Slashdot Mirror
Google Users more Wealthy, Net Savvy
evil_breeds writes "A study by S.G. Cowen & Co. says that Google users tend to be richer and have more Internet experience than users of the other search engines, including Yahoo!, AOL, and Microsoft's search, according to an article on Infoworld."
I know plenty of hippies that use Google.
Everyone use Google and wealth and wisdom will ensue!
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
I think we're one step closer to Miscrosoft paying us to use their search engine...
If Microsoft was mass, stupidity would be gravity.
AOL and MS's Search are places you're directed to by your OS or ISP. Google is independent, so going there requires a bit more independent thought.
Actually, Yahoo! is also independent, so apparently there's a hole in my theory. Can anyone explain why Yahoo! users are less intelligent than Google users? Has it something to do with that exclamation mark?
and their 'funded' windows v linux TCO studies..
I'm curious who paid SG Cowen for this one?
they don't generate this stuff for fun, they do it for income-- what's the source of the income that enables them to produce such a report?
anyone? know anything about the corp? I find little on the site of the company to fill in the blank...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Will all you rich Google users please send this Broke College Student some money?
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
that Goooooogle users actually know what they are looking for when they search on the Internet, and so use Goooogle, and people that don't know what they are looking for are happy with whatever Yahoo! and others dish up?
I know I use Gooooogle because I'm able to use it to find what I want to find, and normally in the first page. This is not so with other search engines. I may be biased by personal taste, but that seems to show some difference that might explain the headline?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Yes. And all those people are too poor to be able to afford an internet connection.
-- Cheers!
... more attractive to the opposite sex just yet, though I'm sure that if Google could get you laid, you'd think I'd've heard about it by now...
Dog is my co-pilot.
http://www.internetnews.com/stats/article.php/1403 581
There is a citation for you.
Today, Google seems to be going in the other direction. Offering more services, integrating more advertising.
Just the past 6 months, I have noticed a new form of advertising by Google. In the past, there would be the advertising on the right of the page, and the advertising on top in the blue or green box. But now they sneak in 3 or 4 searches on the first page mixed in with the regular searches as advertising. Google is tempted to make money, and it will burn thier support.
Who knows, maybe someone else will start a search engine. Google came around at a time when Yahoo and Excite dominated, but Google made a product easier to use. I remember my first time using Google... I was at Yahoo to search for something when someone said "Why don't you try google, check it out". I was hooked.
The past few months I have been using Yahoo more for a few reasons. Maybe reason #1 is I got tired of Google having so many websites listed so high that was spam.
The other thing which turned me off to Google was I started a website and wanted to add it to the listings. Google would not add my listings for six months. And mine is NOT spam. Why is spam listed so high, but legitimate websites are not?
...while I put my surprised face on.
Joe Average goes to his local Best Buy, Circuit City, or other mega-store and buys the PC that the pimply sales dweeb recommends. He doesn't know a Gigahertz from a megabyte. He unpacks his PC, plugs it in, answers yes to every question the computer recommends he answer yes to. He opens the browser and it points to MSN. His twelve year old daughter's friend uses Yahoo messenger, and therefore so does she.
Is anyone surprised that the technically non-savy and generally lesser educated segements of the populous don't know what's out there and pretty much just take what's fed to them? Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of well educated and afluent people who don't have a clue either.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
AOL, MSN and Yahoo (via relationship with SBC) are all dialup providers. It's not surprising their portals are visited more often by the, erm, underprivileged.
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
Oh, you mean that *nix distro with an AWESOME GUI? Yeah I use it. I also use google the most often because it looks better in Lynx.
On a more serious note: Some people don't use google? Even the semi-computer illerteate people I know use google and nothing else. It's like second nature to most everyone, I thought.
"You will do foolish things, but do them with enthusiasm." - S. G. Colette
Now I can ask all my site visitors coming from Google to make a donation as they are rich :D
Heh
The important thing is not to stop questioning --Albert Einstein.
This seems almost like some contrived effort to increase Google's ad revenue. Now, when Google negotiates an advertising agreement, they can cite this. Poor, dumb people (who have computers) don't use Google? Virtually everyone uses Google. I wouldn't claim to know, but I'd think the Google demographic is that of the general population.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
um-- you have ad/trojan/spyware.. I had this exact same thing..
in made my google results always have commercial sites turn up in/mixed in with the results.
looked really good- but none of the adslime had cached version links available
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
... but I'm definitely putting "Google user" down on my next loan application.
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
Perhaps it was a bit bold to say regular expressions, its more permutations since it supports words and not letters.
But you can do things like "word * word"
You can also do something like this
"(I|He|She) (can|may|will) (search|find|locate)"
I agree with you that they would never (not atm) allow the public to have access to something that is turing-complete.
Yes, you can conclude that. The phrase "more likely" does not imply causation, merely correlation. If the data you gather shows that two factors are correlated then, without even trying to construct a causation model for this correlation, you can use one as a predictor of the other. The article is merely saying that the longer a randomly-selected user has been using the internet the likelier it is they use Google, and that the fraction of Google users with incomes over $60,000 is higher than the fraction of non-Google users with incomes over $60,000.
No, you don't. There is no statistical requirement that various groups you are trying to compare be of similar size in order to make comparisons. There is only a requirement that all your groups be sufficiently large to have a high likelihood of being representative of the population from which they are being drawn. WIth 1000 users and 9% MSN that's only 90 users, which is probably not enough to draw broad conclusions about MSN's user base, but the study as a whole seems to be mostly comparing the 52% Google users to the 48% non-Google users. That certainly seems like a reasonable number of samples to support the conclusion that Google use, technical experience, and income are all positively correlated.
I have always believed these kind of people think IE is more "official" or something (installing "that other program" won't do, even though they install every mini-"game" that comes in cereal boxes), and because Yahoo! and MSN smack them 15 of their other services in the ir front page they use nothing else (They use either (MSN || Yahoo!) Messenger ONLY, etc.
They still probably have the 15 shortcuts to AOL, MSN, Compuserve, etc. in their 50 shortcut 800x600 desktop.
Google is the epitome of good desing, unobtrusive on the outside but yet full of substance.