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.

24 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. facebook by ionix5891 · · Score: 5, Funny

    pokes google

  2. WTF? by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:WTF? by dangitman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Come on, CNN. These people aren't saying "Oh, well, I have Facebook, so fuck Google"...they are just going to Facebook.

      Not only are they going to Facebook, they're also Googling "facebook login."

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    2. Re:WTF? by sopssa · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe CNN implies that Google searching should be more social and have a wall and status updates of what their friends have searched for. More social googling could also mean planning a trip together, searching for Linux information together, or even looking at porn together.

    3. Re:WTF? by Threni · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, as the Internet gets more popular, the average technical ability of the users will decrease, and it will be used less often, overall, as a research tool for people looking for information about development/physics/whatever, and more for entertainment (watching tv/movies, listening to music etc).

    4. Re:WTF? by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually they're probably googling Facebook.com instead of just typing it in the address bar. I've seen people do stuff like that. Hell, I always just google "urban dictionary" rather than type in urbandictionary.com..

      Besides, by the very nature of facebook you will be navigating around a lot more looking at photos and such, whereas with google you often just need to have the main page, and one page of results. Admittedly if you're browsing for porn or similar you also probably will go through several pages of photos/results.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:WTF? by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pretty much. People learn what sites they like.

      I spend a decent amount of time at Slashdot, several other message boards, my Gmail account, Wikipedia, and Facebook. Another significant chunk of my monthly usage is tied to downloading P2P content, podcasts, and online gaming - all have separate non-web interfaces.

      In the end, I know a lot of where I want to go, and I can go there these days without needing to search for it. Don't get me wrong I still Google plenty, but it's not 1995 when every time I want to do something on the web I need to go searching for it.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    6. Re:WTF? by Gulthek · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, they are googling for facebook and getting hilariously confused with the result:

      http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_wants_to_be_your_one_true_login.php

      After that article went up dozens of people found it googling for "facebook login", and then proceeded to leave scathing comments about the "new" facebook design.

  3. google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    pokes facebook

  4. OK by dangitman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  5. In other news by jplopez · · Score: 4, Funny

    Google introduces Gfarm.

  6. The Stripmall Effect by Gopal.V · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The Stripmall Effect by sakdoctor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So fall out of touch with them. There is nothing social about social networks.

  7. quit cold turkey sometime last week by rwa2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  8. Interesting... by ircmaxell · · Score: 4, Insightful
    So you take one sites total traffic (including searching, media, and generated traffic), and compare it to a (albeit large) portion of a another sites traffic. I mean it's cool that Facebook's traffic exceeds Google's search traffic, but I think the title is misleading...

    One thing that bothers me is how Hitwise gets its data...

    Hitwise takes a wholly different approach. It does not gather data directly from individual computers as comScore and Nielsen do. Instead, it gets the data from Internet service providers (ISPs) who aggregate traffic data across all the individuals to whom they deliver Internet access. Hitwise provides ISPs with proprietary software that allows them to analyze website usage logs created on their networks

    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
    1. Re:Interesting... by natehoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They're analyzing whatever they can find so they can make up a headline "Facebook attracting more visitors than google.com" so you'll actually read it and discover it's complete tripe, but only after having seen a few ads that they get paid for.

      I know when I search on Google, I go to Google.com, enter my search criteria, and then start poring through the results. When I've found what I wanted, I move to the sites that have what I want. So Google gets maybe 10 "hits", 100 if you count each page element my browser requests as a "hit".

      When I go on Facebook, I'll read updates, sometimes post replies, etc. Facebook also has a much more complex page with a lot more elements. So depending on their measurement of "visits", just going to Facebook might be anywhere between 20-30 hits per brief visit to thousands of them if you count each request.

      But you looked at their ads, didn't you? Their statistics served their purpose.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  9. People still visit google.com? by selven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. What do they do there? by bogaboga · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is it only me who knows that what people do on Facebook is more of gossip spreading than anything really useful?

  11. Re:What comparison? by Jer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is feeding into the ongoing narrative about the "social web" being the future of the web. "Passively" using the web to research things on your own is out - it's all about building social networks to get status updates on family members you don't like talking to in real life and, I don't know, playing Farmville. Note that the CNN link is in the "CNN Money" area of their website - meaning that they're already viewing the narrative as "business vs. business." Google's business model is out, Facebook's business model is in. Throw your money at Facebook and Facebook clones because search is dead, social networking is the new hotness. Nobody - and I mean nobody - ever got rich following the advice of CNN Money. They're mandate seems to be to spin out easily digestible narratives with slightly sensational headlines to grab advertising eyeballs.

  12. Shit methodology there, guys! by SlappyBastard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Shit methodology there, guys! by Pteraspidomorphi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly... Google forces all its international visitors by default into google.de, google.fr, google.es, etc.

  13. if you need a social network by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  14. Re:WTF is this, Straw man 2.0? by pikine · · Score: 4, Funny

    Drop the anti-social networks, and you will have less unsigned int friends

    I thought these social networks give you complex and irrational friends. I don't very much care about transcendental relationships. I'd rather like my friends be all natural, thank you very much.

    --
    I once had a signature.
  15. Facebook knows more than that. by jwietelmann · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.