’t have to add a redirect on all of the URL’s to do this, thereby not affecting your perception of the value of the links in every article… ie: It’s a transparent process.

Comment provided July 13, 2007 at 12:49 PM


Dan Goodwin writes:

Chris, that is crucial, that the links remain visibly identical.

Something I struggle with when sending out links in emails and my ezine is whether to click track or not.

If I do, I get to see how many click on which links, but I get these ugly jargon looking links in the email.

If I don’t, I probably get more clicks, as people will more readily click on “mywebsite.com/freereport.html” than “autoresponder/link56GHY6TF678GT” but I won’t statistically be able to know!

Comment provided July 13, 2007 at 12:57 PM


Thad Ferguson writes:

How far back does the URL tracking go back right now and is it unique visiotors are every time anybody clicks on the link?

Comment provided July 13, 2007 at 2:25 PM


Judith writes:

EA is simply the best and continues to trump all other article sites. I’ve been a member for years and just wish I had more time to take advantage of you!

Great Job EzineArticles!

Comment provided July 13, 2007 at 2:44 PM




The tracking started on June 18, 2007.

The numbers listed are not UNIQUE clicks, it is total clicks.

Comment provided July 13, 2007 at 3:28 PM


Thad Ferguson writes:

I think more than anything this will help cut down on “crap” articles and articles with non related links when they actually see the low amount of traffic that they receive in relation to the number of hits they receive from EzineArticles.
Or maybe I am wrong and “crap” and “non-related” articles do get quite a few clicks to their links.
Chris I am sure you guys have already looked into this is my “guess” correct or am I way off base.

Comment provided July 13, 2007 at 3:42 PM




Your guess is correct;;; otherwise we’d have not shared the data.

Sharing this data is a big risk for us because of a lot of unknown outcomes that could happen as a result of everyone having this data.

We are hoping the feature will directly impact the increase in quality original article submissions and help members economically justify the investment of time and effort they make at producing more articles.

If it gets used for evil or we discover all kinds of unintended consequences; we figured that it could always become part of a premium package feature for re-release at a future date.

For now, it’s live and we wait and see what the impact will be.

Comment provided July 13, 2007 at 3:51 PM


Thad Ferguson writes:

In my opinion (which isn’t evil) as long as the stats remain private and only known to the person writing the articles and your staff it would take a lot of articles for someone to come up with “evil” ways to take advantage of this information. Of course someone intent on using EzineArticles for evil ways is thinking about it in a lot more ways than me.
I like it as now I can see which of my articles create the most “buzz” for my sites fairly easily.
Hopefully it also eliminates a lot of the crap articles that are written even though in some ways those crap articles benefit me as it brings more visitors to the site who have the opportunity to look at my articles.
As long as you keep it private I imagine it will be all good the only way the numbers could be manipulated is if you gave everyone access to everyone elses clicks. Then it would be quite easy to be use for manipulative purposes.

Comment provided July 13, 2007 at 4:38 PM


Lance Winslow writes:

I must say I am blown away by the number of click thrus I have in under 30 days, especially from articles I have written 10 months ago. This is very impressive indeed. I am smiling, but I kind of already knew this was a great thing, writing articles makes sense.

Comment provided July 13, 2007 at 5:26 PM



This is wonderful Chris!

I thought it was something you show us when we have already written many articles and now I have 30 articles already published here. The url clicks appeared suddenly in my page today! I’m glad it’s something new for everyone, even for beginners!

(I’m glad I saw it today, because I may not have Internet where I’ll go on Sunday! Civilization arrived there, but we may have local problems very common if you go too far from the capital.)

Now I saw that I better write articles for Spirituality, because I had many clicks from that category.
I knew I would have to start from the beginning and from something easy, that’s why I started from depression and not from craziness. But even though my articles are being successful, specially the ones I wrote for Mental Heath that is in fact the category where I can show many different and important things, I don’t have many clicks from them.

My article ‚¬“Neurosis Definition and Cure‚¬ is in Google’s first page if you type neurosis cure and in the second page if you type neurosis definition. It was a very simple article for me! But craziness is not something that common people try to understand.

I’m going to write many articles for the three categories, knowing where to give more. I adored this improvement!

Now, about the bad intentions! Which could they be? From the authors? That would be silly.
Each author here shall love this Ezine and want to see it always in the top. The Ezine is a bridge between our readers and our sites. We are in a very good position in Google thanks to the Ezine, because it has a very good reputation. Etc and etc!

Comment provided July 13, 2007 at 5:51 PM


Peter Cutforth writes:

Hi Chris

Could you comment on how this might affect those who wish to use articles to get one way credible PR links back to their websites?



Comment provided July 13, 2007 at 10:01 PM


Carla Vaughan writes:

This is such a great way to assist in determining which articles are of value to readers. Yes, having them published elsewhere is outstanding, but knowing that readers are reacting to what they read is fantastic. I’ll have a much better way to know what I can focus on in future articles.


Comment provided July 13, 2007 at 10:33 PM




Comment provided July 14, 2007 at 5:37 AM


Jim Kesel writes:


I thank you for adding this tool. It just adds another piece of information to the puzzle of what drives traffic to my websites. If you do your keyword research using Wordtracker and write your articles based on that information alone you are obviously not seeing the whole picture. Actual clicks per article is just the ticket.


Comment provided July 14, 2007 at 10:50 AM



Hi Peter! I’m going to help you understand how you can use the new tool you have in your page.

You can see how many people that already were reading something in the Ezine read your article when you see how many views it had.
You can also see how many times your article appeared on Google and someone clicked it, being directed to EzineArticles at the Ezine Publisher column.
Now you can also see how many times people that read your article clicked on your url at your resource box and visited your site after reading your article in the Url clicks column.

You have to write articles like the ones that attracted readers to your site first of all, because they may do what you want them to: buy your product, accept your ideas, etc.
Secondly you have to care about the articles that people click on Google, because they are your potential clients, even if they never click on your url.
Last, you have to care about the articles that people read when they come to the Ezine, because this information is also important.

This way you can compare your results and write articles that attract more people to your site and to the Ezine.
You have to care for the articles that bring people to the Ezine too, not only for the articles that bring people to your site, because you shall give support to the place where you present your work, so that it may always be in the top, with your best articles. You depend on the Ezine, the same way the Ezine depends on your work.
You have to care a lot about the common opinion and write articles that people like to read, even if they never visit your site or never come to the Ezine only in order to read your articles because if they read them it’s because they are useful and perhaps some day some of them may decide to visit your site too, since they like so much what you say.

I hope you don’t have articles that people don’t read!
If you don’t know how to write your articles keep reading Chris’ articles because he gives a lot of information here and the writers and marketers that participate of the discussions commenting what he writes give lessons to new article writers too. Like me now! In the beginning I was a student here, but now I’m giving lessons.

I have to prepare my bag to travel tomorrow. I should be happy because I’ll be on vacations, but I’m very worried because I don’t know if I’ll have Internet there! Never mind. I’m going to write a lot for sure!

Comment provided July 14, 2007 at 1:06 PM


Leo Hanes writes:

Hey Chris

The url tacking is a great addition for us….really gives us a chance to see which articles are working best for all of us. Should help us to create even better quality for our readers



Comment provided July 14, 2007 at 1:36 PM




This tool has nothing to do with helping members get backlinks to their website.

I think you may have misunderstood what this click through tracking URL reporting tool is?

Essentially, we’re providing you access to the stats as to how many times our website visitors click on any of the links in any of your articles.

From this information, you can get some validation on the performance of your articles and in many cases, you can become blown away with how much traffic we refer to your website.

In addition, we already have the next phase of this reporting completed and will most likely release it in a week. The idea is to help you get actionable data from this new stat being shared.

Comment provided July 14, 2007 at 2:13 PM


Peter Cutforth writes:

Hi Chris, yes looks like I have worded my question badly. My question was more about the technical mechanism by which EzineArticles tracke the url clicks. I had thought that maybe you were using an EzineArticles link to track the clicks, over the top of the authors’ url, if that makes sense (In which case my question was about whether this would still register as a one-way link). I can see that my question is off-beat anyway, as there’s no such tracking mechanism.. SO my bad!

Your mechanism work more something like Google Analytics? (Probably another silly question as you won;t be giving any secrets away LOL.

Thanks for your response.


Comment provided July 14, 2007 at 10:47 PM


Peter Cutforth writes:

Hi Christina,

Peter here. Thanks so much for taking the time to respond to my post. See my response to Chris, I worded my question badly, and could have done some more research before asking it ! I have been tracking my article url clicks for a long time using a clicks and conversion tracking linking tool, but of course one of the disadvantages of this is that the destination URL doesn’t get the same benefit of the one-way link authority from EzineArticles as it would if the link was “naked”.

Christina, to return the favor, shoot me an email at peter (at) bizinfoserve.com I might be able to help you improve your article view rates. Reviewing 40 of my articles posted from between 2 to 7 months ago, my average view rate is 3,950 per article, albeit in a different niche!

Thanks once again for your comments.


Comment provided July 14, 2007 at 11:03 PM


Peter Cutforth writes:


The extra report gives us a great snapshot look at the click-through rate of each article – thanks for the addition. Has there been any discussion about another column that calculated the % CTR for each article, so that we could monitor that as a percentage rate at a glance!?

Just asking…



Comment provided July 14, 2007 at 11:12 PM


Tim McGaffin writes:

I enjoyed that feature when I looked at my articles and saw how many times my address was clicked on.

Comment provided July 15, 2007 at 3:21 AM


Tim McGaffin writes:

It really is a great feature.

Comment provided July 15, 2007 at 3:24 AM



Hi Chris,

Thanks for the information.

Immediately after I have seen the URL Stat, I was terrified what went wrong with my Resource Box Strategy.

For 100 views only 8 URL clicks were there.

If those 100 views were generated by 8 individuals, then nothing to worry.

But I have doubts there are some more factors might have affected the URL clicks especially my presentation of Resource Box information.

My initial Resorce Box was like this,

Rajkumar Kanagasingam is author of a fascinating book – “German Memories in Asia” – and you can explore more about the book and the author at AGSEP

(AGSEP is the URL link)

I observed something wrong with the above presentation and altered like this,

Rajkumar Kanagasingam is the author of the fascinating book German Memories in Asia

(German Memories in Asia is the URL link)

Kindly comment on my observation and reshaping Resource Box strategy.

Comment provided July 15, 2007 at 6:26 AM


Dan Goodwin writes:


Following on from Rajkumar’s comments, will you in time be producing any kind of stats on what a good URL click rate is?

Obviously we can compare the different click rates of our own articles but I have no frame of reference as to how well I’m doing compared to others.

It would be very useful to know for example that for a hundred views whether we might hope to get 2, 10 or 50 click throughs.

I appreciate there are a huge no of variables but a benchmark of some kind might be useful..



Comment provided July 15, 2007 at 6:41 AM



Hi Chris and Dan,

There is a correction;

For 1000 views only 8 URL clicks were there.

If those 1000 views were generated by 8 individuals, then nothing to worry.


Comment provided July 15, 2007 at 7:29 AM


Peter Cutforth writes:

Hi Rajkumar

You are getting an 8% CTR on your url, which I think given the niche is pretty good actually. I’m sure Chris will share with us the average rates in due course, but I’ve got an idea its not unusual to have as low as 2%.

Here are some thoughts for you though, from a copywriting perspective:

1) Your article is a good solid length, and is pretty solid reading. For someone to get to the end, they would have to be pretty interested in your topic! :-)

A shorter article might lead to a higher CTR on your url, Lance Winslow has some comments on this.

2) Your writing style is very academic and obviously very well researched, but I wonder if the article really sets out clearly at the beginning where it is going and what it’s describing and what more they can discover by going to your link?

3) Your bio: “…a fascinating book – “German Memories in Asia”… lends itself to some easy improvement. “fascinating” is not really a benefit, – think about WHY is it fascinating? Pretend you don’t know whats in the book, and try to think of 2 or 3 of the top things in it that readers of your article would find irresistibly interesting, then list them in the juiciest adjectives you can, without getting over-hyped.

I think it will e great to be able to share % CTR’s over time. Maybe this will be the thread where we can do that?

Hope this helps


Comment provided July 15, 2007 at 7:40 AM


Peter Cutforth writes:


OK, that is low. I actually thought 8% was pretty amazing for that article :-)

I”m not sure you are looking at the numbers correctly though. The 1000 views are not generated by the 8 people, its the other way around : the 1000 different views generates 8 click throughs.

Anyway, see what Chris has to say :-)

P.S. Another good technique is to set up some kind of free offer the readers get by going to your website. The usual is a free “e-course” (delivered by a sequential autoresponder), of a free report (i.e. a pdf etc.).

Comment provided July 15, 2007 at 7:48 AM



Hi Peter,

Thanks so much for your advice.

But unfortunately I am getting an 0.8% CTR on my url.


Comment provided July 15, 2007 at 7:50 AM



Hi Chris and Dan,

Hi Peter,

I just repeated the “1000” in the both / following statements.

But in the first statement only I have the correction.

The second one I just made the observation having in mind the “100”.

I really messed the information.

1. For 1000 views only 8 URL clicks were there.

2. If those 1000 views were generated by 8 individuals, then nothing to worry.


Comment provided July 15, 2007 at 8:00 AM


Peter Cutforth writes:


There are several excellent articles on writing resource boxes within EzineArticles. I suggest you do a search and study them.



Comment provided July 15, 2007 at 8:05 AM





I am going to do some search for some time to get a good idea of the right resource box.


Comment provided July 15, 2007 at 8:10 AM



Peter C,

Yep, the tracking of the URL’s is done via a transparent process similar to how other analytics programs track click throughs without inserting a process between the link and the click.

The % CTR feature will be released soon.


Sorry, I’m going to respectfully pass on doing Resource Box reviews in the blog…but I will encourage you to track your results, alter your resource box design and track the results in classic A/B split testing.

Dan G,

Not sure yet…

We’re considering releasing data first to our Article Production Strategies clients and then weeks or months later to everyone else.

For all of those who might freak out over URL CTR:

Recommend watching the reports, testing new strategies, watching the reports and aim to improve your results over time rather than worrying about how you compare to others.

If this feature results in nothing more than hundreds of thousands of articles getting resource box updates, we’ll have created the wrong outcome for why we released it to everyone: to encourage greater levels of investment in new quality original article creation and submission. I assume everyone will want to optimize what they have and that’s great…but then over time you should begin to be able to eyeball the actual impact over how much traffic your articles spin directly from having them hosted with EzineArticles.com (if you don’t already know because of your analytics package). :-)

Comment provided July 15, 2007 at 1:15 PM


Jorge Chavez writes:

Thanks for a great and valuable addition to article reports! The Click tracking is a VERY welcome addition!
1. From what date do the click numbers start counting?
2. Are the clicks being counted on all live articles from that date onward?
3. Any difference between the counting for anchor links and raw URL’s?
[For example, I typically use two anchor links to pages on one of my websites, and one raw url address (in case of copies made that do not pick up the anchor links).]
4. Any way to distinguish if a click was on an anchor link or on a raw url (other than using an ad-tracker on the anchor link?)
5. How is the counting done? If a visitor clicks on all three links during an article view, does your system then register three clicks for that article? or that the one article view had 1 or more clicks (a score of one)?

Comment provided July 15, 2007 at 7:10 PM


Programmer #1 writes:

Rajkumar Kanagasingam , something you must consider is all of your articles where published between 5/16 and 5/21 , the click tracking data available did not start ontill 6/18 , so 1/2 of the life time of your articles is missing. So really you need to do something like double the numbers you have at the very least.

Comment provided July 15, 2007 at 7:11 PM



Hi Chris & Programmer #1,

Thanks for your advice and observation.

I am planning to alter my resource box like the following way which gives some “weight” in addition to “fascinating”.

Rajkumar Kanagasingam is the author of the fascinating book German Memories in Asia……..A collection of memories by the author; In his discussion with German university students who were volunteering in Asia on sensitive German historical issues since the Roman Empire era and the Germans around the world, his encounters in an American NGO as an officer in the war-torn jungles in a tsunami mission with German students in those areas, and the German students’ life and fashion in Asia.


Comment provided July 15, 2007 at 11:21 PM




Click tracking started the 3rd week of June around the 18th

Yes, the clicks are all being tracked from that date forward.

No, we are not providing a separation of clicks for full http:// URL’s vs. anchored text links.

We prefer to see you use at least one http:// full URL because to only include anchored text links is not smart.. because ASCII text ezine publishers will not have an easy way to give you link credit when they reprint your article.

The counting is per click, so if one visitor clicked on each link and you had 3 links, that would be 3 clicks.

This feature is beta and we’re going to let some more time elapse to collect more data before determining if further changes should be made.

Comment provided July 16, 2007 at 9:03 AM




I’ve been measuring click-throughs on the back end for quite some time using a statcounter on my website. It tells me what the referring links visitors used to arrive at my website were. Ever since using EzineArticles.com, I’ve noticed quite a bit of traffic coming to my site from the links in my resource boxes. But here’s the odd thing: according to my account view in my member’s area, I’ve got 0 url clicks for all my articles. I know that’s not true because of my back end statcounter. I think your software may have some sort of a bug you haven’t worked out yet. Is that possible?


Comment provided July 16, 2007 at 8:19 PM


Lance Winslow writes:

Can anyone tell me is well over 2,000 click thrus in 30 days and 180,000 Ezine Publisher Pick-ups and 5 million article views are decent statistics? I really would like some guidance from some of the other authors to insure that writing articles and putting them online is worth my time? You tell me, my inquiring mind wants to know?

Comment provided July 17, 2007 at 1:34 AM


Vern writes:

You’re so awesome Chris! This is a great idea and now I’m able to track my conversions so much better with less tools needed.

Do continue to pour in more features as time goes by. I see a very long term working relationship with you and EzineArticles.


Comment provided July 17, 2007 at 1:38 AM


Dan Goodwin writes:

Hi Lance,

Yeh I’d say you’re doing Ok, ha ha…

Seriously though, as the undisputed article production machine of the world, how are you going to use this new feature to change the way you write and submit?

Will you analyse the articles that get highest no of URL clicks and act on any trends you see, or still just go for volume of output?

I’d be interested in your answers,


Comment provided July 17, 2007 at 1:43 AM



Hi Kristen,

You are right. I too have some doubt of the software.

I did some random experiment by clicking the URL from different computers with different Telecom lines for the following article where I re-design the Resource Box, but they were not counted / appeared in the Ezine Stat.



Comment provided July 17, 2007 at 10:37 AM



I did say it was beta. :-)

I can tell you this: Those who have cutesy enhanced and enriched text in their HREF statements are not getting tracked properly.

Kind of an ironic unintended penalty to those who tried to get more traffic with bold and other attributes in their resource box href statements.

In Kirsten & Rajkumar’s case, you both used italics around your href’s and this is what caused your clicks to not be tracked.

Recommend including basic HREF statements with no bolding or italics until we can sort this one out.

Comment provided July 17, 2007 at 10:56 AM


Jorge Chavez writes:


I agree with Lance Winslow, would like to know more about what kind of stats/results others have gotten/are getting. How can we measure how we are really doing? Lance has impressive volume figures, but one would need more specifics to reach any conclusions. More details, Lance?

One of the keys here that most of us are probably concerned about, is, “How much bang are we getting per buck?” How many page views per article? How many clicks? What CTRs are others getting?

So tell me, you guys, what kind of results are you getting? To “prime the pump”, so to speak, I’ll show you mine if you show me yours! ;-)

Here are my numbers since June 18, when the click counting started:

1. Submitting articles at a rate of about one per day; oldest article approved on June 19, newest on July 16, 24 live articles total in this sample.
2. Total page views 1,518, total clicks 226, Average page views per article 63.25. Average CTR 11.49% Median CTR 9.20%.
3. CTR on three lowest CTR count articles: -0-%
4. CTR on three highest CTR count articles: 31.37%, 26.54% and 21.57%
5. Three articles with most page views:#1 June 29, 211 page views, CTR 26.54%; #2 June 23, 150 page views, CTR 17.67%; #3 June 20, 127 page views, CTR 19.69%
[Note the high correlation between high page views and high CTR. Overall the article with the highest number of page views had the second highest CTR, 2nd highest page views had 8th highest CTR and 3rd highest page views had 4th highest CTR.]
6. Six articles with lowest number of page views: July 12, 15 page views, CTR 6.67%;July 10, 28 page views, CTR -0-%; July 16, 29 page views, CTR 17.24%; July 13, 36 page views, CTR 9.09%; June 27, 36 page views, CTR 19.44; July 2, 40 page views, CTR 5.00%
[Again, low page views seems to be associated with low CTRs! (Discounting the one for July 16 which had only been out for 24 hours. It’s probably going to have a much higher page count very soon.) ]

This is a preliminary analysis, but for me it seems to indicate that when I write interesting articles that grab people’s attention, I not only get high page views, I also tend to get high CTRs!

Only problem is, I do not know how to predict in advance which article will get standing ovations and which will just get yawns and “So whats?”!

Who else has stats, comments, clarifications and/or comparisons on this subject?


Comment provided July 17, 2007 at 1:09 PM


Dan Goodwin writes:

Jorge, that’s a lot of stats!

Did you work all those out manually??

I’m a bit baffled by it at the moment. I’m not sure whether to analyse article titles to see which titles get most views, or the summaries.

And is the click thru rate just about the effectiveness of the resource box? Obviously not, if your article is poor, the reader won’t even get to the resource box, so it doesn’t matter how great it is.

As I said, feels like a lot of variables to take in. Anyone got any tips on the best way to analyse it all??


Comment provided July 17, 2007 at 2:12 PM



Hi Jorge!

I think we have to consider first of all the subject of each article collection and the competition in its field. The statistic cannot be general.

If you want to know my numbers I can tell you, but I don’t think they can be a base for you. What do you write about?

Comment provided July 17, 2007 at 2:15 PM


Programmer #1 writes:

For those who noticed certain articles where not being tracked properly, those issues should be fixed now.

(the bug only effected those who used bolding and italics in the resource box)

Sorry about the glitch. Your feedback helps me find and stomp out those bugs!

Comment provided July 17, 2007 at 3:02 PM



Hi Peter!

I sent you a message but I didn’t receive your confirmation. I guess you didn’t receive it.

My connection here in Syros is too slow. Each page takes an hour to open and one of my friends from Brazil sent me a message full of slides that is too heavy and I can’t receive it with this poor connection! This is blocking the rest of the messages and I can’t receive some of them (!).

If you want to contact me go to my site http://www.booksirecommend.com and send me a message from there with your email, ok? My articles are read and I have many views, but thank you very much for your offer! Perhaps you can do something to help me somehow, who knows?

Best Regards!

Comment provided July 17, 2007 at 3:10 PM


Jorge Chavez writes:

Dan, That’s not a lot of stats! It’s only 24 articles! :-)

Yeah, I worked them out manually.

Look, to simplify the analysis, why do we write and submit articles? It’s all about backlinks and viewer clicks to see what we have to sell, right?

So, for the most part, we write to get response in the way of clicks. That’s why the number of clicks is so important. It’s our main payoff.

Now there are three things to measure about clicks: Total number, Click Through Rate (CTR), and the conversion rate on our websites or wherever our links send them. Total number is just the gross count. It tells us how many clicks we got for all our work.

CTR is the measure of efficiency. What percentage of the people who saw the article clicked on a link? If the article and bio box converts efficiently we get a higher CTR. Means we get more bang for our buck. If we get, say, 100 page views per article, to get 100 visitors to our websites, if our CTR is 10% we would have to write 10 articles to get that 100 visitors. If our CTR is 20% we only need to write 5 articles for the same result!

We can measure conversion rate roughly by looking at how many sales (signups or whatever) we get per 100 visitors. There are various ways to get clearer, sharper numbers for conversion rates.

But for here, the main thing is to look at page views per article and clicks per page view. Then analyze the articles we wrote and try to optimize these page view and click numbers in the future.

What was it that got the good result? The Titles? The summary? The subject? The way we wrote the article? Some combination of all of those elements? We can never be sure, but we need to know as much as we can about good, productive articles and non-producing ones, compare them and look for trends and tendencies if we are to improve our writing performance.

The page view count and CTR numbers are the main things to look at. They give us feedback so we can improve the results we want to achieve. All of us who write articles, “Cast our bread upon the water” in hopes that it will come back to us manyfold. These numbers are all about “How-MANY-fold?”, and how can we make it better…

Comment provided July 17, 2007 at 3:47 PM


Emma writes:

Chris, I love the new stats. I’m actually amazed at how many clicks some of my articles are getting.

I have a question on the raw url vs the anchored url and how many can go in the resource box. I’ve pretty much only been using anchored urls because some of my urls are ridiculously long. Do you think it is silly to have a long raw url or should I just stick to using the main domain for the raw url. Those are always neater looking.

If I do a combination of raw and anchored url in the resource box, do they both count as part of the 2 link maximum or is it just the anchored urls that you count?

Can we we put live anchored urls in the article body? I’ve avoided doing that unless I’m linking to a “Part 2” of a particular article, but I may start doing it if it is okay to do so. Just not sure what the protocol is on that.

Comment provided July 18, 2007 at 6:20 PM




Nothing has changed in terms of our current allowance of up to 3 active self serving links.

I like short URL’s, but I don’t like the tinyurl concept.

You can put live anchored links in the article body but not in the first half or above the fold of the article and not to exceed the total of 3 active self serving links for the entire article.

The thing you should avoid is only doing anchored text links. This is a mistake as one of your text links should be a full URL of some kind.

Lastly, we’re not article part friendly. Do a blog search here for “Article Parts” and you’ll see why. :)

Comment provided July 18, 2007 at 10:44 PM


Amit Malhotra writes:

This is really great !

Thanks and love to EzineArticles.com

Comment provided July 19, 2007 at 3:13 AM


Jim Keayes writes:

This new URL click tracking feature is amazing.

It really helps me to see which articles are actually working.

I hope you keep it in



Comment provided July 20, 2007 at 11:20 AM


Alan Hocking writes:

Hi Chris,
EzineArticles has done it again!

I am still new to article writing and promoting and luckely for me I chose EzineArticles first to start publishing my ramblings. With all the tools and help you offer I don’t need to publish any where else!

I do have just one question, is it allright to have one active text link and the full url link in my resource box if they both point to the same address?

Comment provided July 24, 2007 at 3:01 AM




It’s ok to have 2 URL’s pointing to the same exact URL.


Comment provided July 25, 2007 at 1:08 PM


Alan Hocking writes:

Thanks Chris,

Since you started this great tool I find I get more click throughs on active text links but I hadn’t thought about the importance of the full URL link for when the articles get sindicated. That solves my problem.



Comment provided July 26, 2007 at 3:12 AM


Hank Rosen writes:

Thanks for another great tool. This will help me create better content.


Comment provided August 28, 2007 at 10:08 PM


April writes:

Hi. Thanks for your great tool. I am also new to article marketing and always look for ways to improve in this area.

Comment provided June 23, 2010 at 10:17 PM


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Please read our comment policy before commenting.