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!

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

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the browser-election-recount dept.

Microsoft 160

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."

cancel ×

160 comments

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

And that's why (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40374881)

That's why I bought a Saturn.

OT: Saturn SKY (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40376303)

The Saturn SKY [acarplace.com] is mighty fine looking. Anyone have any ownership experience with it?

Right in the... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40374885)

face.

Ok... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40374889)

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?

Re:Ok... (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375081)

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.

Re:Ok... (0)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375225)

Slashdot. [slashdot.org]

Re:Ok... (2)

Flytrap (939609) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375421)

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.

Re:Ok... (3, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376829)

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.

Re:Ok... (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375467)

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.

Re:Ok... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40376091)

linux servers dont really have users as such, they usually contain many other virtual machines

Re:Ok... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40377139)

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.

Re:Ok... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40375307)

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.

Re:Ok... (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376359)

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...

Who cares (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40374949)

Isn't this site supposed to be "stuff that matters"? This is a worthless story. Who cares?

Re:Who cares (2, Interesting)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | more than 2 years ago | (#40374997)

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.

Re:Who cares (2, Informative)

Calos (2281322) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375697)

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.

Re:Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40375703)

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?

Re:Who cares (1)

alva_edison (630431) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376961)

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.

Re:Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40377001)

When did this site devolve to fanboy vs. shill?

Heh heh, wow. When was it not?

Re:Who cares (3, Interesting)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376005)

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.

Re:Who cares (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376287)

And I don't understand why people dish a whole OS just because one of the many desktop environments sucks.

Re:Who cares (0)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376371)

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.

Re:Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40377433)

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.

Re:Who cares (5, Informative)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375157)

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.

Re:Who cares (3, Interesting)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375513)

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.

Re:Who cares (3, Informative)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376109)

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.

Re:Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40377363)

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.

Re:Who cares (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40377711)

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.

Re:Who cares (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40377693)

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.

Re:Who cares (4, Interesting)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376515)

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.

Re:Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40377113)

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.

Re:Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40375693)

... 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?

Re:Who cares (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376447)

Or hell, just delete all the cookies.

Or browse in Privacy mode.

Then what do they have to track you?

Re:Who cares (1, Troll)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375741)

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.

Re:Who cares (1)

Derekloffin (741455) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376251)

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.

Re:Who cares (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376145)

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.

Re:Who cares (1)

thatseattleguy (897282) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376199)

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.)

Re:Who cares (1)

thatseattleguy (897282) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376241)

lol; "better" not "netter". Though that's that's probably true, too. :)

Re:Who cares (1)

SgtPepperKSU (905229) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376439)

FYI: Net Applications [netapplications.com] =/= NetApp [netapp.com] (formerly known as Network Appliance)

Re:Who cares (-1, Flamebait)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#40377407)

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.)

No, idiot.
The single user metric has a bias toward counting single fucking users.
You don't get two votes just because you care more. You don't get two tallies in the singer-user metric because you use more. You are a single user.

Re:Who cares (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375295)

Your write!

Vi vs eMacs; steal gauge match!

Re:Who cares (2)

Nittle (1356899) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375331)

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.

Re:Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40376207)

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

Re:I care (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375859)

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.

Stats are fun (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | more than 2 years ago | (#40374989)

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? (1)

Corson (746347) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375043)

So, the pissing contest is still going on? Who would have thought.

Re:Still? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40375229)

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.

Re:Still? (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375729)

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.

Re:Still? (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375427)

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.

Sample size (4, Insightful)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375047)

237 out of 237 Microsoft employees recommend Internet Explorer

Re:Sample size (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40375107)

237 out of 237 Microsoft employees recommend Internet Explorer

Out of how many total Microsoft employees?

Re:Sample size (2)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40377671)

What a silly question - 3. The other 234 know what's good for them.

Re:Sample size (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40375545)

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.

Re:Sample size (2)

devitto (230479) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376051)

Well, even that is unbelievable, have you actually tried to USE Internet Explorer ?

Re:Sample size (3, Insightful)

DECula (6113) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376765)

I wonder how many bots are using IE user agent strings this week.

It kinda reminds me a lot of (1)

rullywowr (1831632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375073)

the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election...

OK, so you're both full of it (2, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375203)

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.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375311)

>>> 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?

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40375469)

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.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (1, Troll)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375685)

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.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375851)

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.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (1, Troll)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375921)

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.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40376049)

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.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40376181)

Hi Oakgrove,

You're reading the wrong article. This is about BROWSER users, not WEB SERVER users.

The stats above have a sample side of half a million browser users.

If this article were about Apache's market share compared to IISes, you'd have a point. But all you're doing is looking like a utter dumbass.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376257)

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.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (3, Insightful)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376089)

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.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (0, Troll)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376315)

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.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40376517)

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.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (-1, Offtopic)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#40377493)

Don't even bother with oakgrove, he's a Google fanboy through and through. That moron added me to his "foes" list because I called him out on his shit before.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (1, Troll)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376527)

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.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40376661)

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.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (2)

SpaceWiz (54904) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376063)

Considering WordPress.com alone has over 800 million views a week, stats available here [wordpress.com] . You've got a serious sampling problem. Your website is a niche which skews toward IE use.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (2)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376379)

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?

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376925)

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.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (0)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 2 years ago | (#40377065)

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.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40377147)

StatCounter has a sample size of 3,000,000 jackass number two so keep pulling shit out of your ass.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40375499)

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.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (0)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#40377605)

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.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (2)

bongey (974911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375517)

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 .

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376269)

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.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376451)

This is why periodically I just hate Slashdot.

Mod-bombed because my own experience doesn't match SC? Really? Seriously?

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (2)

asserted (818761) | more than 2 years ago | (#40377069)

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.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (-1, Flamebait)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#40377641)

Welcome to Slashdot.
If you're not alternating between sucking on Google's dick and slurping up Apple's putrid pink trench, you must be astro turfing.

Re:OK, so you're both full of it (2)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376581)

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.

Advertising (1)

rmac1813 (1090197) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375267)

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

Re:Advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40375343)

Compared to their previous browsers is a great browser!

Re:Advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40375975)

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 (1)

martiniturbide (1203660) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375289)

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.

You mean like /. "Pro-*NIX propoganda"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40376799)

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

I love the pandering headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40375363)

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.

Re:I love the pandering headline (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40376217)

I love how the train of "Anonymous Cowards" come in to every story that is not singing the glorious praises of Microsoft screaming about how the article is irrelevant or sensationalist or Slashdot should be shutdown, etc. Shills, get a life.

summary and an aside (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40375447)

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 (2)

EvilBudMan (588716) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375491)

Stat Counter probably counts all devices and there is a ton of these things called Android that uses Chrome.

Re:The reason is simple (4, Insightful)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#40375781)

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.

Net Applications does it right (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40375935)

Sorry. I still don't buy it. Net Applications is counting stats correctly. StatCounter is fudging their statistics to create the outcome they want.

My Blog Data - what are yours? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40376469)

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?

Reality: (3, Insightful)

sehryan (412731) | more than 2 years ago | (#40376475)

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.

Re:Reality: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40377657)

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.

Only use IE when I have to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40377607)

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.)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>