Facebook Surpasses Google For Users' Online Time

crimeandpunishment writes "When it comes to our time online, socializing beats searching. According to new data from researchers at comScore Inc., Facebook has moved ahead of Google for the first time in Web users' minutes. In August, people spent more than 41 million minutes on Facebook, compared to just under 40 million for all of Google's sites combined. Yahoo came in third, with 37.7 million minutes."

Comments

Right, because Google is *instant* now.

[tha_mink]

Well, duh. Now that there's Google Instant, you don't *have* to spend any time on google.

Re:Right, because Google is *instant* now.

[jgagnon]

I'm waiting for "Google Telepathy". Requiring a computer to search Google is such a waste of time.

Re:Right, because Google is *instant* now.

[gmuslera]

Not waiting for it, telepathy works in both directions... and i would like that at least my dreams are free of Google Ads.

Re:Right, because Google is *instant* now.

[jgagnon]

But you could get a tattoo on your forehead reading "This Space for Rent"... :p

Re:Right, because Google is *instant* now.

[brainboyz]

*Imagining Uber Hot Chick*

*Interrupted by foggy window hovering right-of-center*
==Ads by Google==
+ _Prescription Drugs Cheap_
  Viagra and Cialis straight to your door
+ _Slutty Lingerie_
  Get something hot for her to wear tonight
+ _Toys, Toys, Toys_
  Vanilla not cutting it? Have more fun with toys

Yup, just how I want my dreams. Hot and practical.

Re:Right, because Google is *instant* now.

[jgagnon]

For that, there is Apple.com. :p

Statistically significant

[magsol]

Is that tiny edge that Facebook has over Google outside the margin of error? I don't doubt that Facebook use is growing faster than Google use, but has it exceeded the "noisy" range and clearly bested Google, or is this just a random spike during which someone happened to be paying attention?

Re:Statistically significant

[mcgrew]

I don't use facebook, but I'd imagine that people who do spend more time there per visit than the five seconds it takes to google to somewhere. Plus, most people just use the search bar on their browser -- which is usually Google. Does that count as a visit?

Re:Statistically significant

[Jurily]

I don't doubt that Facebook use is growing faster than Google use

Well, duh. I don't think Google use can grow any faster.

There is a fundamental difference between Google and Facebook: you don't use Google to use Google, you use it to get somewhere else. You use Facebook to be on Facebook. In fact, we love Google precisely because they don't waste our time.

Really?

[Thyamine]

Why did it take so long? I don't spend that much time on Facebook, but I know I spend more time than I do searching. I mean, how do you linger for any real length of time in Google? You search and look through the results. Sometimes you look through a few pages, maybe re-work the search a few times, but in the end most of the time spent is on that page you are searching for a link for. Unless this is counting gmail and things like that.

Re:Really?

[hansamurai]

I haven't RTFA but maybe Google includes Gmail, Youtube, Blogspot, etc?

Re:Really?

[jgagnon]

This is for all of Google's services, not just their search home page. I keep a browser window with Gmail open nearly all day, every day.

Re:Really?

[Darkness404]

...And many people also keep a Facebook tab open all day, every day and my guess is more people keep a facebook tab open than a Gmail tab because more people check Facebook regularly than their e-mails, not to mention that my Gmail account is synced with my phone, iPod, etc. while Facebook chat isn't.

Re:Really?

[AnonymousClown]

I mean, how do you linger for any real length of time in Google?

I take it you've never googled "Christina Hendricks" and clicked on "Images"?

Re:Really?

[IAmGarethAdams]

while Facebook chat isn't.

Really? Facebook chat is Jabber-based so I find it much easier to use it in Adium (Gaim) than through the shocking web interface

Re:Really?

[elashish14]

FTS: all of Google's sites combined.

When you consider that Google offers so many other things - calendar, email, etc. (which arguably, Facebook can also provide in its own way) besides search, I guess it means you spend more time on a Google site. I wonder if Youtube was also considered in Google's minutes, but I didn't RTA.

plus, who uses google to procrastinate? I'd think 90% of people would choose facebook over google if they had to go somewhere to procrastinate. That probably counts for the majority of facebook's time.

Facebook? Try Farmville.

[cusco]

I'd like to find the bastard who wrote Farmville and sue him for 'estrangement of affections'. It's quite incredible how much time my wife spends on the damn game.

Yahoo 3rd???

[A. B3ttik]

Who the #%&$ still uses yahoo?

Re:Yahoo 3rd???

[emurphy42]

Are you sure you want to know?

Re:Yahoo 3rd???

[Cochonou]

Maybe you have heard about this site called flickr ?

Re:Yahoo 3rd???

[Mongoose Disciple]

Who the #%&$ still uses yahoo?

For search, probably not a lot of people.

On the other hand, one of my fantasy football leagues is on Yahoo, and Yahoo Answers is pretty solid.

No surprise

[al0ha]

No surprise based on yesterday's story regarding the majority of users on Facebook.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/09/08/1621235/Narcissists-Insecure-People-Flock-To-Facebook

Post a bunch of stupid sh*t about myself, then read it over and over again...

Is that an achievement for Google or Facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google prides itself on wasting less of our time, while Facebook prides itself on wasting more of it.

I wanna see how many ads per minute each service gets from their users, and how much resources a minute is worth on both of them.

Then this milestone might even mean something. By itself, it doesn't.

Yahoo?

[swanzilla]

I am completely surprised by Yahoo's stats. Either user-minutes is a garbage metric, or I am using the internets incorrectly.

Re:Yahoo?

[ElectricTurtle]

The kind of people who still use Yahoo do things really slowly... they're the kind of people who always get in front of you when you're late and drive ten miles per hour slower than the speed limit. So, yes, in a way 'user minutes' is a garbage metric because if a site attracts fast users that will make it seem less popular/useful (or whatever qualitative conclusion one is supposed to correlate to the metric) even it isn't, and vice versa a site that attracts slower users will seem more popular/useful when that isn't the case.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Re:Yahoo?

[powermung]

My start page is my.yahoo.com. I still use their e-mail service as my primary e-mail, and their finance content is second to none. For other contents, I have RSS feeds on the start page which allows me to satisfy majority of my information browsing needs without ever leaving the page. I have tried iGoogle and Google finance in the past and wasn't impressed. Facebook? I guess I'm no longer a teenager without tons of free time. Besides, I didn't realize there was an "incorrect" way to use Internet.

Re:Differences.

[XanC]

Are these the people who Google for "facebook login" and then proceed to assume that whatever they find is Facebook? The comments here are pure gold.

"slacking off" would be the correct term

[Silas is back]

Replace "socializing" with "slacking off" in that very first sentence and everybody will go "like I didn't know".

So what?

[LordArgon]

Considering Google just released Google Instant, a feature that reduces overall query time (and also just happens to increases overall ad impressions), I don't think "online time" is a particularly meaningful metric for relevance.

Not really Socializing

[InsaneSpider]

Its not really socializing if they are spending hours playing farmville or mafia wars. I think thats where most of the time goes. Although I will admit that I leave my facebook profile open when I leave for work, so I wonder if they count inactive uses or not.

Re:Facebook? Try Farmville.

[Zixaphir]

You now understand why women don't date gamers.

I will post my reply to this in 1 sec

[WillAffleckUW]

I just have to click on some more cows first.

Just be a few more minutes.

If you can just wait.

"Socializing"?

[Arancaytar]

If by "Socializing" you mean "investing time into building up a virtual farm/mafia/village/whatever". :P

I don't get the comparison

[edmicman]

I don't get it - why *should* searching occupy more time than socializing? I don't really understand the Google-Facebook comparison in general. Google Search, their bread and butter, is a tool. It's job is to as fast as possible get me on my way to some destination. Facebook on the other hand *is* the destination. It's a source of content, so naturally I'm going to spend time there. In what scenario would I ever spend an equivalent amount of time searching, or using some other tool? I don't spend time holding a hammer just for the sake of hammering. I use it to build something and then use what I built.

Honestly, the closest Google sites I can think of that are comparable to Facebook would be Reader and Youtube. But I don't typically browse Youtube...I go there from a link, or go there to directly search for something. My time in Reader is spent reading through content...but it's the content I'm using, the tool is just a means to an end. But on Facebook I tend to browse, jump from profile to profile, read through the day's events, etc.

In what world is the purpose of Google the same as the purpose of Facebook?

Apples and Oranges

[billsayswow]

This is like saying that people at the mall spend more time at the Barnes & Noble than in front of the "You Are Here" maps.

Google WANTS users to have LESS online time

[AlgorithMan]

more online-time on a search engine means that it takes you longer to find what you were looking for in the results. which means that the search-engine has worse result.

why do you think they have instant-seach soon?