StatCounter Blasts Microsoft's Claim About IE Still Being the Number 1 Browser

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

StatCounter Blasts Microsoft's Claim About IE Still Being the Number 1 Browser

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday June 19, 2012 @07:47AM from the browser-election-recount dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Do you remember when Microsoft tried to claim that Internet Explorer was still the most-used browser by accusing StatCounter of using a flawed methodology? Well, StatCounter has just posted a response that walks through a number of errors and omissions in Microsoft's reasoning. They (rather politely) explain the importance of sample size, discuss the value of page view counts versus unique visitor counts, and explain the difference between their methodology and that of Net Applications."

160 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Ok... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 07:53 · Score: 1, Insightful

So if we're going to defend their browser stas then we're also going to stop denying their stats at show Linux has about 1-2% marketshare, right?
1. Re:Ok... by h4rr4r · 2012-06-19 08:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That seems about right for linux desktop market share. Who is claiming it is not?
  Now claiming that includes all the servers out there can't be right.
2. Re:Ok... by HarrySquatter · 2012-06-19 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  Slashdot.
3. Re:Ok... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  So if we're going to defend their browser stas then we're also going to stop denying their stats at show Linux has about 1-2% marketshare, right?
  but, but you know that people can change their user agent, that probably accounts for about 10% marketshare.
4. Re:Ok... by Flytrap · 2012-06-19 08:23 · Score: 2
  
  For every Intel server sold (irrespective of operating system) there are simply thousands of PCs sold. It further doesn't help that the vast majority of servers are generally not used to surf the web, while most PCs are... which will further deflate the number or Linux servers counted by services such as StatCounter.
  
  So, from a unit count perspective, I hardly doubt that including the number of servers running Linux in the count is going to make a noticeable dent in the Linux market share statistic.
  
  Server's have a larger market share of value spent (and to a lessor degree of CPU cores sold), than the units sold would suggest.
5. Re:Ok... by Gerzel · 2012-06-19 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Wish there was a way to get good numbers of actual linux users vs windows vs mac users.
  For one thing you have to also take into account cross over. I use linux on my personal machines. However I also have windows installs on vms and have windows machines I use at work and school.
  Then again if you're talking about computers with a modern OS I'd be willing to bet that some form of the Unix family is on the vast majority of computers.
6. Re:Ok... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  linux servers dont really have users as such, they usually contain many other virtual machines
7. Re:Ok... by the_B0fh · 2012-06-19 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  if Apple has 350 million iOS and Google has as many Androids, just how many fucking Windows PCs are there in the world?
  700 million is a significant fraction of whatever number of PCs in the world...
8. Re:Ok... by Penguinisto · 2012-06-19 09:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well, if you want to be pedantic, for ever PC sold these days, there are simply thousands of embedded devices sold - a market which is pretty much owned by Linux and *nix variants.
  As for how many browse online? Hard to say, though most if not all the Android installs do.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
9. Re:Ok... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  That seems about right for linux desktop market share. Who is claiming it is not?
  That would not seem about right and by any reasonable estimate is FAR too small. You must literally know nothing about Linux market share or even the commonly accepted, uber conservative numbers which are half a decade old. Even Valve and Unitity now estimates the Linux desktop to be *10%*, which is far, far larger than the commonly accepted and known to be too conservative value of 4%. Furthermore, more accurate numbers, several years old at this point, place it at roughly 1%-2% behind that of Apple. So bluntly, your perception of "about 1%-2%" is known to be completely bullshit and far, far too small.
  Let's face it, major game companies, game engine companies, and distribution companies are not going to bother with a mere fraction of 2% of the market. That assumption is basically shere stupidity. What we can honestly say is that the Linux desktop market share lower bounds is 2%. Realistically, its somewhere between 6% and 10%. These numbers really say more about how inaccurate their web stats are rather than Linux as a desktop in general.
  Seriously, people think about this. At 2%, whereby only a fraction of those people have a machine enough to actually play a game on it, no company is going to seriously invest. No one of any size anyways. The economics simply never work. Beyond that, previous games sales by other game companies already prove that 2% desktop count for Linux far too low, else Linux desktops on a percentage basis, are capable of game play far, far more often than most other platforms. Bluntly, its trivial to declare, based on what information is available, 2% is dramatically too small of a share. Thusly its safe to say your 2% number is silly on the low side.
  What we do know is that extremely conservative estimates place the lower boundry at 4%-5%; and those numbers are half a decade old, its known Linux on the desktop has grown, and those numbers are known to be uber conservative - thusly wrong on the low end. Seriously folks...why do you troll with these imaginary numbers. Hell, some basic logic applied to what is widely known makes me wonder what the hell is wrong with you.
10. Re:Ok... by icannotthinkofaname · 2012-06-19 10:36 · Score: 2
  
  Slashdot.
  
  "Microsoft Sees Linux As Bigger Competitor Than Apple"
  
  "Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer showed a slide showing, from Microsoft's internal analysis, that Linux client use is clearly ahead of Apple's."
  When the fuck did Slashdot become exactly equivalent to Microsoft? I thought this was still a second-hand tech article aggregator and instant DDoS machine.
  
  --
  Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
11. Re:Ok... by ozmanjusri · 2012-06-19 10:42 · Score: 2
  
  Who is claiming it is not?
  Microsoft.
  In February 2009, Steve Ballmer of Microsoft presented a slide based on Microsoft's research; while it showed no figures, the pie chart depicted Linux and Apple as each having roughly 5–6% of home and business PCs.
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
12. Re:Ok... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  There are over 600 million Windows 7 licenses sold. Throw in all of the old XP machines, along with any Vista machines that hasn't upgraded, along with all of the installations obtained through piracy. Its safely over a billion.
13. Re:Ok... by ozmanjusri · 2012-06-19 11:12 · Score: 2
  
  And Android is selling a million copies a day, iOS about two thirds of that, MS sells about 600k Windows licenses per day.
  Hard to say how many Windows PCs are being retired every day, but given most corps work on somewhere between a 3-5yr lifecycle, it'd probably be a significant proportion of Microsoft's installed base.
  W8 will probably accelerate the downwards slide.
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
14. Re:Ok... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 11:34 · Score: 0
  
  Not everybody has a single computer on their desktop either. In our development area I have on my desk a Windows Vista, Windows 7, Android ICS, iPad, MacBook Pro and OS X Lion machine, another developer has a Windows XP, Windows 7, iPad and OS X Lion machine. And, under threat of tar and feathering, nobody in our IT department uses MS-IE tending to intermix Safari, Firefox, Chrome/Chromium and Opera as required.
15. Re:Ok... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  I thought this was still a second-hand tech article aggregator and instant DDoS machine.
  These days it's mostly a vehicle for reputation management by big proprietary vendors. Sly, slippery bastards all of them.
  Notice how they've skewed this discussion away from Microsoft's lost market share to the perennially funny "Linux on the desktop"? Very clever.
16. Re:Ok... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  > So if we're going to defend their browser stas then we're also going to stop denying their stats at show Linux has about 1-2% marketshare, right?
  What are you talking about? Linux is ahead of W7 wrt market share.
  It's the beginning of the end for M$...
17. Re:Ok... by the_B0fh · 2012-06-19 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  I think you don't get my point. A few hundred million Androids is more than "2% Linux systems" out there.
18. Re:Ok... by LingNoi · 2012-06-19 17:43 · Score: 1
  
  > Let's face it, major game companies, game engine companies, and distribution companies are not going to bother with a mere fraction of 2% of the market.
  Yeah, I guess that's why the unity game engine just released linux support...
19. Re:Ok... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 17:58 · Score: 0
  
  Few people ever factor in pirated copies of Windows. Info my 3rd year in China, having traveled to seven cities, three of them "major cities", I never encounter Linux on the desktop, but plenty of pirated XP and 7 installations.
20. Re:Ok... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-06-19 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  Last year, there were more smartphones sold than PCs and tablets (yes, iPad included) combined. If you instead count tablets and smartphones together and separately from PCs, the difference becomes almost 2x.
  Of course, these are sales numbers, not the absolute count to date.
21. Re:Ok... by Bert64 · 2012-06-19 19:44 · Score: 1
  
  Well, 2% of the market is still a huge number of users...
  It's also an area of the market that currently has very little competition, so you would sell proportionally more units.
  And finally, making a port is considerably easier than writing from scratch... It may not be viable to write a game from scratch for this smaller market, but since a game is already written the additional effort of porting it may well be worth it. Especially if there's already a mac port, or if you make a half assed port using wine.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
22. Re:Ok... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  So shills hang out with pirates. Who knew?
23. Re:Ok... by Ravaldy · 2012-06-20 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Can't compare the two.
  Life span of computers in our work place (3 - 6 years, even up to 8 years if the user doesn't require serious horse power). I see most people replacing their mobile devices every 1 - 3 years.
24. Re:Ok... by mcgrew · 2012-06-20 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  W8 will probably accelerate the downwards slide.
  I wonder about that W8. Is it "wait" as in "we're behind schedule on this damned thing" or is it "weight" as in "it's bloated and not very nimble?"
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
Who cares by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 07:56 · Score: 0, Insightful

Isn't this site supposed to be "stuff that matters"? This is a worthless story. Who cares?
1. Re:Who cares by HarrySquatter · 2012-06-19 07:58 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It matters to the people who like to use these stats when they show negative things about Microsoft. But when the same source publishes stats that show Linux has less than 2% marketshare they decry the source as being untrustworthy.
2. Re:Who cares by SomePgmr · 2012-06-19 08:08 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I was, at least, interested in the bit about why they use Page Views instead of Unique Visitors. My initial reaction would have been to side with Microsoft with the Unique Visitors metric, but StatCounter makes a great case...
  - Person opens IE on a machine (for whatever reason) and uses a site that's part of their network. Let's call it five pageviews.
  - Then they close IE and use Chrome or Firefox for 500 more pageviews, to every other site, for the rest of the day.
  Now using Uniques, you'd show that person as an IE user. Or at maybe you'd 50/50 it. Both methods poorly represent that person's browser usage than the total pageviews by browser. It's not perfect, but it does make sense.
  Their youtube video makes it quite clear, and it's good that they did this.
3. Re:Who cares by Gilmoure · 2012-06-19 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  Your write!
  Vi vs eMacs; steal gauge match!
  
  --
  I drank what? -- Socrates
4. Re:Who cares by Nittle · 2012-06-19 08:17 · Score: 2
  
  If you do any web development, these browser stats control how much testing and effort you have to spend supporting various browsers. IE unfortunately is difficult to work with as the "standards" they choose to implement often work differently than the standards that Firefox, WebKit and others use.
5. Re:Who cares by dgatwood · 2012-06-19 08:29 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Now using Uniques, you'd show that person as an IE user. Or at maybe you'd 50/50 it. Both methods poorly represent that person's browser usage than the total pageviews by browser. It's not perfect, but it does make sense.
  Yes, but this is a relatively unusual workflow. Even as a power user, the only time I ever launch a different browser is when I'm testing a website to make sure it works in another browser. Unless you use some particular site that works correctly only in a particular browser, most people simply do not use multiple browsers on a regular basis, and sites that work correctly in only a single browser should be excluded from this sort of statistic anyway. So basically, the benefit they're claiming is better precision for the 0.5% of people who have intranet sites that are IE6-only and then forget to switch browsers when visiting a web page initially. It's lost in the noise. More to the point, because those people forgot to switch browsers, they don't really care which browser they use, so as far as web developers go (deciding how important it is to support a given browser), they really are 50-50 because your site could support one or the other, and those users wouldn't really care which.
  By contrast, most people use only a single browser. Thus, for the 99% case, if there are differences between the page count stat and the per-user stat, this tells you that people who use certain browsers tend to look at fewer pages. This may be an indication that the browser sucks, but it also may be an indication that your site does not support that browser well enough, or it may be an indication that the sorts of users who use that browser are simply too busy to spend time browsing a lot of sites. Thus, the two numbers provide significantly different information, and the question of which one is more useful is largely dependent on why you are asking the question. If you are trying to find out how many people will hit your site with a given browser, the per-user stat is more useful. If you are trying to figure out which browser is more likely to have people browsing around your site and looking for products, the per-page-hit stat is more useful. Understanding the differences between the two metrics can also help you better tailor your site to the sorts of users that browse it using different varieties of browser.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
6. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  ... doesn't that depend on what they use to determine what a 'unique' visitor is?
  if i have 48 browsers going on my machine (through any number of versions of firefox, ie, opera, safari, chrome) and visit a single website, do you really think the site knows that behind the uni ip address that i'm 1 person and not (up to) 48 different people?
7. Re:Who cares by Calos · 2012-06-19 08:38 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Based off the link you posted above, from an article submitted three years ago?
  People change. People's opinions change, especially with articles like this that illuminate the different methodologies and reasoning. Different people exist on the website.
  Not to mention that there could be entirely valid reasons why the StatCounter stats could be entirely correct in this case and still be flawed in the determination of the OS share.
  I'm not sure why you're trying to create doubt and controversy here.
  
  --
  I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
8. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  Actually as a professional web developer browser market share is important for me to know. When did this site devolve to fanboy vs. shill? By the way, thanks for adding to the problem?
9. Re:Who cares by Vellmont · 2012-06-19 08:42 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  I read through the stat counter article, and I was generally displeased with the heavy handed tone, and the general "this is the ONLY way to do it" attitude by the stats counter author. It's kind of odd defending Microsoft, but I think they have some decent points.
  I'm a web developer, and frankly both metrics are useful to me. Why? Page views you already made a good case for, but when I develop a site, I need to know how many people are going to be pissed off when their browser doesn't work on my site. If a browser doesn't work on my site, and the user just leaves because of it, that isn't really offset by the fact that some other user on a different browser goes through the site more. So I heavily disagree with the idea presented by stats counter that the ONLY thing that matters is page views.
  
  --
  AccountKiller
10. Re:Who cares by Billly+Gates · 2012-06-19 08:55 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I certainly believe statCounter as it it logical and things with NetMarket do not make sense like IE 6 going up 15% usage last January?? The statCounter shows smooth graphs with less variation and I agree that no one outside of slashdot runs linux.
  I stopped using Linux in March 2011 after Gnome shell, Unity, and all the new browsers hit 6 week release cycles for security and bug fixes. Linux lost out for me and millions of users.
  However, it kicks ass on the server. NetMarketshare does not even show Linux either.
  I do not understand the obsession of Linux beating MS. I used to be in that crowd when Windows 98 was so problematic but those days are LONG gone. Linux never does just work if you do updates as the lack of ABIs with drivers and config files changing becomes a nightmare when you have 3k apps installed. I am seriously not trolling but just stating my experience as someone will say it works fine for me etc. Ubuntu is not kind with my laptop and older desktop.
  Android and IOS are more consumer oriented and people running Linux servers should not be browsing websites on them.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
11. Re:Who cares by Urza9814 · 2012-06-19 09:01 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Most people I know DO use multiple browsers. Hell, my girlfriend, a college student majoring in food science (not quite a tech field) has Safari, Chrome, and Firefox on her macbook -- and uses all three. Personally I ALWAYS have at least two browsers open -- Chromium and Firefox. Use it to have multiple sessions of the same website open; or because some pages load faster in one browser than another; or because it's easier to remember certain tabs are in Chromium while others are in Firefox, rather than having multiple windows or trying to scroll through dozens of tabs. And not a single one of those wouldn't apply to a casual user -- I'm not talking things like testing or debugging websites...though I commonly switch and add browsers for that too.
  I think you may also be underestimating the cases of people switching over for a specific website, and then leaving that browser up for a while. I just graduated from PSU and can tell you that on their course management system (ANGEL -- which is used by several other universities) you can't do certain tasks from Firefox (like sending emails); other tasks won't work on Safari (don't remember specifics, since I don't own a mac.) So any student there who prefers Firefox or Safari will probably end up switching browsers frequently -- I know some people who have to do that multiple times a day. And this is generally from their home computer, so it's likely they'll continue surfing with that browser until they close it. My highschool's website didn't work on certain browsers. My current work webmail and portal system won't work on certain browsers -- and it's a freakin IT company! Point being, there's never been a time in my life when I DIDN'T need to switch browsers on a near daily basis, for reasons that have nothing to do with being a 'power user' or web developer. And I don't know a single college student -- business major, agriculture, engineering, whatever -- who doesn't have a preferred browser.
  Of course, all of this does miss the point that they should be able to take that into account in their statistics. If you view a site 5 times in IE and 95 times in Firefox, add .95 to Firefox and .05 to IE. Statcounter has the data to do that...though I'll admit I haven't read this thing fully -- someone please enlighten me if they explain a reason they couldn't do that.
12. Re:Who cares by Billly+Gates · 2012-06-19 09:02 · Score: 2
  
  My issue with NetMarketshare is they only look at 40k websites and they have a tiny amount in China. They weigh it to try to makeup but the number in China is so small that variations are included in the data.
  For example, Arstechnica said IE 6 usage is up by 15%! Then it mysteriously goes back down by an equal amount. Then goes back up next month by 11%. Most IE 6 users are in China and not in the US (contrary to popular belief on slashdot that corps make it up). So if you have such a tiny sampling size in China who owns most of all IE 6 users you will see strange statistics.
  Now if you make an English website that means the statistics are useless as your boss might thing this means American websites and a surge in IE 6 usage means you need to work 70 hour work weeks for the next month downgrading your site to work with such a small marketshare of users.
  Statcounter admitted they screwed up and fixed Chrome pre-rendering if you look at their site starting last month it takes this effect into account and Chrome lowered a little bit.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
13. Re:Who cares by thatseattleguy · 2012-06-19 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Even if you think of this (as another commenter has it) as a "unique workflow", I think it misses an even greater source of error in NetApplication's approach. Consider:
  - My grandma uses IE as preloaded on her Windows PC and goes to, say, Gmail (yes, at least I got her off Hotmail :) once a day to get her cat pictures. She's counted as a single unique visitor by NetApp.
  - I go to Gmail with Chrome in the morning and live on it all day, loading hundreds if not thousands of pages during that time. Despite that, I'm _still_ counted as a single unique visitor by NetApp. Even though the "eyeball time" (the real "browser usage") between me and grandma is vastly different.
  I think the "single user" metric has an inherent biased towards low-usage, unsophisticated users - the ones most likely not to have replaced IE as loaded on their systems. So it makes sense (not even counting the geo-weighting issues) that they'd have IE's share much higher than anyone else's. Though no single approach is perfect, that's why I think of the two StatCounter's is netter. (And frankly it's always been more in line with other metrics - like the Wikimedia stats - that seem unbiased and cut a wide swath of the Net. NetApplications has always been the outlier.)
14. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  I admit I am biased towards StatCounter for this reason. They show IE 6 dead :-)
  But old IE is the problem and many who are batting for StatCounter are doing so because they want to only support modern standards which means IE 8 and above
15. Re:Who cares by thatseattleguy · 2012-06-19 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  lol; "better" not "netter". Though that's that's probably true, too. :)
16. Re:Who cares by Derekloffin · 2012-06-19 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  You are comparing two different things, the needs of 1 site, verses the usage across the net as a whole. It shouldn't be in the least surprising that the world wide numbers don't line up to the numbers any single site encounters, and using unique users world wide, or even within a country is equally useless in this regard as well. SC was never meant to meet the need of any single site to judge what browsers it will encounter other than as a starting guess. In fact, there is no metric out there that will be anything more than a guess. You have to measure that sort of thing yourself.
17. Re:Who cares by Teun · 2012-06-19 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  And I don't understand why people dish a whole OS just because one of the many desktop environments sucks.
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
18. Re:Who cares by Billly+Gates · 2012-06-19 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  I am a user and what I stare at is how I use it. Yes, I will dish Linux as in my case I use it as a workstation and do consumer oriented things with it. Most people who know nothing about computers see this and scratch their heads and make a value judgement about the quality of the operating system.
  Gnome failed big time and so did KDE. Linux lost and its time to move on with Android and Windows.
  I have Linux on a VM for everything else and that is fine for me.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
19. Re:Who cares by SgtPepperKSU · 2012-06-19 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  FYI: Net Applications =/= NetApp (formerly known as Network Appliance)
20. Re:Who cares by the_B0fh · 2012-06-19 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Or hell, just delete all the cookies.
  Or browse in Privacy mode.
  Then what do they have to track you?
21. Re:Who cares by gbjbaanb · 2012-06-19 09:21 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  but then there is also the embedded browser factor - I open my newsreader app and that counts as a IE page view, or I open my OSS dev tool and that counts as a webkit view.
  Nowadays its not easy to really get anything other than a broad estimate of browser usage.
22. Re:Who cares by alva_edison · 2012-06-19 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  When did this site devolve to fanboy vs. shill?
  Looking through past articles for the keyword FUD, I would say 2006. Obviously fanboy/shill articles show up as early as 2001, but aren't too frequent.
  
  --
  He effected a bored affect.
23. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  When did this site devolve to fanboy vs. shill?
  Heh heh, wow. When was it not?
24. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  I use four different browsers all the time. One for facebook, one for Google stuffs, one for Banking, and one for random surfing: either Firefox, Opera, Chrome, or Safari.
25. Re:Who cares by valkraider · 2012-06-19 09:56 · Score: 2
  
  "Then what do they have to track you?"
  
  Your unique system+browser configuration?
26. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 10:07 · Score: 0
  
  Or for instance, any business user anywhere that uses Salesforce.com with Office. Their office connect stuff doesn't work right in any browser but IE, and only specific versions of IE, with certain versions (older ones) of Office.
  Many of my own users have to use IE for stuff, but then switch to Chrome or Firefox because they like those better.
27. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  I do not understand the obsession of Linux beating MS.
  It's not about Linux beating MS it's about ANYTHING beating MS. You really don't understand the problem with monopolies do you. IE sucked balls until FF started eating it. Then Chrome came along and started eating FF. Both FF and IE got really good really quick. Competition did that. Just think of how much better Windows would be if there were some real competition.
28. Re:Who cares by dgatwood · 2012-06-19 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  And I don't know a single college student -- business major, agriculture, engineering, whatever -- who doesn't have a preferred browser.
  Yes, and most of them use that preferred browser nearly all the time. They don't just suddenly decide to switch to Safari for an hour, switch to Firefox for 10 minutes, then switch over to Chrome for a while, then switch back to IE.
  
  Point being, there's never been a time in my life when I DIDN'T need to switch browsers on a near daily basis, for reasons that have nothing to do with being a 'power user' or web developer.
  I haven't used any browser other than Safari in more than five years except when dealing with one very specific website (a county government site), and even that site now works correctly in Safari. Your situation is unusual. Even most school websites work correctly with WebKit-based browsers (Chrome, Safari, etc.) these days. They pretty much have to.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
29. Re:Who cares by dgatwood · 2012-06-19 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  So stop using that site. If enough people say, "No", they'll fix it. As long as their users coddle them by switching browsers, there's no incentive for them to improve.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
30. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  I do not understand the obsession of Linux beating MS.
  It's not about Linux beating MS it's about ANYTHING beating MS. You really don't understand the problem with monopolies do you. IE sucked balls until FF started eating it. Then Chrome came along and started eating FF. Both FF and IE got really good really quick. Competition did that. Just think of how much better Windows would be if there were some real competition.
  That is the problem. There is no real competition besides the pricy MacOSX. Linux can't work the same way and be as well tested. Windows improved thanks to MacOSX, not Apple and competition oddly from XP loyalists who need a reason to upgrade.
31. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 10:45 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know if Windows still does this, but back when I used Windows (7~8 years ago?) every fucking update left IE as the default browser. Sooner or later you end up clicking a link from an IM Window or other application and up pops IE giving it a page hits that would not have been there otherwise. Even if you close it right away then and open the link in your preferred browser it's still going to fuck with the "unique visitor" metric.
  I wager that the number of applications that launch the default browser has increased since then. Some are probably even hard wired to open IE. Lots of free unique votes for IE.
  I don't know... does still IE just happen end up as the default browser every Tuesday?
32. Re:Who cares by thatseattleguy · 2012-06-19 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  (Gee, thanks for the civil reply. You gain a lot of karma points that way, I'm sure.)
  In any case, the contention was not (if you read a bit more carefully) that a single-user metric should count the same user twice. Obviously. Rather, the argument is that at a single-user metric is not really a good one to measure 'market browser share' at all, because it overstates the usage by low-use, occasional users, and understates usage by high-use, constant users. As a website developer, sure, I'm interested in both per-visitor and per-page metrics - but the latter is much more important to me because it more accurately tallies who's using my site the most.
  But since your position in Microsoft management is pretty secure, that distinction's probably not important to you.
33. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 10:54 · Score: 0
  
  And open Valve's Steam, and its a Chrome page view.
34. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 11:38 · Score: 0
  
  For the purposes of a company like MS, or any company really, unique users is the more important metric. They want to know that information specifically. Not how many times a user visited the same page in a browser, but how many "IE Users" there are out there.
  Ideally, you would use both. Count unique users, and then weight that user via page hits from that user. This would give you the important metrics that everyone on "both sides" of the argument is after.
  Site designers want to know how many people are hitting their site with old browsers. If 50% of your users (call them paying customers) are coming to you with IE 6, but they only visit once a day, while the other 50% on opera are making 100 hits a day, you're going to upset half your users if you make the decision every web designer wants to make -- dropping support for IE6.
  When it comes down to browser authors parroting stats, they are going to use whichever one gives them the advantage, and there are arguments for either case. If IE is "winning" in the "most users use this browser, at least sometimes", then they are going to report on that stat. If Chrome is "winning" in the "most web traffic is to this browser" then they are going to report on that stat.
  Of course, all StatCounter is doing is justifying their own reporting decisions, which may or may not be scientifically valid.
  Their use of China's internet traffic vs. population argument for example, does not factor in the sites actually visited at all. Americans tend to visit bandwidth heavy sites. How many "hits" should streaming a video from netflix count for? I'd say just one, but things of that nature are responsible for a large segment of that traffic.
35. Re:Who cares by the_B0fh · 2012-06-19 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  Hit that site twice:
  Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 2,250,982 tested so far.
  Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 2,250,984 tested so far.
  Kinda hard to track me if everytime I hit a site, I'm "unique"
36. Re:Who cares by fatphil · 2012-06-19 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  > Linux lost and its time to move on with Android and Windows.
  
  Android is linux. A mangled fucked up linux for simpletons, but then again so were other environments, so let's not single it out for that.
  
  You're either an idiot or a troll. Neither of which does anything apart from reduce the signal to noise ratio here.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
37. Re:Who cares by Bert64 · 2012-06-19 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  The other bias, are indirect or unintentional usage of a browser, and this is mostly IE...
  The fact that IE is still installed wether you use it or not, while few people will install chrome or firefox unless they intend to use it.
  Applications which embed a browser within the app, there are a few that use chrome etc, but most use IE.
  Applications which call an external browser (eg to view a link), some are hard coded to run ie, some just use the default browser but then ie has a habit of being set back as the default even if you don't want it.
  If you just go based on unique users, then many chrome or firefox users would also be counted as ie users despite never intentionally invoking ie.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
38. Re:Who cares by Teun · 2012-06-19 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  Heh, you credibility suffers the way you compare a temporary problem with KDE4.0 - 4.2 with the design of Android.
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
39. Re:Who cares by bloodhawk · 2012-06-19 21:34 · Score: 1
  
  I would hazard a guess that the number of people that actually use multiple web browsers in the manner you describe to be a small minority, it seems that in order to cater for the small minority they are significantly twisting their numbers. No matter how you look at it all the stat collectors are all just approximations, but I do think in this case Microsofts view still holds more water than statCounters.
40. Re:Who cares by sexconker · 2012-06-20 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  Karma lol, what a dipshit. My Karma is permed out at the max. THE MAX.
  The contention was absolutely not that the single user metric was not useful - you were fucking crying about your grandma, a user, being counted the same as you, a user, in the single-user metric. The metric exists because people find it useful.
  If it is not useful for your purposes then don't use it.
  Please continue to accuse me of working for Microsoft, as if working for them would be a bad thing.
  Grow up. You manage exactly 0 servers and have exactly 0 use for such statistics. You are nothing but a fanboy who wants to see your browser of choice "win" because you tie some sort of personal measure of self-worth to use of a product.
  Pathetic.
41. Re:Who cares by Billly+Gates · 2012-06-20 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  I will take an OS that just works with a gui that works and helps me be productive any day. Android is great for tablets and I so not see the problem with using it on netbooks. I can find things with it that I can't with KDE.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
Stats are fun by pubwvj · 2012-06-19 07:58 · Score: 1

MSucks can suck iEggs.
My web site stat counter proves that Macintosh PowerBooks running Safari 4.1.1 are the most common machines and browser combination. The evidence is right there in the logs. Virtually no IE usage at all. Just once in a while when I test that a new page renders properly in IE.
Statistically significant sample sets are raaather important. :)
Still? by Corson · 2012-06-19 08:01 · Score: 1

So, the pissing contest is still going on? Who would have thought.
1. Re:Still? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  Slashdot is thanking their lucky stars. If it wasn't for the daily two-minute hate sessions they'd have no real traffic left.
  
  In a couple hours you'll see the numbers sag and suddenly there will be an article sure to bring out the religious debate. That's the butter on their bread around here.
  
  Just another reason I don't even bother having an account here anymore. I spend more time on PhysOrg than this steaming pile of crap.
2. Re:Still? by Jeng · 2012-06-19 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  The pissing contest will stop once everyone is done pissing. Since the pissing will never stop there will be no stop to the pissing contest.
  As long as there are browsers there will be someone who cares which one is used the most.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
3. Re:Still? by oakgrove · 2012-06-19 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  How is this a hate session? StatCounter released some statistics, Microsoft questioned their methodology and StatCounter politely defended themselves. If anybody is inciting "hate" it is you.
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
4. Re:Still? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 11:00 · Score: 0
  
  he was speaking "in general". it's true that on /. one often gets shot down for criticizing linux or implying that microsoft may also do good things. it's a fact that you become aware of if you've been here long enough. no offense meant.
Sample size by sl4shd0rk · 2012-06-19 08:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

237 out of 237 Microsoft employees recommend Internet Explorer

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
1. Re:Sample size by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  237 out of 237 Microsoft employees recommend Internet Explorer
  Out of how many total Microsoft employees?
2. Re:Sample size by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  237 out of 237 Microsoft employees recommend Internet Explorer
  It's not so much your sample size as your sample's source demographic.
  Pointing to the sample size is implying there'd be a difference in the opinion of 3 Microsoft employees verses 33,333 Microsoft Employees.
3. Re:Sample size by devitto · 2012-06-19 08:58 · Score: 2
  
  Well, even that is unbelievable, have you actually tried to USE Internet Explorer ?
4. Re:Sample size by DECula · 2012-06-19 09:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I wonder how many bots are using IE user agent strings this week.
  
  --
  dreaded scurrilous bit-twiddler from Oklahoma
5. Re:Sample size by jd · 2012-06-19 10:29 · Score: 2
  
  What a silly question - 3. The other 234 know what's good for them.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It kinda reminds me a lot of by rullywowr · 2012-06-19 08:04 · Score: 1

the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election...
OK, so you're both full of it by squiggleslash · 2012-06-19 08:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

What's the actual truth?
You see, SC comes up with a moderately intelligent article that does seem, in the face of it, to address the points Microsoft addresses.
And yet, virtually anyone who administers a public website can tell you that SC's original figures are complete crap. IE most certainly is the most popular browser right now. And Chome is third place. Not second. Definitely not first.
SC can continue to push this ludicrous crap if they want. But their figures are laughable, and they'd be better off figuring why than writing snippy retorts to anyone who points it out.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
1. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by cpu6502 · 2012-06-19 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  >>> anyone who administers a public website can tell you that SC's original figures are complete crap. IE most certainly is the most popular browser right now. And Chome is third place.
  Citation please. Your sample size is what? 1?
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
2. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  On that topic, I've never heard of any site using "NetApplications HitsLink" as their analytics service. AFAICT, they are third tier provider at best.
  But I commend their PR department for associating their brand name with authoritative "marketshare" statistics.
3. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  And yet, virtually anyone who administers a public website can tell you that SC's original figures are complete crap. IE most certainly is the most popular browser right now. And Chome is third place. Not second. Definitely not first.
  Citation needed. Your anecdote about your site is not evidence that a real study must be wrong.
4. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by bongey · 2012-06-19 08:29 · Score: 2
  
  IE most certainly is the most popular browser
  How about enslaved by IE. Popular implies people like to use IE, given a choice what would they use? How many people use IE because some site only works in IE .
5. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by squiggleslash · 2012-06-19 08:38 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  GA reports, that of the 506,682 people who visited the sites run by my employer in the last month:
  28.29% used IE 9
  25.70% used IE 8
  14.61% used Firefox 12.0
  5.39% used Chrome 19.0.1084.52
  4.33% used IE 7 (thank God.)
  3.07% used Safari 534.57.2
  2.56% used Android Browser 533.1
  2.45% used Firefox 13.0
  1.27% used Chrome 19.0.1084.46, and 1.25% used Chrome 19.0.1084.56
  Removing version numbers:
  IE: 58.63$
  Firefox: 21.38%
  Chrome: 8.88%
  Safari: 7.52%
  The fact that our site of HALF A MILLION USERS is getting almost three times as many Firefox users as Chrome users is why I think the idea Chrome is #1, even considering my employer's demographic, highly improbable.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
6. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by oakgrove · 2012-06-19 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  That's still a sample size of 1 though. What is your site about? If you were running a site about the latest Apple rumors then you would expect lots of Safari visitors, if the site is some kind of business vertical then you would expect lots of IE. If it is a site like Slashdot with a large tech literate contingent you would expect lots of Chrome and Firefox.
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
7. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by squiggleslash · 2012-06-19 08:52 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  That's a sample size of a little over half a million, not one.
  My employer, FWIW, is a publisher of financial advice. We're not targeting geeks (specifically) or any other group. While I'd expect the figures to be slightly skewed, I'd say they're likely to be closer to normal than, say, some Slashdotter's blog.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
8. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  Really, man? Really? Are you that dumb? Seriously?
  Ladies and Gentlemen, you are witnessing right here the downfall of the once great Slashdot. How much of a fucking retard does the parent have to be not to realize that his site is a sample of one? Parent, please kill yourself now.
9. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by SpaceWiz · 2012-06-19 08:58 · Score: 2
  
  Considering WordPress.com alone has over 800 million views a week, stats available here. You've got a serious sampling problem. Your website is a niche which skews toward IE use.
10. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by oakgrove · 2012-06-19 08:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The stats from just one website, in this case your employer's, are meaningless. I'm not sure what combination of words I have to use to make it plain to you why that is the case. Is English your first language as I can give it a shot in some other tongue if that is necessary.
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
11. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by oakgrove · 2012-06-19 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Hi, AC, notice how the timestamps are 1 minute apart between my response above and the other AC? Slashdot doesn't let you post that fast. Find another boogeyman and pull the tinfoil a little tighter.
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
12. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by Billly+Gates · 2012-06-19 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  What's the actual truth?
  You see, SC comes up with a moderately intelligent article that does seem, in the face of it, to address the points Microsoft addresses.
  And yet, virtually anyone who administers a public website can tell you that SC's original figures are complete crap. IE most certainly is the most popular browser right now. And Chome is third place. Not second. Definitely not first.
  SC can continue to push this ludicrous crap if they want. But their figures are laughable, and they'd be better off figuring why than writing snippy retorts to anyone who points it out.
  According to slashdot, only 10% of users use IE 8 and everyone else uses Chrome/FF.
  My blogsite (not linked) is tiny and dumb but shows only 5% use IE 8 too. It varies on your website's market. Consumer sites will back up SC and if your employer is SAP or something corporate guess what? 90% use IE which is no surprise. It doesn't mean SC is crap at all as they test consumer sites and pro sites. Most people at work do not browse the web as they are not getting paid too and only occasionally do it when the boss is not looking. So you forget about that factor too.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
13. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by squiggleslash · 2012-06-19 09:11 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  1. They're not stats from just one website. They're stats from all the websites run by my employer
  2. There are over half a million visitors being counted here.
  3. The question at issue here is not "What are the exact market shares of each browser" but "Is it remotely plausable that Chrome has surpassed IE in market share?"
  4. You've asked me for the figures after I've said this doesn't match my experience. You're now moving the bar.
  Seriously, if you're not interested in what figures I'm seeing that make me think the original survey is ludicrously out of whack with reality, don't fucking ask for them !. I'm not trying to convince you, I'm telling you why I think this survey is improbable.
  I'm looking at the figures for a set of general interest financial advice websites. These sites do not attract a demographic likely to be skewed towards any particular browser. So I'm basically getting half a million samples to look at that are more or less random. Most of these people are using IE.
  This figure tells me that it's highly improbable that Chrome is doing better than IE. You can disbelieve that if you wish, but I will remain skeptical until I either see something more solid from StatCounter, start seeing my figures change, or start seeing other web surveys actually back StatCounter up.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
14. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by squiggleslash · 2012-06-19 09:14 · Score: 2
  
  I can't find anything on Wordpress's site that reports browser usage. Or are you just saying it's a "big site"?
  What makes you think our sites skew towards IE users? I'm curious to know what non-StatCounter figures you're looking at that also suggest IE's usage is low?
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
15. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by squiggleslash · 2012-06-19 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  This is why periodically I just hate Slashdot.
  Mod-bombed because my own experience doesn't match SC? Really? Seriously?
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
16. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 09:21 · Score: 0
  
  1. They're not stats from just one website. They're stats from all the websites run by my employer
  2. There are over half a million visitors being counted here.
  And StatCounter pulls from 3,000,000 websites totaling visitors in the hundreds of millions so unless your employer's name is GoDaddy you still are living in fantasy land if you think you your stats are worth a shit.
17. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by squiggleslash · 2012-06-19 09:22 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Actually, don't bother responding to my previous response to you. After the modbombing and the idiots saying that sample sizes are measured in "Number of times I took a bunch of samples" rather than "Number of samples actually taken", I'm done with this.
  I posted some figures for a group of websites that I know aren't likely to be skewed towards any particular browser. Those figures have been modded down to oblivion, for no apparent reason.
  And you can't even be civil.
  So I'll stick you on ignore for a while, and I'll leave this thread. Shame, it would have been interesting to see what other webmasters experience vs this survey is. That's not terribly likely to happen in an environment where publishing GA figures gets you modbombed.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
18. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by marcosdumay · 2012-06-19 09:25 · Score: 2
  
  And yet, virtually anyone who administers a public website can tell you that SC's original figures are complete crap.
  It is virtualy impossible for the figures of any public site to agree with the agregated share of browsers (whatever it is). Unless, of course, you are Google, but even then, you'll probably miss some IE users that didn't change their search bar.
  
  --
  Rethinking email
19. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 09:28 · Score: 0
  
  You are getting "modbombed" mainly due to this gem:
  
  And yet, virtually anyone who administers a public website can tell you that SC's original figures are complete crap. IE most certainly is the most popular browser right now. And Chome is third place. Not second. Definitely not first.
  The stats from your employer's sites do not mean SC's original figures are "complete crap". That's pure flamebait and you have been modded accordingly. Now take your toys and go home.
20. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by KingMotley · 2012-06-19 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'll make this a sample size of 2 then. With 590,703 unique visitors:
  53.45% used IE
  14.84% used Safari
  13.57% used Firefox
  12.54% used Chrome
  4.04% used Android
  0.45% used Opera
  These were taken from a site with absolutely no technical background, and should have no bias towards any particular demographic. Whether stats counter is more correct or not globally or not, NetApp's numbers more closely resemble traffic we see, and therefore a more accurate source for us.
21. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by KingMotley · 2012-06-19 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, here's the top 10 with version numbers:
  1. Internet Explorer 9.0 23.11%
  2. Internet Explorer 8.0 22.04%
  3. Internet Explorer 7.0 7.70%
  4. Safari 7534.48.3 6.24%
  5. Firefox 12.0 3.69%
  6. Android Browser 533.1 3.49%
  7. Firefox 11.0 3.01%
  8. Chrome 19.0.1084.52 1.94%
  9. Firefox 10.0.2 1.48%
  10. Chrome 18.0.1025.168 1.43%
  Although, I find version numbers fairly irrelevant for Firefox, Chrome, Safari as their version numbers change so quickly that they under represent themselves.
22. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by asserted · 2012-06-19 09:50 · Score: 2
  
  no. you were modded down because you made a sweeping statement ("virtually anyone") and then provided data for exactly one - yourself.
  one != anyone, that's all.
23. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  StatCounter has a sample size of 3,000,000 jackass number two so keep pulling shit out of your ass.
24. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by sexconker · 2012-06-19 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  And yet, virtually anyone who administers a public website can tell you that SC's original figures are complete crap. IE most certainly is the most popular browser right now. And Chome is third place. Not second. Definitely not first.
  Citation needed. Your anecdote about your site is not evidence that a real study must be wrong.
  Citation needed? Go run a fucking webserver and track the stats. Or look at any of the fucking evidence people have posted online or here.
  This fucking generation is absolutely fucking useless. You never want to do any thinking or research, you just want to argue about the results. Someone posts evidence? "Hurr durr anecdotal sample size of one because I can't count".
  So fuck off with that "citation needed" horse shit, especially when this fucking page is riddles with actual data and citations. How about I respond with one of you kids's other fucking gems? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!"
  Stat Counter is making a blatantly bullshit claim and has provided blatantly bullshit evidence, and they got called out on it, just like when Google claimed Bing was stealing their search results. Now the fanboys and spinsters are out in full force trying to damage control Stat Counter's bullshit.
  IE is the most used browser, by far, when counting unique users. There's just no fucking contest, no matter tight you close your eyes and how hard you wish for it.
  I use Firefox.
25. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by Kalriath · 2012-06-19 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  Their sample size is still fucking tiny compared to the total number of active sites though, so if a sample size of two is "pulling shit out of your ass" so is a sample size of 3,000,000. And no, you can't disagree with that simply because you like StatCounter's conclusion.
  Really, this argument will keep on going until Google announces their conclusion based on Search/Analytics/AdSense figures.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
26. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, you're the jackass that keeps AC-stalking OG. What a douchebag.
27. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by Toonol · 2012-06-19 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  Add a few more for the companies I work with. I suspect that anybody working on non-tech site will say the same. IE is significantly ahead of competitors both in visitor and pageview metrics. And no, I'm not an MS employee. I used to prefer Firefox, now I use Chrome, and don't really like ANY browser any more.
  
  (Maybe Opera, just on principle.)
28. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 19:29 · Score: 0
  
  Slashdot doesn't let you post that fast.
  It does because there are ways around it. And anti-ms trolls like you abuse that frequently.
29. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 19:35 · Score: 0
  
  no. you were modded down because you made a sweeping statement ("virtually anyone") and then provided data for exactly one - yourself.
  one != anyone, that's all.
  Funny how that never happens when its Google and Apple shills posting exactly the same thing about Microsoft.
30. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by Bert64 · 2012-06-19 20:23 · Score: 2
  
  I host a variety of sites, primarily a mix of porn and tech oriented sites but with a few random company brochureware sites thrown in.
  On the porn, IE is the most common browser but barely with 30%, firefox and chrome are both very close behind with 28% and 25% respectively.
  On the other sites, firefox is the most common with 42%, chrome has half that on 20% and ie lags behind with 15%.. Safari and opera about about tied on 5.8% each.
  This is based on unique visitors rather than number of hits, and as far as i know we don't host any sites which require specific browsers.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
31. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by Bert64 · 2012-06-19 20:34 · Score: 1
  
  And what exactly does your employer do? And is your site fully compatible with all of those browsers?
  Also, why don't you parse your actual web logs instead of relying on a javascript bug for stats? There are a number of firefox extensions to block things like google analytics, and ofcourse any browser that has javascript disabled (eg firefox users with noscript) or simply doesn't support it won't show up in your stats either.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
32. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by Golddess · 2012-06-20 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  Right, because everyone will always use the exact same browser for every single site they visit. It's not like someone might use IE only to visit one particular site, but Firefox/Chrome/Safari/Opera to visit every other fucking site they go to.
  
  Oh wait, people will do just that. I'm sorry, but the dumbass is you. Unless you are operating under a definition of market share that allows for >100% when totaling IE, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, and every other browser out there. Which.. in all honesty I could see that. I mean, as I'd just said, not like people will use one browser exclusively.
  
  --
  "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
33. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, we can. But that's only because we understand the significance of sample size when it comes to statistics.
  A sample size of millions of hits across each of two sites will give you sufficient data to judge the relative browser use on those two sites.
  A sample size of millions of hits across each of millions of sites will give you sufficient data to judge the relative browser use across the internet as a whole.
  To clarify this, I'll provide an illustration:
  You're watching the coffee-purchasing habits of two people for a year.
  At the end of that year, you'll be able to determine a pattern of coffee-purchasing/preference for those two people, likely including how often each individual buys a given brand. (e.g. Person A is likely to buy a large Starbucks latte on Wednesday afternoon.) You won't be able to determine whether Starbucks on the corner of 8th and Main is selling more than their competitor down the block. This is because you have a large amount of data for a small sample size.
  I'm watching the same coffee-purchasing habits of 3,000,000 people for a year.
  At the end of that year, I'll be able to determine everything you were able to determine (because I have that same large amount of data for each person). However, I'll *also* be able to determine whether that Starbucks or it's competitor is doing better business, because I have a large number of samples.
  Sample-size and data-set-size are not the same thing. I can have a billion points of data recorded for a single sample. That's not the same thing as having 1,000 points of data recorded for each of a million people (despite the fact that the raw data-store is the same 'size').
  When determining browser usage across the internet as a whole, it's impossible to draw conclusions from a sample size of 1 or 2 sites. Learn a little something about statistics before you start spouting off nonsense. A sample size of 3,000,000 sites is *more* than sufficient (by about 3 orders of magnitude) for drawing statistical conclusions about the state of the internet. They use more sites than the minimum required in order to compensate for not being able to get a truly random sample of sites. Your sample size of two sites is A) not a random selection *and* B) insufficiently large to compensate for the lack of randomness.
34. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 22:05 · Score: 0
  
  timestamps are 1 minute apart between my response above and the other AC? Slashdot doesn't let you post that fast. Find another boogeyman and pull the tinfoil a little tighter.
  HAHAHA HAHAHEWHEHEH, Tea, Are, Oh, Ell, Ell, Gee, Are, Oh, Vee, Eeee! TROLLGROVE up in this bitch! Yeah
  Trollgrove done got the timecramps, anybody got a pamprin for my boy?
  
  Ladies and Gentlemen, you are witnessing right here the downfall of the once great Slashdot
  See dat? BOOM~! Classic Trollgrove diarrhea right there aimed right for the ballsack. Trollgrove, you are one giant, ignorant, clueless fucking asshole, but WE know you. Your lies, your homosexuality, your hypocritical bullshit. It's all you, brah. We know your style, we know how you troll. Hell, I LOVE how you troll. Not just that, I love WHY you troll. Your troll for FOSS, for FREEEEDOM! For TEH LINUX! LINUX, OH-GOD-I"VE-GOT-A-BIG-HARD-COCK-NOW LINUX. LINUX, LINUX, LIIIINUUUUUUXXXXXXXXSssssssssssss@!
  Never stop fappin', never stop hatin', never stop trolling! Trollgrove, we love you! Troll them as hard as your little pecker can! TROLL THEM TO INFINITY! TROLL, TROLL, TRROOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL TROLL HARD! Life Hard, Troll Hard, Be Hard. FOSS empowers you! TROLL ON, Stallman Soldier.
35. Re:OK, so you're both full of it by oakgrove · 2012-06-21 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  That was pretty funny.
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Advertising by rmac1813 · 2012-06-19 08:14 · Score: 1

Their commercials make IE9 look cool. They have all my non-tech friends convinced its a great browser... :rollingeyes:

--
Progress defines me
1. Re:Advertising by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  Compared to their previous browsers is a great browser!
2. Re:Advertising by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 08:54 · Score: 0
  
  Compared to the competition it is not. I find Chrome much snappier in day to day use than internet explorer 9 and I use both quite a bit as I have to test my site in them.
Do not reply to SPIN DOCTORS by martiniturbide · 2012-06-19 08:15 · Score: 1

Statcounter. It is very possible that you will get a reply from Microsoft spin doctors saying you are complete wrong because you are not considering the chicken population at China. Do not reply anymore, it just an effort to make you waist more resources answering to their non-sense.
I love the pandering headline by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 08:19 · Score: 0

Submission: "They (rather politely) explain the importance of sample size..."
Headline: "StatCounter Blasts Microsoft's Claim..."
Slashdot is the Fox News of the tech world.
summary and an aside by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 08:24 · Score: 0

So, the main argument seems to be whether to count usage or users. Explorer people want to count users and StatCounter wants to count usage. I can see the benefit of counting both of them. To me, users count the number of people that you need to support and usage is the number of eyes. From a public web designer or advertiser standpoint, I would find the number of eyes important. If something appears correctly 98% of the time it is looked at, that would be fine for me in those capacities. However, if I were making an internal website for a business or online access for a bank, I need it to work for every user, not just the ones that use it the most.
Therefore, I can see why MS would want to count users as they have to have the software work for each user and SC wants to count eyes as they aim at designers and advertisers. I think it is too simple to say one is better than the other.
Now, as an aside, Firefox people need to worry more about user numbers and not eyes. So stop blindly citing SC at people who mention what a horrible decision they made to abandon the 3.6 people (a whole 10% of the eyes and who knows how many users). For a software company, the users matter not the eyes.
The reason is simple by EvilBudMan · 2012-06-19 08:27 · Score: 2

Stat Counter probably counts all devices and there is a ton of these things called Android that uses Chrome.
1. Re:The reason is simple by oakgrove · 2012-06-19 08:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The Android browser does not represent itself as Chrome unless you actually install Chrome. And even then it represents itself as Chrome on Android so, no, StatCounter did not count Android in their stats.
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
2. Re:The reason is simple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 13:13 · Score: 0
  
  I can make up things too. EvilBudMan probably counts all the things he shoves up his arse "gerbils" even though most are probably hamsters.
3. Re:The reason is simple by EvilBudMan · 2012-06-20 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  Then what would you call it?
4. Re:The reason is simple by EvilBudMan · 2012-06-20 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  What about all AC's are lame. I just made that up, but seriously if stat counter didn't count that and it is only desktop systems, then it will take another one like maybe double click to verify their results because probably more people have smart phones than desktops these days. How would stat counter know the difference?
5. Re:The reason is simple by oakgrove · 2012-06-20 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.0.4; en-us; Galaxy Nexus Build/IMM76L; CyanogenMod-9) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/534.30
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
6. Re:The reason is simple by EvilBudMan · 2012-06-20 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well should that be counted too?
Re:I care by Billly+Gates · 2012-06-19 08:48 · Score: 1

I am working on a site and trying to learn web development for a corporate and business oriented market.
IE 6 != Chrome/FF and it has radical implications on how to develop resources. It is not oh, IE does this a little different, I will just add this to a .css then the problem will go away etc. Rather I have to redesign the site from scratch, I have to worry about support calls if the javascript is too slow.
It may mean I can't use JQuery to write once run everywhere as IE 6,7, and 8 will run like molasses and the most recent versions are not compatible with IE 6.
As an IT support professional it means more malware when people run obsolete platforms like IE 7 and XP with an increase in help desk malware tickets by 200%!
If you can point out to the PHBs and beancounters that no one is using their crappy locked down solutions anyway they will be in a tough spot with corporate sites no longer rendering properly. Most webmasters and IT support pros pray for statistics that show IE dying! As soon as people stop bending over backwards to users such as yourself who think IE 6 is the same as Chrome we can finally get rid of that terrible monstrosity and move on to something modern.

--
http://saveie6.com/
My Blog Data - what are yours? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 09:18 · Score: 0

My little blog shows that IE has some market share still. Here are the numbers so far for June 2012:
45.6% Firefox
28.1% Chrome
13.9% EI
6.7% Safari
2.4% Opera
3.x% .... the rest combined.
What do your webstats say?
1. Re:My Blog Data - what are yours? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  If you were a respectable blogger you would have linked to your blog for the free hits no?
Reality: by sehryan · 2012-06-19 09:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

The reality is that those numbers don't really matter if you already have a website.
You can easily run stats on YOUR OWN WEBSITE and get the browser breakdown that you should be worried about.
For one of my primary sites, all version of IE beat out Firefox or Chrome. When split apart, Firefox and Chrome are 1 and 2, with IE8 coming in third.
And now that I think about it, knowing who is first or second is pretty much irrelevant. What matters is the percentage of users who are still using browser version that suck to support. So really, what I care about is where my IE7 and IE6 usage is, and at what point is it okay for me to walk away from those users.

--
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
1. Re:Reality: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  What *is* your IE6 usage?
  Bet it is pretty low.
  But. Sounds like your stats mirror the US in general, you are probably running a US audience site.
  http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-US-monthly-201105-201205
  http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version_partially_combined-US-monthly-201105-201205
  17% for IE7 and IE8 - IE6 is 0.42%
  Walking away from IE7 and IE8, probably not a good idea, but going out of your way to simulate stuff, like nesting 4 layers of divs to get a border to look right, is pretty silly. Just use IE9.js if needed, and make sure the site lays out reasonably well.
2. Re:Reality: by westlake · 2012-06-19 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  The reality is that those numbers don't really matter if you already have a website.
  You can easily run stats on YOUR OWN WEBSITE and get the browser breakdown that you should be worried about.
  If only life were that simple.
  You need to know the breakdown for sites which compete for the same audience.
  If your big budget news site is going head-to-head against CNN and Fox you have a serious problem if your top-ranking browser is Konquerer.
3. Re:Reality: by mister_dave · 2012-06-19 17:53 · Score: 1
  
  I'm toying with the idea of dropping IE6 support, it's down to 2.8%.
  What problems does IE7 cause you?
4. Re:Reality: by higuita · 2012-06-19 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  "oh my god!! its full of bugs out there"
  IE7 its much better than than IE6, but compared with IE8, firefox and chrome, it's very buggy, making harder to use the newest web technologies.
  
  --
  Higuita
You mean like /. "Pro-*NIX propoganda"? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 09:35 · Score: 0

You know - along the lines of "Windows != Secure, Linux = Secure", & for YEARS around here!
(Now, the FUNNIEST PART of that, is that once Linux got a MAJOR foothold on other computing devices as the #1 most used OS there (smartphones) - it showed you ALL just how "secure" it is (&, it's not - not any more than any other OS vs. determined hacker/crackers)).
* About "spin"? I've heard EVERY LINE OF UTTER BULLSHIT vs. that set of facts above I stated, that it'd make your head spin... but yet not a single one of those 'spins' manages to disprove the simple fact that ANDROID, despite having Linux underpinnings, does in fact get SHREDDED daily on the security-front.
Proving my point...
(However - The fact remains, as to exactly what I stated above (& you see it nearly DAILY with exploits exploding on ANDROID, a Linux itself)).
Now, above all else - don't get me wrong: I think Linux is something that shows the world CAN & DOES have the ability to freely "pull together" & develop something for free, & of freely given time (not for monies), which imo, makes it a "socio-cultural-technical phenomenon" because of that - & yes, that's something.
What I don't like is "FUD" & b.s. spread around that might influence others, just because they read /. & expect people here to be some form of experts (some here, are, granted, but the majority? No way...).
I honestly cannot figure out which I personally DESPISE more: Apple's early "FUD" b.s. about it not getting any viruses/malwares etc. OR what I heard here on /. for years... at least prior to THIS year (a lot of "penguins" are 'changing their tune' on it now, rightfully so).
APK
P.S.=> No questions asked either, as to that b.s. being spread around here on /., & yet ANDROID (a Linux itself) shows QUITE otherwise, & what happened to Windows, due to its overwhelming majority on PC's + Servers combined worldwide, has happened to Linux on smartphones... no doubt about it, & it proves my point here, easily...
... apk
1. Re:You mean like /. "Pro-*NIX propoganda"? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 11:15 · Score: 0
  
  Android is more secure now than it was and yet its popularity is increasing. What are those hackers thinking? ZOMG!!
Only use IE when I have to by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 10:24 · Score: 0

I only use IE when I absolutely have to, for web applications specifically written to work with IE, and therefore invariably non-functional in some manner with other browsers. Our company continues to insist we support only IE $currentVersion and $currentVersion-1, but support personnel regularly have to suggest to customers that they try the website in something other than IE to work around some bizarre issue.
(Like HTML elements being styled with height=100% causing the entire page to flicker and disappear randomly as you move the mouse around the browser in IE 9, but not in IE 7 or 8. I wish I was kidding.)
IE is the number one browser... by used2win32 · 2012-06-19 11:12 · Score: 1

IE is the number one browser... for downloading a better browser.

--
Procrastination; I'll think of a sig tomorrow.
I don't care what the rankings say by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 11:48 · Score: 0

IE will always be a great big number 2 to me.
My own stats ... by jopet · 2012-06-19 13:00 · Score: 1

I placed a number of goo.gl links in comments at various sites pointing to pages that would be interesting to the visitors there. goo.gl gives you among other things browser and os statistics. For all these pages, there were at least twice as many clicks from firefox than from IE. On most pages, IE came second behind Firefox, but in the more tech-oriented pages, IE was nearly always third after Firefox and Chrome.
You do not have to believe this -- just try it, it is rather easy, interesting and fun.
it may also be less biased than using the web stats for whatever site you may own, because that site you own is only visited by geeks anyways :)
Will IE 10.0 bring users back? by MtViewGuy · 2012-06-19 15:55 · Score: 1

I think one reason why IE is losing market share is the fact IE--unlike Firefox, Chrome and even Safari--lacks "on the fly" flagging of spelling errors. But now that IE 10.0 for Windows 7 (and the IE 10.0 built into Windows 8/RT) will flag spelling errors, we could see a lot less people in Windows 8 and Windows RT choose an alternate browser.
StatCounter overstates importance of sample size by swillden · 2012-06-19 18:59 · Score: 2

I have to take issue with StatCounter's claim that their data is inherently better because they have 3 million sites in their sample vs 40,000 in Net App's sample. Ask any statistician (I'm not one, but I do fiddle with stats from time to time) and he'll tell you that the only situation in which having more than 40,000 data points (and Net App had 40,000 sites of data points, meaning many millions of page views) can make any difference is if you're trying to tease out extremely subtle differences.
Regardless of the total size of the population you're trying to estimate, you only need a relatively small number of samples to get a given degree of certainty that your hypothesis is not invalidated by your data. This is why you see nationwide polls that only ask 2,000 people out of 300 million Americans -- because the math shows that's all you need to achieve a +-3% margin of error with a 95% confidence interval, and note that you can achieve the same accuracy with the same number if you randomly select 2000 people out of the seven billion on the planet. The margin of error depends on the sample size, not the population size. Once you're up to tens of thousands of samples, the margin of error is miniscule, and upping that to a few million samples doesn't appreciably improve your accuracy.
What does matter, a lot, is that your samples are randomly-selected. And the fact is that neither StatCounter nor Net App have a very good story to tell there. StatCounter's larger sample size may possibly help by getting a slightly larger cross-section of the web, but I doubt it. Both companies measure only a tiny slice of web usage, so complete coverage is a pipe dream, and both have way more than enough data to achieve highly accurate estimates -- if the data is well-sampled, which it isn't. If it were, their estimates would be identical to several decimal places.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:StatCounter overstates importance of sample siz by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 21:35 · Score: 0

As you said yourself, random samples are important and I'd say a bigger number of websites can help in this regard, especially since there are significant differences between browser usage based on countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers
Hackers/Crackers think like pickpockets... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 23:16 · Score: 0

"What are those hackers thinking?" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19, @07:15PM (#40378223)
Per my subject-line: They think just like pickpockets do, by going to where the MOST exploitable crowds are (most used operating systems on ANY computing platform - just like what happened to Windows due to its OVERWHELMING dominance of the PC + Server world combined).
Hacker-Cracker types think JUST LIKE PICKPOCKETS DO, when they go to find the "easy meat" noobz to exploit who aren't aware of threats online OR how to protect vs. them... just like how REAL pickpockets go to crowded bus/train stations, city streets, malls &/or other largely travelled public throughfares.
Most used WILL BE MOST ATTACKED - better "attack surface area" & more potential victims exist on the most used OS on ANY COMPUTING PLATFORM... period.
* On 'smartphones'? That's ANDROID (even though it's a Linux variant, we see it get exploited almost daily), just like Windows has been on PC desktops &/or Servers for the SAME REASONS (better "ROI" for malware makers to achieve for their efforts expended on malware or maliciously scripted sites/adbanners)...
---

"Android is more secure now than it was and yet its popularity is increasing." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19, @07:15PM (#40378223)
Yes, it is, & HAS TO - it's one GOOD thing hacker/cracker types do, & that's to point out what needs "shoring up"/reinforcement... but, that's about it (trying to make lemonade outta lemons)...
APK
P.S.=> There you go... the reasoning behind hacker/cracker thinking ("channel your 'inner criminal'" & you'll understand from THEIR "pov")... apk
Re:StatCounter overstates importance of sample siz by muxxa · 2012-06-20 00:06 · Score: 1

StatCounter is Freemium while NetApps is paid only; meaning that NetApps have a bias towards for-profit sites?
Re:StatCounter overstates importance of sample siz by swillden · 2012-06-20 01:16 · Score: 1

As you said yourself, random samples are important and I'd say a bigger number of websites can help in this regard, especially since there are significant differences between browser usage based on countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers
A bigger biased sample is still biased, unless your sample is so large that it actually covers close to all of the population. What would be more useful is to understand what the biases are, and then try to adjust for them. muxxa pointed out that Net Apps is a paid-only service, which undoubtedly accounts for some of the bias.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:StatCounter overstates importance of sample siz by dhammond · 2012-06-20 02:00 · Score: 1

... and StatCounter has a bias towards small sites.
Swilden's point is spot on. Arguing over the specific percentages produced by NetApps and StatCounter is useless since neither can remotely claim to provide a random sampling of websites. The stats are useful to see overall trends in browser usage, but that's about it.