Yahoo Tops Portal Market In Visitors

linumax writes "Yahoo Inc. continues to lead the portal market in the number of unique visitors, and is also the top destination for news, a market research firm says. The Sunnyvale, Calif., company led the top 10 Web sites among U.S. home and work Internet users with 101.3 million visitors in August, EMarketer Inc., said. Second was Microsoft Corp.'s site with 95.6 million, followed by its MSN portal, 92.1 million; Google, 80.4 million; America Online Inc., 75.7 million; EBay Inc., 55.2 million; MapQuest, 39 million; Amazon.com, 37.6 million, RealNetworks, 36.4 million; and the Weather Channel, 31.2 million."

Comments

Raw numbers don't matter

[ThatGeek]

I'd argue that raw numbers don't matter with respect to Yahoo. I mean sure, they're paying a whole lot in bandwidth and all, but their site is so cluttered that I never have any idea what I'm looking at. There could be ads for free hundred dollar bills and I wouldn't even notice.

I can't tell you how many times I've gone to yahoo to find their directory of sites and given up and gone to DMOZ instead.

Does Yahoo filter spam from rankings better?

[ATeamMrT]

I seem to always go to yahoo.com when ever I search for something and rarely use any other search engine like google. I have no idea though because personally I don't care what search engine Im using but I do usually default to yahoo first

I've been a Google user for years, but I am starting to use Yahoo more often. At first it started because I was at Yahoo for a different reason, and the search was there, so I did it. Boom, less spam results. I went to Google to compare and there is more spam in the rankings.

Try searching for a review of a commerical product like a TV by model number. Google will fill the search with places selling the product, not with reviews. If Eopinions or Amazon does not have a review, you're screwed. You'll be buying blind.

Google to me was most usefull as a NON-COMMERCIAL tool, to find information, not sellers. There are plenty of places to buy, and I know their websites. I don't need google to show me electronic stores.

Re:Does Yahoo filter spam from rankings better?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try searching for a review of a commerical product like a TV by model number. Google will fill the search with places selling the product, not with reviews. If Eopinions or Amazon does not have a review, you're screwed. You'll be buying blind.

I can't believe you are serious. Do you work for Yahoo? Because that is the only way to explain the nonsense you wrote.

You want to find a review on a specific model of TV? Okay.
Let's just say it is the Sony KDL-V40XBR1.

So you go to a search engine. (It doesn't matter which one...)

Okay genius, what keywords do you enter? If I wanted to find reviews on the Sony KDL-V40XBR1, I personally would type in "sony KDL-V40XBR1 reviews".

If I were a moron, I would just type in "sony KDL-V40XBR1" and then wade through pages of useless (to me in this particular situation) results from websites trying to SELL me a Sony KDL-V40XBR1.

Jesus....

You want a specific type of search result? Then all you have to so is include another more specific search term, or two. :)

Re:Obvious question...

[radical_dementia]

I think it may be due to the fact that programs like realplayer usually go to a homepage when you launch the program. As far as I can tell its just an ordinary web browser built into the program, so they probably included those visits in their numbers.

Impressive showing for Google

[gasmonso]

Considering that Google doesn't offer anywhere close to the amount of crap that Yahoo and MSN do I think Google is doing far better. Yahoo, MSN, AOL, all offer a million different services and Google's primary function is searching. The maintenence costs for those sites must be through the roof, whereas Google can spend the $$$ on research and innovation.

gasmonso http://religiousfreaks.com/

More market research..

[deep44]

..and in yesterday's news, new study finds that 'Google Users more Wealthy, Net Savvy', which confirms something I've known for quite some time now:

We're outnumbered.

Portals?

[quokkapox]

The fastest way to get to your favorite sites is to bookmark their search form query boxes in firefox using a keyword. I can bring up slashdot or a google image search or an imdb page or a wikipedia article in new tabs, while blindfolded, with a couple of keystrokes, instead of wasting time clicking pretty widgets. You can even tell if the text you were looking for is on the resulting page by the sounds emitted by find-as-you-type.

We're all sheep

[fleener]

Hey, all I know is that the majority of the hits to my blog come from Yahoo and MSN. My page titles are crystal clear about what you'll be seeing before you arrive, so I'm not too worried about a lack of "quality" in my site traffic. My hits from Google are from people who search 2 to 5 pages deep in search results before finding me. Much of the time, Google ranks other blogs linking to my post higher than my posts, even for searches which involve my web site's name. So I humbly suggest that Yahoo and MSN aren't popular merely because people are sheep, but because those sheep have found contentment in being fed.

Re:Obvious question...

[Frankie70]

  How did real networks get so high. I never have visited their website.

That's why they are at #9. Once you start visiting they'll probably hit Top 5.

Better way to calculate use?

[dada21]

Wouldn't it be better to calculate which portal is the top portal based on the actual number of users that click a portal link?

I have customers who leave yahoo.com as their home page but always click a bookmark or head to another search engine to actually start browsing. I have no idea why people don't change the home page, but even some of my family works this way. Every time they open their web browser, yahoo pops up, and then they head off in a different direction.

With the various search toolbars, will the portal be as important as it was over the past decade? My homepage is blank -- especially on my primary browser, my PDA. Even with a fast connection I don't like the delay in popping up a start page.

I go look at yahoo about once every few months and just can't handle the site. Too much text, way too many colors, and it doesn't respond very quickly on some of my older (IE-based) PCs. I guess the average person doesn't have very much knowledge of proper use of color, text and overall layout. Yahoo reminds me of the beach blanket bingo madness from the 60s.

Re:Proving once again

[slasher999]

That is probably at least partly true. I use "my.yahoo.com" because I've been using it for something like 10 years now. I even ran the Yahoo! ticker for a while. Even though I've switched to new accounts on Yahoo! at least three times that I can recall, I still go back to it because I'm used to how it works. That comfort level is worth something, no matter how much I enjoy learning/using new "stuff".

Re:Proving once again

[gr84b8]

Huh?
I completely disagree. Yahoo! has been innovating in many areas since they first began. Not necessarily in bells and whistles (although they do tend to have lots of good features) but in core technology, uptime, and performance. I'm not sure what half-assed product you're referring to in particular (I'm guessing you're choosing to compare Y!Mail with GMail, since its hip to give google the advantage there), but in general Yahoo! has been a huge innovator in web technology (specifically portal related), and continues to put out quality services on all fronts.

Let the stock market decide...

[Chaffar]

If Yahoo is so much better than Google, than why does GOOG have more than double the market capitalization of YHOO ? Because the stock market is run by people who vote with their money, and therefore by people who try to make the most informed decisions they can. Those who know, know a good product when they see one (OR. they just bought into the hype and invested in Google like crazy, them and the rest of the world. But it paid off. didn't it :)).

Variety is the spice of life, and I think there's a market for both the "all-in-one" Yahoo-type solution just as much as the "function before form" Google method. Your personal preference shouldn't affect your judgement towards the other. I personally use both: Yahoo when I'm bored and Google when I need to get a job done fast.

I'm disappointed

[eyrieowl]

though not surprised by the large number of /.ers on this topic whose comments are so Google-worshipping. Google has done some very good things, but I think people should give Yahoo a little credit for having come out with a very large number of services, often beating others (including Google) to the web with that service. Maybe, just *maybe*, that's being reflected a *little* in these numbers? I'm not trying to flame Google, or say Yahoo is the bee's knees (god i feel old), but I certainly think that Yahoo deserves a little more credit than people give it. Google has all these great tools, most of which I've been using courtesy of Yahoo long before Google offered them. No, numbers != quality necessarily, but "Google" does not automatically equal "best" or "quality" either. Of all people, we, the people here ought to be most interested in choosing a toolset for its quality, not the press it gets, or the company that makes it.

Re:I'm disappointed

[marauder404]

Google has done some very good things, but I think people should give Yahoo a little credit for having come out with a very large number of services, often beating others (including Google) to the web with that service.

I completely agree with you here. Google has clearly done a lot to change the way people look at the web and monetization, but it has little that's truly unique anymore. Google spent years building its search engine and produced some incredible results. When Yahoo launched their own proprietary engine in early 2004, they produced a product with results that were nearly as good. I love Gmail for its interface, but is still playing catch-up for features with Yahoo, and they have a brand new interface that will be released soon. Google Maps did a great job and re-invigorating the maps market, but Yahoo's new Maps Beta is really much better. Overture could use some work as compared to AdWords/Adsense, but it's quite good.

In 2003, Google had better than 80% search share in the US. Now it's almost half of that, and there's even more to play out. To me, Yahoo also has the right mindset about Web 2.0 communities -- look at its recent acquisitions of del.icio.us and Flickr -- and these will be important in the future. Google has a lot going for it, but Yahoo isn't just the funky homepage it used to be.

AOL really number one?

[sloths]

AOL owns MapQuest, and 80.4 million + 55.2 million=135.6 million. Sure you can argue that Google+Blogger or Yahoo!+Flickr, but if AOL changed the MapQuest URL to something like MapQuest.AOL.com, then would AOL be first?

Click here if you use MapQuest
Click here if you use AOL

Re:where traffic comes from:

[jerw134]

webmasters, check your web stats - its 85% Google referrals

Yeah, just believe this guy who pulls numbers out of his ass. Here are some real stats for this month from a fairly popular website, which targets the 18-34 demographic:

Yahoo: 43.08%
Google: 28.82%
MSN: 21.04%

Re:Yahoo vs. Google: page views/visit metric

[Scrameustache]

Google's numbers are 2-3 times lower!

So that tells us you need two to three less pages to find what you want at google. Which is why I google, and I don't yahoo.

Re:Irony

[prostoalex]

That's because a third-party magazine posts its stuff on Yahoo! News.

At least now we know why your Dad always brings up "he's not the brains of the family, but he's still our son" point, whenever he talks about you.