Slashdot Mirror
New Web Metric Likely To Hurt Google
StonyandCher write(s) with news that one of the largest Net measurement companies, Nielsen/NetRatings, is about to abandon page views as its primary metric for comparing sites. Instead the company will use total time spent on a site. The article notes, "This is likely to affect Google's ranking because while users visit the site often, they don't usually spend much time there. 'It is not that page views are irrelevant now, but they are a less accurate gauge of total site traffic and engagement,' said Scott Ross, director of product marketing at Nielsen/NetRatings. 'Total minutes is the most accurate gauge to compare between two sites. If [Web] 1.0 is full page refreshes for content, Web 2.0 is, "How do I minimize page views and deliver content more seamlessly?"'"
Moments ago, Google purchased Nielsen/NetRatings for approximately $135 million in cash. The new metric ranking was immediately disabled for further work.
"New Web metric likely to hurt Google, help YouTube." - very insightful. YouTube better watchout! With this kind of headlines they're likely to get bought. Oh wait.
you can't measure that...
We at slashdot are scientists, specialists and kernel hackers. Your FUD will be found out.
Now all those people who choose their search engine by its Nielsen/NetRatings ratings are going to stop using Google.....why that might be a few dozen people at least!
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
In my experience, most people don't bother to close their browser when they are done browsing. It's even worse for people used to tabbed browsing. How many times do you shut down the computer at night with tabs containing something you looked at with your morning coffee? I know I do as often as not.
The cake is a pie
Google is its own Web metric
Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
Sometimes i visit a site that links a lot of places (an common one is a google search) and open every site in a different browser tab, and then i read. Now, the last tabs are likely to be there for long time, either till i close it, read it, or even click on links there. How that kind of behaviour gives more weight to the sites i opened at the end?
And to make it worse, most browsers now support tabs.
Not spending a lot of time on a search engine is a GOOD thing. It means the engine is doing what it is supposed to...direct you quickly to what you are looking for.
Now THAT's what I call American resistance to the metric system.
--parasonic
Guys, guys- they aren't going to measure how long your WINDOW is open, they are going to measure how long your session is active for. Your session will timeout eventually. They'll be able to account for that, and voila- problem solved.
They already do it, and will be doing it. Google Analytics delivers it. It's quite informative.
...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
Anyway, they shouldn't just abandon page hits for time spent. Lots of quick impressions should be just as valuable as a few long impressions, maybe even more so(1) depending on the type of ads being sold (static splash vs. animated flash).
(1) Spell-check says "moreso" isn't a word? I'm sure I've seen it before.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I just cant see how this hurts google. Sure, entering a search and retrieving the result is generally VERY quick (maybe this is why its my search engine of choice)...
But for the very reason that I dont need to spend much time there and more often than not its 2 clicks to my result, one click on "search" and the next click on one of the first page search returns; I go there regularly as a starting point, resulting in a massive number of short visits.
If the measure is TOTAL time, google would still be number 1 followed closely by slashdot for me... Because 47 bazillion* one second page views per day is still 47 bazillion seconds of eyeball per day!
*the author realises that, as a complete idiot, he is prone to stupid exaggeration
err!
jak.
Sure, sessions will work for sites like forums. However, is there going to be anything shown by session length that won't be shown by page views in that case? What about pages that you can really spend days to weeks at a time staring at, such as the glibc manual or the Coyotos microkernel specification? If the user never refreshes the page before the end of the session, information-packed sites aren't going to be measured at all.
We at slashdot are scientists, specialists and kernel hackers. Your FUD will be found out.
And will remain so for many, many, many years to come.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
The guy who operates the backhoe in the accounting department has said that Google may see two or three fewer truckloads of hundred dollar bills each hour.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
the bottom line, is how often does someone click on your ad and have it result in a purchase? anything else is meaningless.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I predict this change will lead to more sites where all interaction and pacing is under the control of a designer, not the user. I can see it now:
PHB: "How can we get people to stay longer?"
Eager-Beaver Designer: "Let's put everything in Flash, put fewer words per screen and longer pauses between new screens."
PHB: "Great!"
My point is that I am a browser and I use a web browser. That means I want to browse. That means I want to be able to glance at something, make a quick decision, and control the movement to the next chunk of content.
This emphasis on viewing time will cause designers (and their bosses) to try anything they can think of to slow down the user.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
But surely advertisers don't care how long you stay on a site except insofar as it increases your exposure to their ad. E.g., on Slashdot, you might spend ten minutes reading comments but quickly scroll past the ads in the first 30 seconds and the rest is all content. However, if you choose to post a comment, an ad is visible on the comment pages and stays visible during the duration of your composition. I'd say the second ad, continuously viewed during the three mintues it takes to write a comment, is more valuable than the first ad, which goes off screen almost immediately.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
What matters is not page views or page durations but redirects to pay-sites. That's the value of any site from an advertisers point of view. When I read the NY times I spend a long time there but I'm not likely to be shopping and even if I was in a mood to shop the probability they happen to show me an ad for something I'm interested in is close to nil. Plus the adds they tend to show there are delux flash moving ads or big long columns.
Now when I go to google and type in "blow up dolls" or Airline miles or 629 investments or some purchase worthy topic, I read the ads. Not only that but the ads are short. so I don't spend much time. But I click through a dozen of them into tabs in a few seconds.
When I watch you tube, how long to I look at the ads? probably not at all--I scroll then off screen. But I do see the adds on the leader of the video. But that's only a few second on a 5 minute video. A good and focused 5 seconds yes. Even subject worthy 5 seconds. But not 5 minutes.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
If [Web] 1.0 is full page refreshes for content, Web 2.0 is, "How do I minimize page views and deliver content more seamlessly?"'"
If 1.0 is surfing one handed while jerking off, Web 2.0 is having a USB pocket pussy connected to an interactive AJAX interface.
In all seriousness, can we dispense with the fucking Web 2.0 crap? It is today's "information superhighway". If you use the phrase without a hint of sarcasm, you are an idiot.
Can someone please explain the rationale for declaring that a metric change will "hurt Google"? When is the last time someone decided to use a particular site based on a commercial web-rating? I certainly don't use Alexa to decide which news sites interest me, at which banks to do online banking, etc.
Certainly there are a few closet Google employees around here... So tell me, are the higher-ups even remotely concerned with a traffic ranking? I mean, if suddenly MSN Search spikes up over Google in the ratings because its so goddamned user-hating that it takes 3 minutes to search a single topic...is anyone going to blow a gasket, provided traffic and revenue remain at present expected levels?
I sincerely doubt it.
khasim (12/9/06): In a blind taste test, more people preferred Coke over the Pepsi that I had previously pissed in.
Isn't the sign of a good site that people are able to get what they want QUICKLY?
This can only 'help' pages that take forever to load...
It should be "more so." Not that spell-check is ever to be trusted.
http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/moreso.html
Right, so the users behind my NAT are going to be measured as one person spending all day on somepopularsite.com, in 8 different places simultaneously? What about the four other open tabs currently open in my browser? Am I still visiting those sites? The answer could be 'yes', but I don't see how that adds value for advertisers.
HTTP is a stateless protocol, which means that it's inherently difficult (i.e. impossible) to consistently get accurate data about the duration of a given visit. It can be argued that you can derive data that's statistically significant. You can argue further that if everyone uses the same metric then they'll be valid for comparison purposes, which is enough for the MBAs in Marketing, I suppose.
I personally think time spent on a website is a silly metric, and will continue to hold that opinion until someone can make the case that staring at an advertisement for longer period of time actually encourages a person to finally click on it, rather than tune it out completely. (This works well for branding, but for little else.)
There's a lot of nuance that can be brought into this discussion, and this is where the good advertisers and marketers earn their keep. Assuming that either page views or time spent on a site are sufficient to make a solid judgement of the value of a given website is, uh, a little short on nuance.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
If even half of users work like I do, then Google isn't going to suffer...in fact, they might even gain a score higher. Here's why:
I would estimate that for 80% of my day, I have Google open.
Sure, I might not be looking at the page, in fact I'm probably not. I'm probably on one of the 15 tabs that I've opened from the search results. It might take me 5 minutes, or it might take me an hour to work through the results, but eventually I get back to the Google tab, and either search again, or close it.
If I close it, I'm willing to bet not 20 more minutes go by until I'm back there. I also have Google's personal homepage as my homepage, so it already has a head start.
No, I don't think this is going to hurt Google at all.
Check out my sysadmin blog!
I definitely spend a lot of time on that and I'm sure a many others do too.
Google is a company that doesn't care about ratings -- they get paid for clicks, not time spent ignoring the banner ads. What a dumb story.
-- greg
More likely Google doesn't give a shit whether or not some Web 2.0 metric gives it a pat on the shoulder or not. Google:
1. Makes its money out of serving ads, not out of being the site where you spend an hour on the same page. If you came, searched and looked at their ads, that's it.
2. Google's secret sauce is the brand name and search algorithm, not its Nielsen rating. People go to Google because they have something to search, and gets new users by word of mouth and by the deals it has with the likes of Mozilla to make their site the default home page. It's not like users start with Nielsen's Top X page and find out about Google there.
In other words, it seems... surrealistic to read the title and summary that Nielsen's ratings will hurt Google. Google doesn't get any income or users out of what rating it has, so the amount of "hurt" will be anywhere between insignificant and none whatsoever.
3. It seems to me like a flawed rating anyway, _especially_ coming from a usability expert. Google's search is a tool. Being able to just do what you needed done, quickly and with a minimum of useless fluff, is what a lot of us would call a good tool.
And the need for such tools won't go away just because some other sites work in a different way. Just because Ebay existed (as an example of a site where users spend a lot of time in a row), didn't make Google obsolete before, so why would it now?
4. Why the heck does it even matter, other than techno-fetishism, in Google's case, whether it's page refreshes or some AJAX kind of thing that fetches the results in the same page? No, seriously. Each search produces a different list, so essentially it _is_ a different "document". The browser is already perfectly able to display a new document. Why would anyone sane want to try to, basically, reinvent the page refresh in Javascript instead of using the browser's existing mechanism? No, seriously.
AJAX and the like make sense when you can actually have most of the data and the processing client-side, and you can actually offer some purely client-side functionality. In Google's case that's not even possible. You can't transfer the whole search database to the browser as XML and let the user tinker with the search expression locally, in the same document. So it's going to involve a round trip to the server and displaying a new result list anyway. So why not just let the browser display the new page?
Nielsen is generally a smart guy, but maybe there is no One True Metric to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. For some things it is a usability advantage to do more client side and not refresh the page, while for other things it makes no sense whatsoever. The focus should be on how well and intuitively is the user served by the site, not on promoting one arbitrary metric like time spent, taken out of context, for everything.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Exactly. Maybe the fact that a perfectly usable and popular tool scores badly on their new metrics, _and_ there's no imaginable gain whatsoever if it changed itself needlessly to fit the new metric, should only tell them that their new metric needs some more work.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I don't know about you, but frequently when I do a Google search, I open up individual results in their own tab. I imagine that I would show up as spending a lot of time on Google in those cases.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?