Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Attracting More Visitors Than Google.com

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the bigger-they-are dept.

173

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.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

facebook (5, Funny)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507192)

pokes google

google (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31507200)

pokes facebook

Steve Ballmer (2, Funny)

bhunachchicken (834243) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508456)

throws a chair at Google, using SuperPoke!

Re:facebook (2, Funny)

Sinning (1433953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508828)

Shouldn't this have been 'first poke!' ?

WTF? (5, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507196)

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.

Re:WTF? (4, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507230)

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."

Re:WTF? (4, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507398)

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.

Re:WTF? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31507444)

Your browser probably has a quick search keyword feature, so instead of going to google "urban dictionary", you could type something like "slang [term]" or even "ud [term]" om your address bar

Re:WTF? (5, Funny)

Gulthek (12570) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507722)

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 [readwriteweb.com]

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.

Re:WTF? (1)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508092)

Wow. I could expect a couple of braindeads. Not several dozen. Certainly not in the thousands.

Re:WTF? (1)

Sporkinum (655143) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508204)

Thanks for posting that link. The 'tard quotient is high in that comments section.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31508014)

This is really common. We have to be careful, because our webpage isn't the first link you get when you search for our webpage's address on google.

Re:WTF? (1)

Mashdar (876825) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508356)

I was very accustomed to typing a keyword into Google, knowing the top result, and hitting tab+tab+space (which activates "I am feeling lucky"). Sadly their auto completion feature and fade-in stuff have ruined my method of speedy navigation. :(

Re:WTF? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508598)

You can turn off auto-completion in your Google preferences. I don't know about the fade in stuff though, because I've taken to just using Chrome's address bar as my Google search box! And before that I was using iGoogle. I vaguely remember seeing stuff fade in on the Google homepage one time, but I can't remember what it actually did.

Re:WTF? (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508462)

Actually they're probably googling Facebook.com instead of just typing it in the address bar.

Well, yes. That was the entire point of my post, it was a reference to the ReadWriteWeb [readwriteweb.com] incident mentioned by other correspondents. Sometimes I wonder if slashdot users are any more intelligent than those who tried to log in to Facebook via the ReadWriteWeb article.

Re:WTF? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508726)

I got your point and was just saying how crazy it is that people often know the actual address but still prefer to Google it. Looking at that article people are even more stupid than I had previously suspected though. It was almost like YouTube in there.

Re:WTF? (5, Funny)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507232)

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.

Re:WTF? (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507542)

WAN parties?

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31507644)

or even looking at porn together.

WAN parties?

I think you mean WANk parties

Re:WTF? (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507670)

    Ummm, like Google Buzz?

    Google is moving away from "Do no evil" to "extend, embrace and exterminate". By the looks of it, Google Buzz has been another Google flop though.

    Facebook has their fair share of flop elements, such as their privacy (or lack thereof), which made the news but hasn't really scared too many people away. Considering how many games requests I've gotten from people I know, when I check my messages on there once every few months, they're still happily using them all.

Re:WTF? (1)

Mashdar (876825) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508418)

All those things are why I no longer use facebook. That and creepy young/old people.

Re:WTF? (4, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507326)

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).

Re:WTF? (3, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507490)

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.

Re:WTF? Facebook users are aliens. (1)

GargamelSpaceman (992546) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508348)

What is the attraction of Facebook? My empathy circuits do not grok someone that spends significant time there. If my real face is somewhere, then it can only have links to my resume, and bland boring stuff that couldn't possibly offend anyone. Doesn't having your real face associated with your online activity sap every single ounce of fun out of using the internet? Or are people that naiive that they think being anything but Ned Flanders in public is a net win. I'm faced with the possibility that maybe *gasp* the world is populated by clones - of NED FLANDERS! I'm going to cry!

It's a bullshit marketing term (1)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507602)

It's extra fluff to make Google sound like a skank whore that no man will ever want to fuck.

"passive" search engine (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507628)

What the hell is a "passive" search engine?

Wikipedia could be considered a passive search engine. The bulk of everything there was put there manually by the various contributors. Sure, there are bots clearing out dead links, and translating from one language to another, or from one wiki to another, but they work on the wiki itself. They don't go out actively searching for new information.

Re: "passive" search engine (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507840)

The very definition of a search engine [merriam-webster.com] prevents it from being passive :-)

Re:WTF? (1, Interesting)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508286)

They were looking for some way to validate their comparison of apples to hippopotamuses.

They were also at a loss for words. They meant "outputative" and "inputative". Google is something where you look for useful stuff. Facebook is where you post useless crap. Presumably, an "active" search engine would be one where you provide the content you're looking for.

All these statistics show is that the Internet is dominated by useless crap. But there's hope, in that Facebook will become a huge repository for useless crap (along with Twitter), which should help to clean up the rest of the Internet, making Google's job easier.

I think Facebook and Google should put up hit counters. Just for laughs.

OK (3, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507206)

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"?

Re:OK (2, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507396)

It must be a fair comparison. The Facebook press release said so.

In other news (4, Funny)

jplopez (1067608) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507238)

Google introduces Gfarm.

Re:In other news (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507550)

Yeah, I almost expected "Buzz" to be an app where you raised bees. Is that a sign that I need to spend less time on Facebook?

Re:In other news (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508000)

Yeah, I almost expected "Buzz" to be an app where you raised bees.

You mean like Halo 2 [wikipedia.org] or like I'm a bee, I'm a bee, I'm a I'm a I'm a bee [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:In other news (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508578)

More as in...

"(user) has lost a baby bee in Buzz! Awwwww. Looka da cute widdwe bee! And it's lost and alone! CLICK HERE to help find it!"

"(user) has sent you some HONEY from BUZZ! CLICK HERE to collect it and start farming your own!"

"(user) just got a NEW QUEEN and is starting a new hive in Buzz! CLICK HERE to get your FREE QUEEN and start your own hives!"

"(user) just burrito-farted and killed off 45 WORKER BEES in Buzz! CLICK HERE to send (user) some VIRTUAL BEANO and a VIRTUAL SYMPATHY CARD!"

Re:In other news (1)

bwintx (813768) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508728)

Jeez, don't give 'em any more ideas like that. But :-)

Re:In other news (2, Funny)

Matt Perry (793115) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508182)

Google introduces Gfarm.

Obviously it requires GNOME.

Peter Wolf said it best... (-1, Troll)

nycguy (892403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507250)

Piss on the wall! [wikipedia.org]

The Stripmall Effect (4, Insightful)

Gopal.V (532678) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507252)

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 [dotgnu.info] , 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.

Re:The Stripmall Effect (3, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507318)

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

Re:The Stripmall Effect (0, Flamebait)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507514)

You, sir, are an idiot. Keeping up to date with friends is about as social as it gets. If you want to stop talking to friends and be, what's that word?...oh yeah, anti-social, then go ahead. That's hardly a solution for someone who flat-out says he wants to keep in touch though.

WTF is this, Straw man 2.0? (1, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507648)

Social networks are anti-social. The status update was invented to massage the ego of the user, and the shear mass of trivia people spew out, blocks real interaction.
Drop the anti-social networks, and you will have less unsigned int friends, but more time to spend with your real friends. (If it makes you feel better you can still write how many friends you have on the wall in sharpie)

There are also better tools than facebook, twitter etc, to keep connected with a small non-broadcasting oriented group.

Re:WTF is this, Straw man 2.0? (4, Funny)

pikine (771084) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507768)

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.

Re:WTF is this, Straw man 2.0? (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508004)

Social networks are anti-social.

You're still an idiot.

The status update was invented to massage the ego of the user

And therefore can't serve to keep you up to date with friends somehow. Nice strawman yourself.

and the shear mass of trivia people spew out, blocks real interaction.

You know, you can block people who have nothing interesting to say, so that you can actually talk to people you want to talk to. Another nice strawman.

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

WTF indeed. I have no idea what this means.

There are also better tools than facebook, twitter etc, to keep connected with a small non-broadcasting oriented group.

Which I'm sure none of my friends or family use. I signed up to Facebook because the entire rest of my family uses it, and that's how my last family reunion was planned. I was completely out of the loop on what was going on. Since then, I've reconnected with Marine buddies all over the world as well. I had no other way to talk to any of them before Facebook and now I can talk to them every day. I still have realtime meatspace local friends, and Facebook doesn't take away from them. How is using Facebook anti-social again?

Re:The Stripmall Effect (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507384)

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.

You know, they just opened up their chat over Jabber, right? I just added another account in Empathy, (you can do it in any chat client that support Jabber, like Pidgin, and many, many others) and now my friends keep messaging me when I'm asleep, wondering why I'm still online.

I actually like it, I can chat with friends on the site, without having to be on the site.

Re:The Stripmall Effect (1)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507480)

gotta move with my friends or end up falling out of touch [dotgnu.info], with everybody who already knows what everybody else is doing.

Falling out of touch? The friends I have are just a phone call away. I have an account on FB but if I really care about someone, I don't need it to stay in touch with them.

Re:The Stripmall Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31507666)

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.

To further add to the Wal-Mart analogy, every person that finds me from high school has turned into a fat, conservative evangelical breeder. So it's JUST like Wal-Mart!

Re:The Stripmall Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31507814)

To further add to the Wal-Mart analogy, every person that finds me from high school has turned into a fat, conservative evangelical breeder. So it's JUST like Wal-Mart!

Truer words were never spoken.

if you need a social network (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507730)

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

Re:if you need a social network (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508250)

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

So in your view, the only true social interaction is that which takes place in meatspace?

Damn, I better tell those people in other countries I can't be their friend anymore because some guy on Slashdot said so. Same for the relatives, I guess.

Or maybe your entire rant is an opinion instead of fact and the rest of us will use this tool in whichever way we damn well please. Or the way we manage our friendships, for that matter.

you can get porn off the internet too (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508796)

but its not like real sex, now is it?

likewise, your "friendships" on the internet are nothing at all like those in real life

yes, you can have family and friends in other countries. but they are in other countries. you honestly want to assert that that is anything like living with them or next door to them?

as for opinion versus fact, no: what i am saying is not an opinion, it's an objective fact of the much larger span of what is possible in reality, versus the much smaller span of what is possible on the web

of course you can interact socially on the web, but your social interactions on the web will always and forever more be nothing but a shadow of what is possible in the real world. that's a simple hard truth

Re:if you need a social network (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31509000)

make your emails and phone calls

If you need email to keep up with your friends, they aren't really your friends?

If you need a phone to keep up with your friends, they aren't really your friends?

terse things to actually just arrange meet up times in which real socialization actually takes place

Er yes, just like what many people use Facebook for. They have a whole system dedicated to events - as much as I dislike Facebook, that's one of the things they do well.

i'd rather have two or three friends like that than 200 to 300 acquaintances on facebook

False dichotomy. I might have two or three friends who will personally come to my front door everytime they want to tell me something, but I'll still gladly also have a wider group of friends, some of whom may only these days send out invites through some media, be it a phone, email, or (annoyingly) Facebook.

Re:The Stripmall Effect (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507760)

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

In other words, what Google and Yahoo! and many others have tried to do - become the One Site To Rule Them All.

Re:The Stripmall Effect (1)

rwv (1636355) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508156)

upcoming for the events

I've never heard of this one. Could you describe how useful it is compared to MeetUp.com, Google Calendar, Facebook invites, or eVite.com?

Specifically, I want an online invitation system where I can set a "Max RSVP Number" so I can put a ceiling on the number of people who come to events that I host. Honestly, I *want* to be able to invite the whole world when I hold desirable events, but it's a matter of logistics that "poker night" can't accommodate more than 8 people and "homemade pizza/sushi night" tops out at 24 and 12 (respectively) based the amount of space needed for eating.

As a host... it's frustrating to only invite a dozen people to an event (like "poker night") where you want between 5 and 8 people to show-up. Too many times I've had 7 people confirm and then three of them drop-out 4 hours before the planned event (luckily, Wii has lots of 4 player games for when this happens). I've also had 9 people confirm and show-up (too many!). For the times where 4-5 people confirm, I like to invite an extra 6 people two days before the event get closer to the 7 to 8 sweetspot. But the point is, I'd just as soon have invited those people to begin with because I'm not the sort of person who likes playing favorites.

For people who don't RSVP by the time the "Max RSVP Number" is reached, they can join a waitlist. The optimal situation would be to have a system that automatically e-mailed all the waitlisters when somebody un-RSVPs so they could get a chance to add themselves to the list.

To my knowledge... no such sophisticated system exists and yet I think this would be a killer feature for lots of people besides me.

Re:The Stripmall Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31508872)

Do you actually have any real friends, I think you are confusing friend with "someone you know". A friend should not have to be on a waiting list when the queue is full. How arrogant are you to think that a friend would want to be on a waiting list and plan their weekend based on an automated response from you 20 minutes before poker night starts that someone dropped out and they can come in his/her place? Wait till your car breaks down and you need picked up at 2 am on a work night on the side of the highway, go ahead and send out an einvite for someone to come get you and see how many of your "friends" respond. Based on your post, I would see very little value in being your friend.

It won't go on for long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31507254)

In the near future, people are going to abandon Facebook for supposed privacy issues. Google is too powerful to lose.

Re:It won't go on for long (1)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507342)

Well, that seems to be the way things are going, isn't it. Everyone fears that company A is getting to much data about you. So experts predict people will flock away from A. Company B comes along, makes no additional claims, but everyone flocks to it because it "must be better than A"... Then everyone starts to fear B. Soon, company C comes along. And either one of two things happen. Either the cycle continues to go forever, or everyone just sticks with one of them because it's good enough that they don't really want much more and for some reason they don't care about privacy. I see it happening now with Google. A lot of people are up in arms over privacy concerns with Google... But are masses of people flocking from it? Not that anyone has seen (so not a significant portion, anyway). People are flocking away from MySPACE, because there does exist a better competitor that just so happens to have better privacy (for now). So privacy doesn't appear to be the main motive for most people. Usability and utility appear to be the main drive, and privacy only comes into account for the vast majority of people if they need to pick between two companies that do the exact same thing. And even then, what their friends chose to use typically plays a bigger part than privacy... Then again, I could be wrong, it's JMHO...

quit cold turkey sometime last week (4, Interesting)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507256)

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.

Oblig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31508438)

Oblig [xkcd.com]

Interesting... (4, Insightful)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507274)

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 [stateofthemedia.org]

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...

All analytics suck (1)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507592)

And analytics for backing the company's last big push double suck.

Re:Interesting... (5, Interesting)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507610)

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.

People still visit google.com? (4, Insightful)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507276)

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.

Re:People still visit google.com? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31507328)

Yeah, but the _traffic_ still goes to google.com, so it would still show up on the kind of stats discussed here.

Re:People still visit google.com? (2, Informative)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507404)

And the answer page is on Google.com. They're talking about the whole TLD, not the home page.
 
Using the search bar is win-win with Google. They save on bandwidth/resources, and there's no ads on their home page anyway. And when it jumps you to Wikipedia, those are usually for instances where you're not shopping for something anyway.

Apples and oranges. (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507280)

And the point of the article is?

Re:Apples and oranges. (1)

cryoman23 (1646557) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507366)

there isn't one

What comparison? (0)

Thyamine (531612) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507282)

I don't know why they make the comparison, as if somehow Facebook is replacing Google. They serve different purposes. People may need to use Google a few times a day to locate information, but they'll hit FB every hour? every 15 minutes? Depends on the person, but the conclusion they seem to draw, that we are using the internet differently, seems an odd one. Unless they are trying to just comment that more people are using social networking sites than before?

Re:What comparison? (3, Interesting)

Jer (18391) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507478)

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.

Who cares? (1)

uncledrax (112438) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507284)

I'd be interested in how this is measured tbh. It is the old, false, addage of 'hits'? The graph cites as 'visits', but I'm curious how that's actually measured.

Besides, even if FB had more visits, big deal.. a visit to search means you're likely trying to find out something.. not post that you're getting ready to make eggs for breakfest.. then post again that you realized you're out of eggs.. and another one asking if anyone needs anything from the store..
FB is popular for the same reasons MMOs remain popular, because people can't actually be assed to talk to thier neighbors, so we'll create a semi-artifical online society where we never have to deal with one another in person.. although to be fair, it's also the basis for creating a more pure non-prejudacted society (based on things you have little/no control over.. ie: race, height, etc..).

web bugs? (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507378)

How many of those "Add this to Facebook" links do you see everywhere? How many of those drive page hits to facebook.com ?

Google is aware of this (2, Interesting)

spacepimp (664856) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507402)

This is a vulnerability to them. They want to be YOUR portal to the rest of the internet. If they can make it easier for you to get to Facebook via Google they will. If they can pull you away from facebook into BUZZ or GoogleWave they will. The interesting bit comes around when you start getting an agreement with Facebook and Bing/Yahoo that tries to make this impossible for Google to achieve. The interwebs is a fickle hellcat, it moves at speeds of fast.

Re:Google is aware of this (2, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508470)

This is a vulnerability to them. They want to be YOUR portal to the rest of the internet.

Actually, they want to be your portal to all of human knowledge; the internet is a means, not an ends.

If they can make it easier for you to get to Facebook via Google they will. If they can pull you away from facebook into BUZZ or GoogleWave they will.

I don't think that they view pulling people into Buzz or Wave as properties as a major strategic goal, they want to use Buzz and Wave properties as showcases for the underlying open protocols (Wave Federation Protocol, PubSubHubbub, etc.) so that more third party vendors will use those open, easy-to-federate-with protocols, and Google can connect to, index, search, and present them.

What do they do there? (3, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507426)

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

Re:What do they do there? (2, Funny)

cryoman23 (1646557) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507534)

really? i thought it was a bunch of people wanting help on a farm and becoming fans of things... well silly me for thinking that

So what? (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507464)

I suspect most people visit BOTH sites. If I want to look up some technical information (or find new pr0n), I use google. If I want to find out if Brenda's son got his car fixed, I check on Facebook.

.Ca/.Co.uk/.Fr/etc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31507476)

Goes this account for google.ca/google.fr/google.co.uk, etc? Seems like Google does automatic load balancing across domains

Re:.Ca/.Co.uk/.Fr/etc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31507930)

The data is US only.... If you take into account worldwide usage, I'm pretty sure facebook has alot of catch up do.

Sure... lots and lots of traffic (1)

Torodung (31985) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507510)

Sure there's a ton of traffic. People keep handing me free beers!

I'd hazard that at least 80% of that Google traffic is useful and productive. Facebook traffic, OTOH, tends to be viral marketing crap designed to drive up the traffic stats.

--
Toro

And Farmville (1)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507568)

Don't underestimate how much Facebook is eating the lunch of folks like Yahoo Games, Pogo, etc.

What is Facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31507518)

Never heard of that. I generally go out have fun and meet new people.

to get it balanced... (1)

eexaa (1252378) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507538)

What would the internet without Facebook look like?
No change, only the happy family party hooker photos would go to Flickr or similar.

What would the internet without Google look like? ...so?

Re:to get it balanced... (1)

davepermen (998198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507596)

same. just with bing or something as default search engine :)

Re:to get it balanced... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31507962)

Have you perhaps noticed that Bing looks and works more or less the same as Google? Most modern search engines were by some extent "inspired" by Google Search. i have serious doubts whether Bing would even EXIST if Google wasn't there for years.

Shit methodology there, guys! (4, Insightful)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507556)

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.

Re:Shit methodology there, guys! (4, Insightful)

Pteraspidomorphi (1651293) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507636)

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

Do they include other TLDs than .com? I use .ca. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31507574)

I would imagine many use their .country TLD, if it's not included in the results here I'd be skeptical in the comparison.

Also, look at facebook app downloads on iPhones / android market etc, I would imagine that all that cell-phone generated traffic bumps their percent up significantly.

Google needs to catch up... (2, Funny)

CFBMoo1 (157453) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507612)

The only thing I do on Facebook is throw cows at everyone on my friends list. Outside of that Facebook is kinda pointless to me. All these causes, games, god knows what else I find more annoying then useful. Still Superpoke is useful for tossing cows at people. When Google comes up with something that lets me do that then I'm ditching Facebook forever.

Traffic != Visitors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31507698)

The article states traffic, not visitors. I'm only guessing here, but I think the google search-page doesn't generate as much traffic as facebook.

Quality vs quantity, traffic vs reach (2, Interesting)

rcastro0 (241450) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507752)

Even if google had half the traffic of facebook it still would trump it: google knows what you are looking for in that moment so it is able to target advertisement better. Facebook on the other hand generally only knows that you are tending to your pigs in farmville, at the moment.

Even if facebook had twice traffic, it still is an easy bet that google has more reach (as a greater % of internet users access it). Just think about age/professional profiles: you know everyone uses google. You know lots of people don't use and don't care for facebook.

Re:Quality vs quantity, traffic vs reach (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31507852)

Indeed. The only ads I ever get from Facebook are about how I can get a teeth whitening for $1 under my old company's insurance plan (a company which doesn't even exist anymore). Google ads are far more useful and, I'm sure, profitable.

Facebook knows more than that. (3, Insightful)

jwietelmann (1220240) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507914)

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.

The new AOL (1)

olddotter (638430) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507824)

So some people spend time in Facebook like members of the TheGuild spend time in WoW. That generates lots of page views and traffic. On the other hand I visit facebook about twice a month and use google countless times a day.

This just in (1)

LSD-OBS (183415) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507834)

People generally prefer talking bullshit and gawking at each other's pointless photos over finding and learning useful information on the Internet.

Either that or people stopped googling the website name they wanted, and learned either how to use the address bar or the bookmarks :)

Myspace was in the lead... (1)

laxsu19 (1256044) | more than 4 years ago | (#31507958)

If MySpace was in the lead in 2007, then google overtook it for a few years, and now facebook has the lead, how is this a 'change in the way people use the internet'? Apparently back before 2007 we used google less than myspace...

In other news... (2, Insightful)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508124)

More people read the TV Guide than Yellow Pages.

Lotta traffic for one site (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508154)

As an aside, it's stunning to think of the absolutely massive hardware that must sit behind Google and Facebook. I mean, 11% and 7% of ~total web traffic in the US~, respectively. That's a lot of bytes! Frankly I find it shocking/amazing that any single site can command such a massive slice of all traffic, given the size of the web and all. 11% for Google's stuff combined doesn't surprise me but 7% for FB certainly does. I mean, it's a popular site and I use it, but I doubt it makes up 7% of my browsing-related traffic.

Loss for Privacy and the Open Internet (2, Insightful)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508902)

Say what you will about Google, but its level of evil is dwarfed by Facebook's.

*You can use much of Google without logging in, even without cookies or Javascript. Try that with Facebook.
*Google gets criticized for privacy bugs in Buzz, but Facebook is entirely based on privacy violations
*Google pioneered reasonable Internet ads (text ads). Though they later added other kinds of ads, Google showed it's possible for websites to earn revenue without being totally obnoxious. Facebook ads are evil incarnate.
*Google is all about pointing people towards the World Wide Web. Facebook is about keeping people in a walled garden.
*Google's birth story is 2 geeks building a better mousetrap. Facebook was conceived in privacy-impinging, account-hacking, contract-abrogating, trust-violating sin. New developments serve to confirm these initial trajectories.

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/07/234204/Facebook-Founder-Accused-of-Hacking-Into-Rivals-Email [slashdot.org]

Facebook could be far ahead! (1)

GhigoRenzulli (1687590) | more than 4 years ago | (#31508918)

Facebook users should stop typing "facebook" in Google search.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?