MySpace #1 US Destination Last Week

An anonymous reader writes "Hitwise is reporting that MySpace has reached the top, surpassing Yahoo! Mail as the most visited site on the internet for US users. Seeing a 4300% increase in visits in just two short years, this internet sensation has come quite a long ways. From the article: 'To put MySpace's growth in perspective, if we look back to July 2004 myspace.com represented only .1% of all Internet visits. This time last year myspace.com represented 1.9% of all Internet visits. With the week ending July 8, 2006 market share figure of 4.5% of all the US Internet visits.'"

Comments

blwh

[Anonymous Coward]

And boy is that depressing

Worrisome, but not unexpected

[eplossl]

Consider...

Today, we have online dating, message boards for everything, and web based chat everywhere. If a site isn't dynamic, it's quickly dropped by the online populace. The fact is, this is not unexpected. Myspace.com spent some time developing a site where people could blog and network. It worked for them.

The worrisome part of this is that people don't seem to understand how potentially dangerous this is. Consider the sheer volume of details some people (read: children) put on their myspace accounts. Parents SHOULD police this, but, all too often, they don't. The fact is that this service presents all too much possibility for children to get hurt. Consider also the single women all over who post their info online. Some of them realize that they shouldn't post that they live alone in an apartment in south-central LA, but others would very quickly post this sort of thing. Unfortunately, this again puts people at risk.

I don't think that the site should be stopped from operating, as I tend to be somewhat of the opinion that if you put your details out there for the world to see, it's your fault if something bad happens. OTOH, people need to think a bit more.

Obvious!

[PWNT]

They picked the easiest market to sway, young adults. In addtion, lots of disposable income(advertisement goldmine!). Not withstanding its use (the website) as a hook-up for hookups.

Combining lots of barely post pubescent teens with raging hormones and disposable income contributes to this large growth. The website scaled and spread by word of mouth. This site is the best representation of a "free internet" as far as I can tell. Everyone who wants to be on it, can be on it. This includes the spectrum of bands looking for fans with a pro website, to teens looking for a connection, including the text choice of size 55 pink wingdings on a blinking blue background or whatever.

The site has support from everyone, the users, the advertisers, the creators, the owners. Everyone is getting something they want from it. This is how a business grows so rapidly.

To quote(paraphrase) someone, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..."

Narcissism

[caitsith01]

I may be alone in this, but I find MySpace for the most part intensely narcissistic and inane.

People are presented with a tool for publishing absolutely anything, about any topic they choose. Instead of presenting thoughtful, creative or otherwise valuable content, the vast majority elect to pointlessly ramble about themselves in minute detail or engage in endless back and forth with other users about nothing in particular. Which is fine, but it shouldn't have the legitimacy of other web content.

In many ways, the whole blog concept has perhaps lowered the barrier to entry for on-line publishing a little *too* far. When anyone can publish anything you want with virtually no effort, then it no longer requires that you be inspired or motivated before your inane ramblings are out there in cyberspace. The media has adopted the trend too, with 'blog' in the context of a news site all too often meaning 'poorly researched and largely content-free "reporting" on sensationalist subject matter.'

Perhaps it's time to move past the blog hype and to consider some method for differentiating personal diaries (i.e., what used to be a personal homepage), social chit chat (i.e., what used to be a bulletin board, IRC, or IM activity), and publications with actual content. Right now the net is awash with an ever-expanding tide of rubbish and there is very little to assist in finding the few really interesting and high quality publications amongst the garbage.

Ultimately it's depressing that, given the ability to communicate our ideas to anyone on earth, most of us can't come up with anything better than pictures of ourselves drinking too much and mass-produced but ineffectual rebelliousness.

Re:Narcissism

[aussersterne]

While I agree that MySpace is inane, it's also unrealistic to expect that if you give millions of people a platform, they'll come up with anything inspirational, informative, or meaningful.

The vast majority of people are merely average Joes. Everyone cannot be Einstein, nor can everyone be Crichton. That's just the way it is and the way it always will be. Most people don't post anything deeper because most people simply aren't deeper, and it's unlikely that they ever will be, in particular when they're born, raised, and socialized in a consumer orgy of a society that is itself incredibly inane.

Not only have most people in our culture never had a deep thought, but most of them have never even been exposed to a deep thought. Deep thoughts aren't good for markets, they tend to reduce superficiality and overconsumption, which are the two things the growth and maintenance of our society most depends on.

Re:Narcissism

[Sloppy]

People are presented with a tool for publishing absolutely anything, about any topic they choose. Instead of presenting thoughtful, creative or otherwise valuable content, the vast majority elect to pointlessly ramble about themselves in minute detail or engage in endless back and forth with other users about nothing in particular.

I don't want to sound to misanthropic, but if MySpace is inane, it's because people are inane. MySpace is merely a microcosm. Go out and listen to people talking. At work, at a bar, whatever. You're going to hear pointless rambling.

On a completely different tack... you're looking at what people publish, and maybe not looking at what people are reading on MySpace -- what they're getting out of it. That is a lot harder to figure out. What I found, when I signed up, was that it was a way to keep up with my local music scene. In that regard, it has been valuable .. or at least (heh) no more inane than the local music scene itself (which maybe isn't saying much, I can't make up my mind about that). I don't know why this one sector of the economy(?) or culture(?) is so well represented on that one website, but it just happens that most bands are on MySpace. And most of my time spent there, is looking to see when'n'where I'm going to be rocking-out next. Sometimes I wonder how much of MySpace traffic is accounted for, in people just looking at event-invites, checking bands' schedules, etc. The interface certainly isn't very efficient.

Re:Narcissism

[General Wesc]

While I agree that MySpace is inane, it's also unrealistic to expect that if you give millions of people a platform, they'll come up with anything inspirational, informative, or meaningful.

Wikipedia.

Re:Worthless.

[Golias]

Myspace is the most pointless, horribly designed site on the internet.

In other news, MySpace was designed.

Clue to all geeks everywhere:

Nobody cares that MySpace runs on code that is inelegant, nor that it results in sloppy-looking personal pages

It's a big ol' mess, but it's a big ol' mess that a lot of young folks find useful. End of story.

Having a unique name really sucks

[foreverdisillusioned]

When I first started messing around on the internet 10+ years ago, I used my first name for a couple things. Very quickly I caught on that this wasn't such a great idea, but what I didn't count on is lifelong archival and the rising power of search engines. You see, my first name and last name are rare to the point that I highly doubt anyone else in America has them both. Not completely weird or a made up word, it's just rather uncommon to encounter either one individually, and that makes the combination unique.

So anyway, you need only type my name into Google and have a complete record of every inane thing I ever said back when I was 15 years old. If there is anyone else in the world with the same name, they haven't ever used it on the net. Ok, so it's not particularly damaging information, but it does allow ANYONE to find out that I like Nirvana and Douglas Adams and RPGs and arguing with people. It's rather embarassing, really, to have your semi-profound adolescent musings completely exposed, availible for anyone to read at any time so long as they know your first and last name, but there's really nothing I can do about it. The original archives have been cached by Google and archive.org. Like it or not, I'm immortalized, and I really pity the fools on Myspace who have unique names, or even the ones with common names but specific addresses (or other identifying personal info) posted. In all liklihood every single trivial fact, every single inane/insane rant has been archived *somewhere* and it'll eventually turn up in a Google search. It's irreversable--it's a gigantic bell that simply can't be un-rung.

I shudder to think what would've happened if I made a truly questionable post under my real name. If some teen posts a rant on Myspace that could be construed as racist or radically anarchist or in any other way offensive or unpopular, that rant will be there perhaps for the rest of his life. It will be there every time he goes to apply for a job, and if he was foolish enough to provide such information as a home address he won't be able to claim it's not him. I don't know what there's any real solution for this except education. A lot of people out there don't see the point in anonymity, or even worse they view it as a weakness, a sign of guilt or triviality. Unfortunately, likely they won't start paying attention until criminals and potential employers/friends/lovers alike start turning to Google every time they get curious about their mark/employee/friend/etc.

Re:Find this hard to believe.

[Sloppy]

Google has an efficient interface, so people aren't paging through lots of stuff trying to find what they're looking for. They aren't having to load a bunch of images that are unrelated to anything they're interested in, either.

With MySpace, if I want to find someone's schedule, I have to look at page after page of unsorted friends. I guess MySpace's programmers have decided that computers just aren't any good at sorting things. (And try using MySpace without loading images sometime, or with Javascript disabled.)

If the study was based on volume-of-traffic or number-of-http-requests, it doesn't surprise me MySpace came out on top. It takes an aweful lot of web pages transferred, to get anything done on there. Maybe it's so they can sell more ad impressions or something dumb like that (too bad I filter out the ads).

MySpace has only just begun.

[Zaphod2016]

Recently, slashdot ran this article about Ask.com's growing market share. CEO Jim Lanzone has complained that his service is superior to competitors, but has not yet approached the market share of the Google-ocracy. The reason? Like Xerox before it, Google has become a part of our common venacular in 2006 (to google, I googled it, etc). Some expect Google will remain on top for this reason alone, others claim that superior technology is how Google became #1 in the first place, and so, Ask.com has a chance.

So what does this have to do with MySpace? MySpace currently finds itself in a similar position; unlike rivals such as Facebook or Friendster (remember them?) their market share is simply in a league all its own. I also see another important difference which secures this position for MySpace- when trying another search engine, my total expended time equals about 10 seconds; type, click, go. I don't need to register for anything, and my experience is dependant on nothing more than the latest search algorithms. With a social network, I must invest a significant amount of time in order to setup my profile, and the experience is dependant on how many friends (or similar-minded people) I can find also using the service. Once I have become comfortable using one service, I might be hesitant to "start over" at another, especially if none of my friends were using it either.

Simply put: we have seen, and will continue to see "MySpace killers" and "MySpace clones" boasting the latest AJAX-happy Web 2.0 goodness; but will the users of MySpace take notice? If they notice, will they care enough to make a switch?

MySpace is a very powerful web brand, and I for one think it has only just begun. If I were Rubert Murdoch, I would begin expanding the resources and revenue streams availble to it. When will "MySpace Records" begin distribution in the major retail outlets? And what about tv? How many pilot episodes is fox sitting on right now? Why allow a boardroom to make those decisions? The users on MySpace could do a better job selecting the next "big hit", all without expecting one red cent in compensation! After all, how many of these same users will be buying these same shows on DVD next year?

As MySpace has shown us: we a nation of aspiring and puedo-celebrities. In MySpace I see the potential for hundreds of new reality tv shows, dozens of new animated series, thousands of screenplays...I could go on and on. Properly managed, MySpace can, and I believe will, become a self-sustaining, media-generating, media-consuming machine.

Re:Worthless.

[SamSim]

Actually, we as geeks care. We care because we put lots of effort into making our code work elegantly and our websites look good, and it doesn't seem to make any difference. We care, because we're really great at this stuff, but marketing trumps usability every time. We care because Myspace sucks, but there are millions of people using it, and it's like a big slap in the face for every one of us who put any effort into our work.

Pessimism

[enjahova]

You are not alone in your arguement. You are supported by medieval scholars who decried the rise of literacy, the government of the UK when the printing press was made, and many more anti-intellectual pessimists throughout history. They held your very same belief, what sort of chaos and tragedy will occur if everybody is literate? Peasants are dumb and uncultured, they will only polute the literary pool. You say the same shit about the internet.

The only difference now is that we have SEARCH ENGINES, computers, and instant communication to help us sort through the bullshit. People like you like to ignore the fact that if only 1 out of every 99 people posting to myspace create something worthwhile, thats one more worthwhile thing on the internet to be found and shared.

I believe the viral spread of information has not reached its full potential, myspace is a step in the right direction. Google and other search engines are helping too. You act as if removing the hundreds of worthless expressions are worth the cost of forgoing one worthwhile contribution. You conveniently forget that by reading slashdot you are getting a selection of top articles for discussion over thousands of "unworthy" articles submited a day.

I think the only reason people like you get depressed is because you dont understand the internet. You don't see how instant communication changes the way things work. We can't rely on an intellectual authority anymore to tell us what is good and bad. Millions of people on myspace are expressing themselves in ways they never knew they could, even if most of it is terrible html they are having a learning experience and real social interaction. You want to take all that away because its easy to dismiss as trash? Don't add them as your friends, don't even sign up for myspace. In fact you should probably stop visiting slashdot, it should depress you that so many articles get submitted that are worthless, wasting the editors time, and our time when one slips through. You'd rather not have slashdot and save the internet the trouble right?