Slashdot Mirror
Google's Share of Searches Falling? Or Increasing?
prostoalex writes "Get two research companies in the room, and you'll likely end up with three opinions. Bear Sterns quotes ComScore Networks data, which says that Google's share of searches is slipping, down to 36.9% in June 2005. WebSideStory, a Web research company, on the other hand, claims that in June 2005 Google hit a new record as far as share of searches, hitting 52%, and leaving rivals far behind."
Statistics only benefit those who pay for them.
Well, that's kind of silly. If one is legitimate and another backed by, say, Google or MSN, clearly they don't cancel each other out.
Studies can't really cancel each other out. If, in the presence of both studies, neither of them count, then they were probably both wrong to begin with.
And it is possible for both to be right, if they use different methods for sampling or measurement.
... so who "sponsored" (either with advertising, money, partner-deals, whatever) each of the reports.
If the one that says Google is increasing is sponsored by Google in any way, shape, or form, it has zero useful information content. Similarly, if the other is sponsored by any of Google's competitors, it has zero useful information content. At least, IMHO.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
I find it interesting that MSN has 15.7%, which is entirely due to new installations of Windows setting IE's homepage to msn.com. Without that I'd bank their percentage would hover somewhere around the minus. IMO Google has no competitors in terms simplicity and results.
"Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
Also, with Google continuing to push into just about every market, customer loyalty will just keep increasing. I think that's something that Microsoft undervalues - people will continue to shop in the same store or search from the same people if the service is good and they really like the shop, even if they can get the same thing elsewhere, even marginally cheaper.
Of course, I have no statistics to back that up, but neither (apparently) do the claims of these companies - so why should I worry about it either?
Physicist, consultant, science communicator
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
The typical user does not care about open source. They do not care about os freedom, vendor dependance, or any of the other crap everyone on slashdot blabs about. They have a computer and they want to use it.
End of story
"Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
Aldous Huxley
If Google's searching algorithm gets better, fewer people would have to reword their query, thus resulting in fewer overall searches.
Another factor is what users are searching for, and why. If I wanted a quick definition or synonym, I'd use dictionary.com or thesaurus.com, respectively. If I wanted to quickly search for factual information about a particular subject, I might use wikipedia's search instead of google. If I wanted to search for movie listings, I'd use yahoo. If I wanted to search for movie information, I'd use IMDB.
So perhaps google's percentage is down. But its raw numbers might not necessarily reflect this.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
How many people are using Windows 2000?
What percentage of all active computer users in the United States are on Macs?
What percentage of "non-technical" computer users have installed Linux and use it as their primary OS?
These are the sorts of questions that can be of vital importance to companies when they are trying to determine which markets they should be in, how they should orient their marketing, what improvements they need to make to their products, and so on. The problem is that this information is extremely difficult to pin down, which is why these analysts proliferate.
If it's tough to get reliable data you can base decisions on, it's even more difficult to determine whether a given market analysis is worth a damn.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Google conceptually figured out how to let humans do what they are good and, and let computers do what they are good at and use that as to generate search results.
Yahoo at the time, had hordes of people who browsed the web literally and categorized things by hand. A completely unscalable, and insanely expensive proposition.
Alta Vista was the king of meta-tag spamming. Sure it was all automated, but it sucked to use them for searching.
Now, you also fundamentally don't understand what makes google an innovator. First off, look at Ajax and how interactive and user friendly their websites are. Take their maps for instance. They are the first (as far as I know the only people) with whom I can scroll the map using a mouse. I don't have to use preset jumps. I don't remember ever seeing anyone who let me jump to intersections and show them to me. I don't know of anyone else who provides satallite and drawn maps both as seamlessly or for free. They make online applications that work nearly as well, and are almost as flexible as desktop application.
Plus it's innovative that they turned the entire business model on it's head. They are quality. Everything they do is based on quality. (That's a lot like Apple). They refuse to compromise quality to make an easy buck. It'd be easy for them to let people purchase "bonus pagerank". They haven't, and they won't. They ensure that everything that is paid for is clearly marked that way. Unlike any other search before it.
They don't have to make any money from the people who use their software. They make all their money from people who are interested in presenting information related to the information google is presenting.
Next, at the time of it's IPO, it was speculated that Google's SA scalability and parallel programming technology was worth more then the company as an advertising company ever was. The problem with that analysis is that Google's knowledge is buried in people's head, if they left the company it that value would flee the building with it.
Finally, how many companies do you know of who encourage (require?) you to spend 20% of your time being creative to work on personal ideas that could become conceptual products.
Apple isn't an innovator in terms of the iPod or digitial music. I've been listening to MP3's on a computer since 1995, and several people I know have had portable MP3 players since late 2000, or early 2001 at least. Apple was very late to the game. They just happen to own it now. What Apple did was change the business model to one that people are happier about. Remarkably like Google has with search.
As to Oracle, I'm not sure about their history. I'm fairly confident the concept of an RDBM's was widely known prior to Oracle's existance. (Conceptually I believe they have been around since the late 1970's, I though Ellison started on it in 1982 or so). Ellison surely wasn't the innovator, I believe that honor would go to Micheal Stonebreaker (Standard researcher who was the world's leading expert on RDMS for all of thei early stages).
Kirby
Unless this proves that Star Wars geeks are primarily Google users, it proves the surveys innaccurate in favor of MSN and Yahoo!.
It is hard to say that you have a truly representative population on your site -- after all, people who would like to see the Star Wars trailer on-line are probably a little more technologically-educated than the average joe. Certainly, all my pale friends use Google, but my less computer-inclined family members tend to use Yahoo or other search engines. I'm not saying the study is accurate, just that the concern you brought up at the end is a very serious one. It proves that people who search for Star Wars trailers on the Internet are primarily Google users, which suggests that Google may have more market share than the study gives credit for.