Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Attracting More Visitors Than Google.com
vikingpower writes "Internet research firm Hitwise just broke the news: last week, Facebook attracted 7.07 percent of the internet traffic in the USA, compared to 7.03 percent for Google. This is the first time google.com has been out of the top spot since it surpassed MySpace in 2007, and reflects a change in the way people use internet. They tend to privilege social interaction sites above 'passive' search engines."
Facebook still has a ways to go if you include Google's non-search properties, which bring the total up to 11.03% of traffic.
pokes google
What the hell is a "passive" search engine?
Come on, CNN. These people aren't saying "Oh, well, I have Facebook, so fuck Google"...they are just going to Facebook. What with Saint Patrick's day upon us and Spring Break happening in the near future, this doesn't surprise me, as a ton of people are likely using Facebook to organize parties and trips.
Living With a Nerd
pokes facebook
Facebook still has a ways to go if you include Google's non-search properties, which bring the total up to 11.03% of traffic.
So, in other words, the entire premise of the headline/summary/article is a lie? What would the statistics for Facebook be if you only included "search properties"?
... and then they built the supercollider.
Google introduces Gfarm.
Facebook is slowly turning into the WalMart equivalent for the internet. Sure, you could go to flickr for the photos, twitter for the updates, upcoming for the events, youtube/hulu for videos, gtalk/yahoo for IM, gmail to send messages - or you could go to facebook and have all of it half-assed.
Basically a huge walled garden which is only available to those inside the wall. The trick of course, is to make it nice so that people can bring in their data easily and fb's success is because they make it damn convenient to put your data in there.
Now, do I use facebook? Damn right, I do ... because as much bitching as I do about the effect it's having on the entire internet, I gotta move with my friends or end up falling out of touch, with everybody who already knows what everybody else is doing. And in some selfish way, my friends are more important to me than the internet.
Sad, but true.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
In the near future, people are going to abandon Facebook for supposed privacy issues. Google is too powerful to lose.
Meh, I only went to facebook regularly because I got addicted to some of the crappy clicky games (MafiaWars and Starfleet Commander). But at some point just this month, I finally stopped feeding the urge to maintain those things... it was eating a lot of quality time out of my personal time in mornings and evenings. I pretty much avoid MMORPGs for the same reason.
The signal-to-noise ratio of most of those social networking sites have plummeted, so I rarely pay much attention to them anymore. The feeds are dominated by a handful of people who post all the time. So queue up the next big thing... or actually maybe the older sites like LiveJournal with actual content, and not just grey connective tissue. Clicky clicky linky linky can still get old and tired.
One thing that bothers me is how Hitwise gets its data...
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/online_sidebars_backgrounders
So what does that mean? Are they analyzing DNS queries? Are they analyzing raw IP addresses? Are they analyzing raw HTTP headers? And I'd like to know more about what ISPs are signed up for this. Is it a statistical significant portion of them, or is it only a few here and there... Do those providers use high speed, mid speed or dialup connections? These are the kinds of questions that need answering to know if the conclusions that they draw are indeed valid, or if this isn't just a marketing stunt for the company...
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
When I need to search for something, I put the search terms into the URL bar and Google Chrome automatically sends me to the answer page for the search query. Sometimes it even takes me straight to a Wikipedia article.
Search isn't dead, it's just transparent.
And the point of the article is?
I don't know why they make the comparison, as if somehow Facebook is replacing Google. They serve different purposes. People may need to use Google a few times a day to locate information, but they'll hit FB every hour? every 15 minutes? Depends on the person, but the conclusion they seem to draw, that we are using the internet differently, seems an odd one. Unless they are trying to just comment that more people are using social networking sites than before?
I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
I'd be interested in how this is measured tbh. It is the old, false, addage of 'hits'? The graph cites as 'visits', but I'm curious how that's actually measured.
Besides, even if FB had more visits, big deal.. a visit to search means you're likely trying to find out something.. not post that you're getting ready to make eggs for breakfest.. then post again that you realized you're out of eggs.. and another one asking if anyone needs anything from the store..
FB is popular for the same reasons MMOs remain popular, because people can't actually be assed to talk to thier neighbors, so we'll create a semi-artifical online society where we never have to deal with one another in person.. although to be fair, it's also the basis for creating a more pure non-prejudacted society (based on things you have little/no control over.. ie: race, height, etc..).
----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be
How many of those "Add this to Facebook" links do you see everywhere? How many of those drive page hits to facebook.com ?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
This is a vulnerability to them. They want to be YOUR portal to the rest of the internet. If they can make it easier for you to get to Facebook via Google they will. If they can pull you away from facebook into BUZZ or GoogleWave they will. The interesting bit comes around when you start getting an agreement with Facebook and Bing/Yahoo that tries to make this impossible for Google to achieve. The interwebs is a fickle hellcat, it moves at speeds of fast.
Is it only me who knows that what people do on Facebook is more of gossip spreading than anything really useful?
I suspect most people visit BOTH sites. If I want to look up some technical information (or find new pr0n), I use google. If I want to find out if Brenda's son got his car fixed, I check on Facebook.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Goes this account for google.ca/google.fr/google.co.uk, etc? Seems like Google does automatic load balancing across domains
Sure there's a ton of traffic. People keep handing me free beers!
I'd hazard that at least 80% of that Google traffic is useful and productive. Facebook traffic, OTOH, tends to be viral marketing crap designed to drive up the traffic stats.
--
Toro
Never heard of that. I generally go out have fun and meet new people.
What would the internet without Facebook look like?
No change, only the happy family party hooker photos would go to Flickr or similar.
What would the internet without Google look like? ...so?
So, you're counting all of Facebook's assets -- including Farmville! -- while only looking at Google's core.
Sloppy and lazy. You guys should be proud of putting this on Slashdot.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Don't underestimate how much Facebook is eating the lunch of folks like Yahoo Games, Pogo, etc.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
I would imagine many use their .country TLD, if it's not included in the results here I'd be skeptical in the comparison.
Also, look at facebook app downloads on iPhones / android market etc, I would imagine that all that cell-phone generated traffic bumps their percent up significantly.
And analytics for backing the company's last big push double suck.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
It's extra fluff to make Google sound like a skank whore that no man will ever want to fuck.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
The only thing I do on Facebook is throw cows at everyone on my friends list. Outside of that Facebook is kinda pointless to me. All these causes, games, god knows what else I find more annoying then useful. Still Superpoke is useful for tossing cows at people. When Google comes up with something that lets me do that then I'm ditching Facebook forever.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
What the hell is a "passive" search engine?
Wikipedia could be considered a passive search engine. The bulk of everything there was put there manually by the various contributors. Sure, there are bots clearing out dead links, and translating from one language to another, or from one wiki to another, but they work on the wiki itself. They don't go out actively searching for new information.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Social networks are anti-social. The status update was invented to massage the ego of the user, and the shear mass of trivia people spew out, blocks real interaction.
Drop the anti-social networks, and you will have less unsigned int friends, but more time to spend with your real friends. (If it makes you feel better you can still write how many friends you have on the wall in sharpie)
There are also better tools than facebook, twitter etc, to keep connected with a small non-broadcasting oriented group.
The article states traffic, not visitors. I'm only guessing here, but I think the google search-page doesn't generate as much traffic as facebook.
to keep up with your friends, they aren't really your friends
facebook is for ACQUAINTANCES, not true friends, even if the word you use for an acquaintance is "friend" (which makes sense to promote the word "friend" to the realm of the more dispersonal, for the sake of corporate level public relations, which is how some people run their lives)
the point is that a true friendship is its own reward. you actually commit real work and maintenance to see them because you want to do that. if it feels like a lot of effort to do that with someone, then in emotional honesty, they aren't really a true friend anymore. as soon as someone is unimportant enough to you that you slag them off to your fake corporate public relations face, aka, facebook, they have ceased to be your friend. just admit it and move on
all facebook is is a giant mask, a bit of fakery, that requires you to constantly maintain it, as long as having a fake public face is important to you for whatever reason. facebook is turning our social lives into emotionally dead corporate facades of shallow fakery
so for a little bit of genuine, psychologically healthy friendship, stop running your private life the same way a corporation runs a public relations department. facebook users, try this: the next time you make a new friend, someone you sense could be or you want them to be a close friend, make a pact with them to "keep it off the radar"
off of facebook, off of tweets, etc. when you want to socialize with them, socialize with them directly. make your emails and phone calls terse things to actually just arrange meet up times in which real socialization actually takes place
then you will know what it is like to actually have a friend
i'd rather have two or three friends like that than 200 to 300 acquaintances on facebook, that you dutifully and exhaustively maintain a corporate mask for. but inside, no one knows you and you don't know anyone else. for those of us addicted to facebook, life has become an emotionally unsatisfying slog through fake masks of constant shallow empty cheerfulness
go off the internet, make a real friend, lose the corporate pr department
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Even if google had half the traffic of facebook it still would trump it: google knows what you are looking for in that moment so it is able to target advertisement better. Facebook on the other hand generally only knows that you are tending to your pigs in farmville, at the moment.
Even if facebook had twice traffic, it still is an easy bet that google has more reach (as a greater % of internet users access it). Just think about age/professional profiles: you know everyone uses google. You know lots of people don't use and don't care for facebook.
Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
So some people spend time in Facebook like members of the TheGuild spend time in WoW. That generates lots of page views and traffic. On the other hand I visit facebook about twice a month and use google countless times a day.
Think Deeply.
People generally prefer talking bullshit and gawking at each other's pointless photos over finding and learning useful information on the Internet.
Either that or people stopped googling the website name they wanted, and learned either how to use the address bar or the bookmarks :)
Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
Facebook knows your name, age, location, friends, events you attend... And unlike Google, they're not afraid to give that information to whoever's willing to pay.
If MySpace was in the lead in 2007, then google overtook it for a few years, and now facebook has the lead, how is this a 'change in the way people use the internet'? Apparently back before 2007 we used google less than myspace...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
More people read the TV Guide than Yellow Pages.
As an aside, it's stunning to think of the absolutely massive hardware that must sit behind Google and Facebook. I mean, 11% and 7% of ~total web traffic in the US~, respectively. That's a lot of bytes! Frankly I find it shocking/amazing that any single site can command such a massive slice of all traffic, given the size of the web and all. 11% for Google's stuff combined doesn't surprise me but 7% for FB certainly does. I mean, it's a popular site and I use it, but I doubt it makes up 7% of my browsing-related traffic.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What is the attraction of Facebook? My empathy circuits do not grok someone that spends significant time there. If my real face is somewhere, then it can only have links to my resume, and bland boring stuff that couldn't possibly offend anyone. Doesn't having your real face associated with your online activity sap every single ounce of fun out of using the internet? Or are people that naiive that they think being anything but Ned Flanders in public is a net win. I'm faced with the possibility that maybe *gasp* the world is populated by clones - of NED FLANDERS! I'm going to cry!
...
Oblig
throws a chair at Google, using SuperPoke!
THE HONOUR OF THE KNIGHTS - CC Licensed Sci-Fi Novel
but its not like real sex, now is it?
likewise, your "friendships" on the internet are nothing at all like those in real life
yes, you can have family and friends in other countries. but they are in other countries. you honestly want to assert that that is anything like living with them or next door to them?
as for opinion versus fact, no: what i am saying is not an opinion, it's an objective fact of the much larger span of what is possible in reality, versus the much smaller span of what is possible on the web
of course you can interact socially on the web, but your social interactions on the web will always and forever more be nothing but a shadow of what is possible in the real world. that's a simple hard truth
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Say what you will about Google, but its level of evil is dwarfed by Facebook's.
*You can use much of Google without logging in, even without cookies or Javascript. Try that with Facebook.
*Google gets criticized for privacy bugs in Buzz, but Facebook is entirely based on privacy violations
*Google pioneered reasonable Internet ads (text ads). Though they later added other kinds of ads, Google showed it's possible for websites to earn revenue without being totally obnoxious. Facebook ads are evil incarnate.
*Google is all about pointing people towards the World Wide Web. Facebook is about keeping people in a walled garden.
*Google's birth story is 2 geeks building a better mousetrap. Facebook was conceived in privacy-impinging, account-hacking, contract-abrogating, trust-violating sin. New developments serve to confirm these initial trajectories.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/07/234204/Facebook-Founder-Accused-of-Hacking-Into-Rivals-Email
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Facebook users should stop typing "facebook" in Google search.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook
you are defining the word friend downward towards what you are really describing: an acquaintance
either you've never really had a friend, and all you know are acquaintances, or you've simply forgotten what a real friendship is like, or you are a little bit of shallow empty fluff yourself, and this is all you aspire to
facebook turns people into public relations departments. this is not true friendship. of course, you can still call it "friendship", but only in the lamest, shallowest sense of the word
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
No kidding. This is like saying more people are heading to a bar or coffeehouse than to a library. Human beings are social creatures; they will want to hang out and chat more than they will want to riffle through all the world's knowledge.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
So Facebook hits exceed Google Search hits. That's an interesting trend. But Facebook is a rather one dimensional tool, while Google represents practically everything people do on the Internet. They can't really be compared, in my opinion.
Millions of people (myself included) log onto Facebook several times a day to check their friends' status, and update their own status, and engage in banter with friends. It's a casual, superficial, but fun way to keep in touch with people that you'd otherwise have to compose an email to, which entails maintaining up to date contact information, keeping them out of your spam folder, etc. Facebook is a wonderful convenience but not a necessity.
Google is the internet. I can't imagine getting through the day without Google (well, I could but it wouldn't be pretty), whereas I could totally ditch Facebook if I had to. I suspect many if not most of FB's 300 million users feel similarly.
What's more, a lot of users seem to hate Facebook. Every time they change their privacy policy, for example, people become outraged and start passing around petitions telling FB to leave their personal info alone. In fact, every time they slightly rearrange the user interface, people get all up in arms. People's love for Facebook is skin deep. I imagine if a superior service came along that allowed us to quickly import our FB contacts, people would ditch FB in a minute, similarly to the way Myspace was abandoned a couple of years back.
Oops, gotta go check my facebook now.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Why doesn't anyone like me anymore?
Everyone already learned everything there is to know on the interwebs, no longer needing to search for it on google.com anymore. Now, they're logging in to facebook to share their knowledge with their friends!
Does this take into account the Google toolbars? Who needs google.com - the web page - when you have it built on your browser already?
doesn't mean i can actually do it
you believe you can have relationships as meaningful on the internet as in real life
just because you believe that doesn't mean it is actually possible
a simple logical examination of the range of possible interactions in the real world, as opposed to the much smaller range on the web, and the fact that our social lives evolved over millions of years to exist in the real world, simply reveals that social life on the web is and always will be a pale imitation of the former. there is no equivalency. one is, by logical cold hard fact of the range of possible interactions, simply a smaller subset of the other
the web is wonderful for managing acquaintances. but its not possible to have real friendships over the web. at best its a supplemental tool to enable real world friendships. it is not a replacement, unless you dial down the definition of "friendship". which is the source of the dichotomy you think you elicit in my statement above about friends and family in another country, when my point remains solid: whatever happens over the web is supplementary and orthogonal to real relationships, and not a valid replacement for anything in the real world. if your friends or family are in another country, you have a shadow flimsy replacement of actually living with them. i don't see how you think arguing with that simple fact has any weight
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
and they will tell you, without a sense of doubt or irony on their part, that they think that their shallow life of dozens of people who are simply their acquaintances, is no worse than someone with only a handful of deep and meaningful relationships, with genuine friends
i think that there are people whose masks are on so tight, that they don't understand, believe in, or have not yet experienced, the idea of complete honesty with a dear friend. objectively speaking, i think the emotional life of such people is smaller, more shallow, and more psychologically unhealthy. such people would also object if i describe the people they call friends as, objectively, actually only their acquaintances. based on the vapid emptiness of what is actually shared with their so-called "friends" though, i don't see how real friendship can enter the equation. of course, they will say otherwise. which just means they know no better than shallowness
people with dozens of friends have no real friends. or they actually do have close friends, two or three, and have a circle of acquaintances they only call "friends" only out of expediency. of course, this is always in flux. additionally, having a shallow empty public relations facade does not negate the existence of a deeper inner social life. as you say, facebook is a tool. it has its uses. but hewing ONLY to this empty shallow facade, as something as worthy as a genuine friendship: that sends up warning flags for me. to believe that you can have genuine friendships only over the web, or that dozens and dozens of "friends" is actually the same as two or three close real friends, this is a falsehood
i sincerely believe what i am saying. so am i trolling? i believe with complete conviction in the words i've just written. now you can consider me to be a troll if it suits your view of the world, but i am saying these words in honesty: there are shallow empty people in this world, and some don't even know the extent of how shallow they are, and are therefore hostile to the concept that shallowness exists, or that shallowness exists in their lives
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
then your only true friend is your job
whether you disbelieve or dislike or protest this fact is besides the point. its simply objectively the truth about the quality of your life
you don't work 11 hour days and have rich friendships outside your job. its simply not possible, unless they are with people at your job
which is fine: plenty of people have traded in their quality of life in order to get ahead in their careers, if only temporarily. but you need to admit what you are doing to yourself, and stop fooling yourself otherwise: your social life has been decimated, and plenty of people you call "friends" are at this point only acquaintances, no matter what you say otherwise
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
you just have to admit that there are two realms in your life:
1. friends: 2 or 3 you are intimate with emotionally on a daily basis
2. acquaintances: dozens of people on the periphery. this is in flux: these people can become friends, or move out of your life, or stay on the periphery for a long time. such as family and "friends" you only see a few times a year. go ahead continue calling them "friends" if it makes you feel better, but that is not objectively what they are. they are acquaintances. it is not possible to have a true friend... that you only see a few times year. friendship doesn't work that way. acquaintanceship DOES.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This news came just when IPO is beeing talked inside FaceBook... perfect timing, isnt it ?
what you are describing is called acquaintance maintenance, and its been going on since forever. people used to correspond with each other in longhand script individually. then it was the occasional phone call and greeting cards. now, the value of facebook is it makes this job of acquaintance maintenance easier, automatic, and corporate. but therefore also more impersonal. not that that matters, since we're only talking about acquaintances, not true friends. acquaintance maintenance is inevitably impersonal to one degree or another. true friendship never is impersonal
but you will notice that i am actually arguing with clueless people here who believe this facebook quasisocial existence is a REPLACEMENT for real friendship
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Why do people use it? It's so stupid! They took myspace's idea, but became more successful by selling people's personal information. How about getting a life!!! (Okay, slashdot is stupid too, but I'm only here 5 minutes a day)
it fills you with warmth to describe your acquaintances as friends, but they are simply not your friends, objectively speaking
people used to correspond with each other in longhand script individually. then it was the occasional phone call and greeting cards. now, the value of facebook is it makes this job of acquaintance maintenance easier, automatic, and corporate. but therefore also more impersonal. not that that matters, since we're only talking about acquaintances, not true friends. so you can visit a webpage and see some stale pictures they make available for a zone of acquaintances, ok. but this is not real friendship, don't you see that?
acquaintance maintenance is inevitably impersonal to one degree or another: words and media put up for consumption by a zone of people on the periphery of our lives. meanwhile, true friendship never is impersonal, its always words and meaning meant explicitly and ONLY for you, and no one else
you're dialing down the meaning of friendship in your life. what i am saying is that it is a shame to miss out on other people's lives, but don't confuse looking at pictures meant for consumption by a bunch of people on the periphery, with social interaction that is unique to you, and only meant for you
i admire the military and you guys make great sacrifices for the sake of us civilians. and you can have great friendships with those you serve with, perhaps richer than in civilian life due to the potential mortality of the decisions that are made in that friendship. but don't mistake the fact that military tours of duty interrupt and disjoint your social landscape. in fact, that's one of the sacrifices of being in the military
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"in USA"
What do you mean? Hits? Actual data transfered? For example Internet Traffic Report reports on the current performance of major Internet routes around the world. That the traffic your talking about? Seems to me this whole thing is a dick measuring contest, rolled into a subliminal FACEBOOK ad. heh.
but consider what your friendship with the guy in australia would be like
if you actually saw him every day
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
(the "non-search" traffic) Facebook has the most traffic.
So, if we turn that around, and ignore 1/3 of Facebook's traffic, who (besides, obviously, Google, who is ahead if we don't ignore anything) else would be ahead of Facebook.
And, more importantly, why would we ignore a huge chunk of anyone's traffic when evaluating who gets more traffic?
Google doesn't care where you go, as long as their advertisements are there. That's it.
'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
If the lunch meat called spam became the catchword for a depersonalized email message, then social networking should be known as soylent green!
Facebook as a way to teach people about World War 2 ;-)