Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Google Hits One Billion Unique Visits In a Month

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the they-grow-up-so-fast dept.

Facebook 126

BogenDorpher writes "According to statistics from ComScore, for the first time ever, a website drew one billion visitors worldwide in just one month. Guess what website came out on top? Google of course. Microsoft and Facebook rounded out the top three. From the article: 'Though Google captured the most visitors last month, users collectively spent the most time at Facebook--250 billion minutes in May, compared with 200 billion minutes at Google and 204 billion at Microsoft."

cancel ×

126 comments

LIES !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536348)

Lies !!

Re:LIES !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536366)

The Daily Kos makeover of You Lie! [youtube.com] was just classic.

Re:LIES !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536580)

You want the truth! You can't handle the truth! [ebaumsworld.com] .

who cares (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536358)

facebook 4 lyfe

Doing what? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536368)

What would occupy your time on the Microsoft webpage nearly as much as Facebook? I'm genuinely curious because I can't think of anything there that's not a quick in and out unless they count time to download updates as part of the metric.

Re:Doing what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536390)

The article refer to "Microsoft Sites" which presumably include Live, Bing, Hotmail etc etc. - not just Microsoft.com.

Re:Doing what? (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538306)

Users stay on 'microsoft' web sites more because they start off using the default search engine, Bing, which primarily returns links to other Microsoft web pages. You only can break out by following a link in a user posting to a non-Microsoft website, and only for a short time after the posting happens, as it gets replaced with a link to a version of the external web page, cached on a Microsoft web site...

Re:Doing what? (2)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536392)

Updates perhaps? They don't say whether they counted phone-home updates in this study or not.

Re:Doing what? (1)

nmccrin1 (1897902) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536394)

I know, they don't even have Farmville!

Re:Doing what? (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536496)

Which is a valid point. What is the difference between Farmville and Xbox Live!

Re:Doing what? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536618)

Hmm, If they count XBox connections then I can see it, but that doesn't speak to the credibility of Microsoft.com It just tells me how much time people really actively spend on Google/Facebook is tremendous since there's nobody constantly streaming data for hours on end.

Re:Doing what? (1)

That Guy From Mrktng (2274712) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536638)

You don't get tho hear constant whine and cocktease in farmville?

Re:Doing what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536976)

Well - they sort of do. Sort of.

http://zone.msn.com/en/farmville/farmville.aspx

Re:Doing what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537130)

I'm guessing this is supposed to forward to http://msn.farmville.com/

Re:Doing what? (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536398)

Watching the little circle go 'round and 'round.

Re:Doing what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536494)

Wouldn't live/hotmail count for this as well? You'd almost have to assume that it was for this to be accurate.

Re:Doing what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536504)

What would occupy your time on the Microsoft webpage nearly as much as Facebook? I'm genuinely curious because I can't think of anything there that's not a quick in and out unless they count time to download updates as part of the metric.

Searching for the right driver downloads, probably.

Re:Doing what? (1)

SatanClauz (741416) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536510)

"I can't think of anything there that's not a quick in and out"

Now then, doesn't that speak volumes about how well their site works? ;)

Re:Doing what? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536552)

It just tells me how much I find from Google linked directly to MSDN docs I need and I'm out. ;)

Re:Doing what? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537352)

It just tells me how much I find from Google linked directly to MSDN docs I need and I'm out. ;)

And that, actually, says a lot.

Re:Doing what? (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536518)

Most of the downloads are actually hosted at Akamai or some other edge caching service......so those might not count even if they weren't excluded.....

Re:Doing what? (1)

Hebbinator (1001954) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536828)

Default home page is MSN.COM for a lot of computers in offices etc., or pretty much any place with enough IT to disable IE options and not enough IT for an intranet homepage etc Some people read the articles etc.

Re:Doing what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536924)

Don't forget that the Microsoft online presence is goes far beyond Microsoft.com. They have Bing, Bing Maps, Virtual Earth, Hotmail, Carpoint.com, Investor.com, MSN Games, Encarta, all sorts of stuff now under the MSN umbrella. They might even count MSNBC as a MS site?

Courtesy of the default home page on IE I'm sure a lot of people see MSN.com first thing upon launch and from there start clicking links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MSN_Services

Re:Doing what? (2)

Calos (2281322) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536986)

Have you ever tried using any Microsoft websites to find answers to... anything? It's all advertising. God help you if you have a technical query.

Such a headache. I can believe that someone could spend equal or more time there.

I just don't even bother any more.

Re:Doing what? (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537354)

You need God's help to run a google query? - site:msdn.microsoft.com.

Re:Doing what? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537468)

Omniscient? Check. Omnipresent? Check. Omnipotent? Probably.

I'm not seeing how any of us can make a Google query without some divinity involved.

Re:Doing what? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538216)

Its a safe bet he uses Google considering he thinks MS search sucks. In fact if you look at the last line, its pretty clear that he doesn't use MS sites.

You need help for reading comprehension? Maybe call God?

Re:Doing what? (1)

Snaller (147050) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537048)

Microsoft is the startup page in windows - billions of people just start the browser and end there.

Re:Doing what? (1)

mitch_feaster (1193053) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537392)

My guess is that they get hits from people who never changed their default home page on IE, and if you're stupid enough to be using IE you're probably going to take a few minutes figuring out how to open a new tab...

Microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536380)

To me the most interesting item is Microsoft. Why are they on the list with 200 bil minutes? Bing still has 20% market share. When I saw the headline the first thing I thought of is millions of Windows developers tearing their hair out on MSDN. My second thought is doesn't Windows Update uses MS' http server to update itself?

Re:Microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536418)

The MSN portal, most likely.
It is/was the IE default homepage, IIRC.

Re:Microsoft? (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536524)

Hotmail still has a massive userbase.

Re:Microsoft? Hotmail? (1)

rueger (210566) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536644)

Including, astonishingly enough, more than a few businesses. [moderndrainage.com] Am I alone in immediately assuming that a Hotmail address implies a fly-by-night kind of outfit?

Although, strangely, I don't assume the same thing when I see a Gmail address...

Re:Microsoft? Hotmail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536710)

Regular Gmail addresses are no different than Hotmail addresses. If someone is using Google to host mail for their business, they can get a free business account to host their domain. If they haven't done that, they are no different than the free Hotmail users.

Re:Microsoft? Hotmail? (1)

Lokitoth (1069508) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536806)

Moreover, you can host a custom domain on hotmail as well if you *really* want to.

Microsoft? (2)

Mabbo (1337229) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536410)

What, exactly, are people *doing* at Microsoft's website that would take 204 Billion minutes?

Re:Microsoft? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536450)

Filling Bug Reports

Re:Microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536470)

What, exactly, are people *doing* at Microsoft's website that would take 204 Billion minutes?

Waiting for the page to load.

Re:Microsoft? (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536546)

Probably logged into XBox Live and fragging each other in Halo.

Re:Microsoft? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536630)

That's pretty sad to use XBox connections as "visits" to webpages if true.

Re:Microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536808)

It's not true.

Re:Microsoft? (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536662)

Indeed. I myself use Google a lot. I can understand people spending too much time on facebook. But MS ? I'd be curious to know where on MS's Web people go to. Last time I spent any amount of time there was tryng to make sense of 7's tiers and prices. Unless the backgroung page I keep open to my junkmail account on hotmail counts ....

Re:Microsoft? (2)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538234)

People don't spend massive amounts of time just google searching ... or bing searching ... the do however spend lots of time reading their email on the sites both of those providers provide.

Re:Microsoft? (3, Informative)

_merlin (160982) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536690)

MSDN developer documentation and admin reference. People do write Windows software and administer all those systems, you know.

Re:Microsoft? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537872)

Very much this. I recently started a C# project and if you're new to .NET MSDN is essential.

Re:Microsoft? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538244)

If you're smart, you'll install the localized help and turn on integrated help in visual studio, its far easier to access the help locally with hotkeys than using msdn for most things.

Re:Microsoft? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536718)

Waiting for help.

Re:Microsoft? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536964)

windowsupdate.microsoft.com ?

gotta wonder if that's counted.......(Can't speak for later windows versions, but at least in XP that page was still hit when you ran an update)

Re:Microsoft? (2)

elpostino (631110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537196)

I am there just about everyday on Technet, reading through knowledge base articles, or downloading software / patches. It is almost always a Google search that has gotten me to that particular Microsoft page ;)

Re:Microsoft? (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537268)

Of course one is forced to use Google because the search function on Microsoft's site is pretty worthless.

Re:Microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538004)

Checking for updates.

Re:Microsoft? (1)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538352)

See the following process comparable to a maddening wikipedia link chain with no surprises:

(1) click on semi-relevant article with a title that seems like it may help to resolve said issue.
(2) find that this article has to be written for the likes of your grandmother (completely retarded user) or some weird error code (that uses like 8 digits these days) and is completely irrelevant.
(3) Look to the bottom and see See Also:
(4) Go to Step (1)

True story. In fact I bet this is really easy for content service providers because they only need to cache perhaps around 100 different help articles that can co-link and co-create a tangled mess from hell.

(You could say I am a Microsoft fan.)

in other news today (-1, Offtopic)

nimbius (983462) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536486)

slashdot ran out of web 2.0 tags,
thats right, they'd used up every beveled edge,
every shiny corner,
and every bloated semi two dimensional image they could find to create slashdot 2.0.

Standing in for todays ooey-gooey "Google" icon will be "Facebook."

Poor Drudge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536506)

He only got 800,000,000+ last month. I suspect his site has the highest hit/employee ratio, though.

Google The Facebook (1)

econolog (2081738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536528)

Why is there a Facebook logo next to a Google story?

Re:Google The Facebook (4, Funny)

suso (153703) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537324)

Because this is a story about the Internet, which runs on Facebook.

Re:Google The Facebook (2)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537364)

Because this is a story about the Internet, which runs on Facebook.

That's news to me. I thought AOL was the Internet ... and a whole lot more.

250 billion minutes wasted (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536608)

TFS

users collectively spent the most time at Facebook--250 billion minutes in May,

A huge waste of time and bandwidth.

Re:250 billion minutes wasted (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536666)

That goodness we have pope like you to judge the value of other peoples time.

You're no different the people who try to dictate what should be allowed on TV, which websites should not be allowed, and what god to follow.

Re:250 billion minutes wasted (2)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536892)

That goodness we have pope like you to judge the value of other peoples time.

You're no different the people who try to dictate what should be allowed on TV, which websites should not be allowed, and what god to follow.

A matter of personal opinion is trying to dictate? Suggestion: go have a nap, let me waste in peace some time and bandwidth ... on /.

Re:250 billion minutes wasted (2)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537380)

That goodness we have pope like you to judge the value of other peoples time.

You're no different the people who try to dictate what should be allowed on TV, which websites should not be allowed, and what god to follow.

A matter of personal opinion is trying to dictate? Suggestion: go have a nap, let me waste in peace some time and bandwidth ... on /.

I agree. Now if you'd said, "Facebook should be made illegal" that would be different. I'd still agree with you, but that would be somewhat dictatorial.

Re:250 billion minutes wasted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537060)

Couple interesting facts about facebook and the 250 billion minutes in may.

1) Most people spend time on facebook to waste time with nothing better to do. Much like how people watch infomercials in the early hours for no good reason.
2) Most of those billions of minutes were just me and my guildies afk'n in SW with facebook open in the background.

Why do you think these numbers mean sweet f all?

Re:250 billion minutes wasted (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537114)

Couple interesting facts about facebook and the 250 billion minutes in may.

1) Most people spend time on facebook to waste time with nothing better to do. Much like how people watch infomercials in the early hours for no good reason. 2) Most of those billions of minutes were just me and my guildies afk'n in SW with facebook open in the background.

Why do you think these numbers mean sweet f all?

You may be right, I don't argue with that. But my point stands: 'tis still a waste (as also a waste is my GP post, your reply and me replying to you now) .

Re:250 billion minutes wasted (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537628)

A huge waste of time and bandwidth.

Agreed. FB should really offer facebooking torrents, that way people could waste the time automatically during the night, while they're asleep.

Re:250 billion minutes wasted (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537796)

A huge waste of time and bandwidth.

Not necessarily. Those 250 billion minutes on Facebook might have saved 100 billion minutes or so of phone calls.

Microsoft's web site?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536614)

I never go to Microsoft's web site. That's not to say I am not interested in Microsoft products or what they do, but as a general rule I don't have a need to visit Microsoft's top web site. I would visit it as much as I would visit Intel, AMD or Nvidia. Once in a blue moon, but hardly as much as Google or Facebook (or Slashdot!).

I wonder if they are including patch updates?

Apps phoning home? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536642)

Are the Microsoft apps phoning home so long they reach 204 billion minutes a month?!?

That's a billion people (4, Informative)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536708)

Took me a second.

They don't mean a billion clicks.

They mean a billion different people. One seventh of the world's population followed any of Google's URI's at some point during the month.

Fuck.

Re:That's a billion people (1)

DamienRBlack (1165691) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536778)

Well, many people might be double counted. If you use google at home and at work, you were probably double counted.

Re:That's a billion people (1)

Lokitoth (1069508) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536818)

True, but also consider what percentage of the world's population does *not* have access to a computer/the internet, especially at home.

Re:That's a billion people (1)

aneroid (856995) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536888)

Good point. In which case my guess would be "triple counted" - home, work and phone. But that also applies to the Facebook visitors, assuming not all companies block it.

So does that mean only the MS sites were double counted...putting them on top of the "unique visitors" list? I feel dirty for pointing that out. I can only hope they stupidly included xbox connections, so also triple counted.

Re:That's a billion people (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537106)

Consider a lot of people at work will be behind a single IP address, and a lot of people also do not have the internet at home, so it may in fact be more than 1 billion. Of course, there numbers are hard to work out exactly. And mobile users may be also doubly counted.

Re:That's a billion people (1)

jascat (602034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538136)

Since GA is based off of Urchin, I assume that they are using something close to it. Urchin works off of a server's access logs. Primarily, it tries to set a cookie that is then used for tracking. The standard practice is to modify the access logs to include that tracking token in the log entry. If no cookie can be set, then it approximates a session based on source IP, user-agent, referrer, time between requests, etc.

I would imagine that most people are being counted multiple times, thus inflating the number considerably.

Re:That's a billion people (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537812)

Well, many people might be double counted. If you use google at home and at work, you were probably double counted.

For every guy in the US who uses 3 or 4 computers every day, there's an internet cafe in some poorer area in another country serving hundreds or thousands of customers, all on the same set of computers.

Re:That's a billion people (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536926)

Dynamic IPs, man.

Re:That's a billion people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537128)

Took me a second.

They don't mean a billion clicks.

They mean a billion different people. One seventh of the world's population followed any of Google's URI's at some point during the month.

Fuck.

Took me a second.

I thought you meant a billion chicks.

Fuck.

Re:That's a billion people (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537218)

I worked in the field, and "unique" doesn't mean what normal people think it means. As on the net, you can't really identify if it's the same person. All you can tell, is if it's the same IP or the same cookie.
As you can imagine, that can be way different from unique people.

Plus, most companies keep this a big secret, but they also count their own employees' visits.
Some even run bots ramping up requests from their employees' home computers by the thousands, to boost their parts of the site in the weekly meeting's presentation. Often for the sake of job safety.
I've seen it more than once, and nobody seemed to mind. We never told our visitor counting service provider.

And to break the camel's back, they also forget about old visitors after a time. At which point they are counted again.

Somebody could easily just have a new log file every week, but count visitors over the month. At which point nobody checks for duplicates in the week files.

Re:That's a billion people (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537746)

Followed is probably a misnomer. It conjures up a picture of people pointing their browser to the Google homepage and either clicking the search button, or just navigating the web pages in the google.com domain.

The reality of the web is that one might be on a completely unrelated website, and because that website uses Google tools like the AJAX web toolkit, or the free google local site search, or even the google advertising spyware, then behind the scenes the browser will connect to a Google owned server at some point causing a weblog entry. Even simply typing a keyword into the Firefox URL bar is likely to cause a behind the scenes Google hit.

In terms of actual eyeball statistics, I expect that the Google and Microsoft numbers are way overinflated compared with FB.

Re:That's a billion people (2)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537808)

Yes it's a lot of people visiting Google. Some may be double counted of course, many more will be missed due to shared Internet connections. If at home my wife and I use the Internet at the same time, we share a single connection, and with that IP address. I wonder whether they count that as one or as two unique visits.

On the other hand, one billion unique visitors to Google isn't that surprising, considering there are currently almost than 2.1 billion Internet users according to this [internetworldstats.com] site. How accurate this number is, that's hard for me to judge, though it does sound plausible.

Finding stuff on the Internet means you need help from a search engine. To me there are two core uses of the Internet: one is communication (e-mail, IM, forums), the other is finding information. And for the second one (which includes finding music, videos, etc) one needs help from a search engine. And Google is by far the most popular search engine around, overall. Some countries have local search engines that are more popular, worldwide Google has a market share of something like 80-90% - the sites that give search engine market shares do not exactly agree, except for Google having a near-monopoly on search nowadays.

So to put it all in perspective: it seems that about half the Internet users in this world uses Google at least once every month. A far from shocking number, you may even call it on the low side considering how important search engines are for being able to find information on this vast network.

Statistics... (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536720)

I'd like to know how they count both visitors and time sent.

Do my multiple brother, on multiple PCs, each count as a unique visitor ?
Does my pretty much 24x6 background tab to gmail count as 24x6h/week of presence ?

For comparisons, this probably more or less averages out between sites (though usage patterns may vary ?), but as absolute numbers, of few buckets of salt are advisable, I think.

Re:Statistics... (1)

ben_kelley (234423) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537154)

Presumably using tracking cookies.
Unless you have a login to the site, accessing the same site on 2 different machines probably counts as 2 users. Disabling cookies from the site probably counts as one user per visit.

Re:Statistics... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537322)

I worked in the web development business for a former huge top-3 portal web site.
The "time spent" numbers are bullshit. All they do, is count the time from the first request by $uniqueUser to the last one, with no more than $timeout between any two requests in the sequence.
And then they add another made-up time for how long they assume he was on that last page, before he went somewhere else.
Of course, that doesn't mean the user was even looking at the page between the two requests.

Say I'd use MSDN as a reference while programming. (Yes, a horrible thought, but try to bear with me.) And let's say the $timeout is 1 hour. Now if I look up something a the start of my work day, then work for 59 minutes, look up something else before the $timeout is reached, and continue in that fashion until the end, 9 hours later, it will count not 9 but 10 hours as "time spent on MSDN".

I'm not sure what the exact $timeout is, but you can be sure that it's pretty big, and you almost always count way more time than the user actually really spent there.

Marketing metrics (1)

PNutts (199112) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536906)

From the WSJ article: "ComScore’s estimates are based on its “global measurement panel” of two million Internet users, similar to how Nielsen measures television ratings. ComScore refines the estimates with “page view” data that it receives from more than 90 of the 100 publishers of Web content, but not from Google." Without more details the numbers are, well, numbers.

What are the numbers for /.? (2)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536920)

Just made me curious: how many visitors/minutes on /.?

Re:What are the numbers for /.? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537200)

Looks like about 600k visitors per day, or 416 visitors per minute: https://www.google.com/adplanner/planning/site_profile?hl=en#siteDetails?identifier=slashdot.org&lp=true [google.com]

Re:What are the numbers for /.? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537350)

Mod parent +Informative, please.

Re:What are the numbers for /.? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537210)

That would be easy to add up. How many people over 50 have an unmarried male child and a basement?

Re:What are the numbers for /.? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537336)

Care to elaborate? 'Cause I still don't see how being over 50 and having etc... would be a motivation to post on /.
</tongue_in_cheek>

Re:What are the numbers for /.? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537414)

It's safe to say that I contribute the most : p

about google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537370)

Google in the global search engine, it's the most wonderful development team is very good use of the network resources, let seekers get a satisfactory result.

wasted time (2)

callmebill (1917294) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537582)

204 billion minutes = 388,000 years

Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537694)

I read the best article on Google and their visits and it was very impressive. It is the "only" search engine I use at this point.

Like they'd know... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537744)

I'm responsible for all KINDS of different searches from over 20 IP's...
And that's in just one month.

Pretty truculent to assume they can tell 'unique' visitors.

Re:Like they'd know... (3, Insightful)

grcumb (781340) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538326)

I'm responsible for all KINDS of different searches from over 20 IP's...

Oops, we stand corrected: Make that 999,999,981 unique visitors.

Of course, we kind of fudged the underage we got from the countless Internet cafés worldwide, then jiggled things a bit to cope with laptops and tablets in Starbucks and airports... oh - we did catch that two month period when you were leeching off your neighbour's wifi. And we tried to tell the difference between the times when you accessed the web via your Kindle, your XBox and your Android phone, because you know, at this level of accuracy, mere statistical analysis isn't going to cut it....

So... thanks a bunch for clearing that up. Our numbers just wouldn't be the same without the benefit of your little anecdote....

Oh, wait - yes they would.

sincerely,
ComScore

The breakdown (3, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537920)

250 billion minutes were wasted playing absurd games

200 billion minutes were used searching for information and pictures on Anthony Weiner

205 billion minutes were used downloading the latest version of the Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool.

Now it makes sense... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538084)

I finally see why Microsoft's websites are so hard to use, they were shooting for that 4 billion seconds edge over Google. Finally they have found a game that they can win at.

250 billion minutes in man-years is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538286)

... over 475,000 years. Can that be right? Did the human race really spend almost half a million man-years in May on Facebook?

To put it into another context:

40 hours a week * 50 weeks a year = 2000 hours/yr = over 2 million years at the number of hours a typical (North American) works in a year.

REALLY?!?!

Then again, YouTube has 35 HOURS of video uploaded every MINUTE. That's 2000 years uploaded every year. Christ.

Porn (1)

Dun Kick The Noob (904001) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538368)

Google searching for porn
Facebook hoping to make contact with porn star
Microsoft for fixing windows when they click on free porn ads

facebook is a killer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538454)

Based on these numbers, facebook kills 5 people every month, based on an average lifespan of 80 years. Won't someone think of the kids?!?

That's the proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538490)

...stupidity is unversal, sheeps of the world follow any trend of the moment

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...