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!

As IPO Nears, Do Twitter's Active User Claims Add Up?

Soulskill posted about 9 months ago | from the this-generation's-'billions-and-billions-served' dept.

Twitter 73

netbuzz writes "With Twitter's IPO looming, an independent developer who is intimately familiar with the makeup and behavior of the site's users says his analysis of 1 million random accounts does not support the company's claims of 215 million active monthly users and 100 million active daily users. In fact, Si Dawson, who until March ran Twit Cleaner, a popular app used to weed deadwood and spammers from Twitter accounts, puts those numbers at 112 million and 48 million, respectively, or about half of what Twitter claims."

cancel ×

73 comments

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

importance (-1, Troll)

fluffythedestroyer (2586259) | about 9 months ago | (#45339797)

...and someone cares about this because ? I feel like its the biggest hairy ball show off contest here. LOL

Re:importance (2)

codepigeon (1202896) | about 9 months ago | (#45339929)

I imagine the SEC would care if they are falsifying data.

Re:importance (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45340021)

I imagine the SEC would care if they are falsifying data.

Hardly "falsifying", the numbers are the same order of magnitude and almost certainly justifiable using some more optimistic assumptions. Nobody's going to prison for this.

Re:importance (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 9 months ago | (#45340165)

Twitter users are not a statistic or a phenomenon to be measured by Twitter itself.
Twitter easily knows exactly how many active users it has.

And considering that the magnitude is enough to half evaluations of its potential income/the value of the company itself, I would call that significant.

Re:importance (1)

Eskarel (565631) | about 9 months ago | (#45341609)

I think the issue at hand is actually the fact that while twitter can easily measure the number of users it has, Si Dawson can't.

For the purposes of the companies valuation, the number of "active users" is not the number of users who actually post, it's the number of users who will see revenue generating ads. If someone logs onto twitter every day for an hour but has never posted anything, they're still seeing ads and still generating revenue.

As far as I'm aware there's no possible way for any party external to twitter to determine whether a given user logs in to read content or doesn't, only whether they've posted anything which, while important in that content drives views is not the relevant revenue metric.

It doesn't surprise me at all that about half of twitter users might read content far more often than they post it. I check twitter quite often, but I've only posted about a half a dozen times.

Re:importance (1)

edibobb (113989) | about 9 months ago | (#45340637)

No prison, but if you buy some IPO shares you can join the class action lawsuit if the stock price ever drops.

Re:importance (2, Insightful)

Tailhook (98486) | about 9 months ago | (#45340229)

I imagine the SEC would care if they are falsifying data.

You have a remarkable imagination then. My imagination has a mathematician standing in a room in the SEC's Washington headquarters with an analysis that proves Twitters claims violate the very Laws of Thermodynamics, and nobody is interested. The meeting ends and they resume browsing porn [denverpost.com] back in their offices.

Of course, since my scenario is based on mere history, instead of your immense imaginative powers, I'll defer to you and take it as a given that the SEC has this well in hand.

Re:importance (1)

bn-7bc (909819) | about 9 months ago | (#45346885)

Oh yes The SEC, correct me if I'm wrong but Isn't that the regulator that failed to stop Bernard Madoff after being warned several times? hmm.

Re:importance (0)

RenderSeven (938535) | about 9 months ago | (#45340871)

I imagine the SEC would care if they are falsifying data.

You're new here, right?

Re:importance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344063)

I also imagine this. In reality however, sec coudn't care less. IPO MONIES FOR ALL.

Re:importance (1, Insightful)

pr0fessor (1940368) | about 9 months ago | (#45339959)

No clue... the only person I know that uses twitter is my brother and he only tweets about silly things his wife does because he knows it annoys her. Oops, she tripped up the stairs. Oops, she put her shirt on wrong side out. Oops, she dropped her lipstick and it went in the toilet.

Re:importance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45340833)

Yeah, everyone I know only uses Twitter for broadcasting messages to their close friends/family. But apparently it also lets you insult direct insult celebrities until they have a meltdown. We've never had that kind of technology before and it shouldn't be undervalued.

Re:importance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45340899)

"No clue... the only person I know that uses twitter is my brother and he only tweets about silly things his wife does because he knows it annoys her. Oops, she tripped up the stairs. Oops, she put her shirt on wrong side out. Oops, she dropped her lipstick and it went in the toilet."

Your brother is really brave! Congratulate him on behalf of poor souls like me.

Re:importance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45342549)

This is the only twitter account I know of: https://twitter.com/GSElevator, and even though I enjoy it immensely, I still cannot fathom the existence of twitter.

Re:importance (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 9 months ago | (#45343533)

even though I enjoy it immensely, I still cannot fathom the existence of twitter.

Your link answers it:

It's like texting for people who don't have any friends to text

Re:importance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45340007)

SEC, investors, and the judge in the trial that's going to happen if they did commit fraud.

None of that matters (4, Informative)

gelfling (6534) | about 9 months ago | (#45339807)

Twitter doesn't make any money and it's not clear how they would. But again, none of that matters. It's buzz it's bubble it's sizzle it's cool. Money will 'develop' on it's own. And if not - Microsoft will buy them and kill it.

Re:None of that matters (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45340097)

They'll slap ad banners on every user's page and mandate "legitimate-looking" ad tweets, not unlike what Slashdot is doing now with their comments in the discussions.

In other words, all of the unofficial spam will now magically become "official" spam, and there will be no points of the website other than to be force-fed ads and troll other users.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:None of that matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45340193)

They've got to make money. Someone is raking in some cash from the $20/mo fee.

Re:None of that matters (3, Informative)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about 9 months ago | (#45340393)

They'll make money the same way all of their predecessors did.
1) Start "free" social-something service.
2) Become popular.
3) IPO, or get bought by some company who did exactly the same thing as you're doing now.
4) Stick ads everywhere, and sell whatever data you can glean from your users and content to whoever will pay for it.
5) Profit!

I'm no hippie, but I think it's kind of sad (and insulting) that everything seems to revolve around advertisement and consumer data nowadays.

Re:None of that matters (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45340439)

Step 2 is the hard one.

Re:None of that matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45343855)

Step 2 is only hard if your only explanation for popularity is hard work.

Pure chance and other factors outside of their influence might have had a large effect on the popularity too.

Re:None of that matters (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45341821)

Wall street hype, pump and dump. Greed. I AM an old hippie and am SICk of our society more than ever.
All you see on TV is boner pills, diabetes medicine, treatments for the side effect of, instead of how to get yourself better by eating like we used too. C'mon people get with it and Kick the man's ass. Grow your own - veggies and eat all you want.
You could also walk like we were meant too. That's all it takes. I did it, you can too...

Re:None of that matters (1)

fluffythedestroyer (2586259) | about 9 months ago | (#45344281)

Then you should (like everyone I might had) to start reading the fineprints when you sign up stop using it when they had ads. Also, if they are using your data and selling it and agreeing it when you signed up, its your own fault (by YOU I mean the poeple since theres millions in there).

There's some responsibility here to take. If you sign up, and in the signup it says (in the 135th page) that they will sell you data or have the rights to do so AND if you don't like it or don't agree to that, then its your responsibility to NOT accept it. Unfortunately, lots of people are afraid of privacy issues but for some reason they give public information on facebook, twitter and all these social sites.

Same thing with ads, if they start to use it, then its your job to tell them, if its clear that they're not going to stop, then just close the account on that site and go elsewhere.

Re:None of that matters (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 9 months ago | (#45345081)

It's pretty pathetic when you consider the Internet was build for decentralized peer to peer information exchanges -- Capable of routing around cities vaporized by nuclear attacks in moments. Combined with the fact that information silohs are stupid. Everyone values sending data to eachother and publishing a bit of data to their friends, and all the computers are fully capable of connecting directly to the sources of information -- Hell, a DHT for celeb info if you absolutely must.

The problem with social networking is that it's centralized when we've never needed it to be. I blame moronic OS vendors for not installing servers by default. MS's fuck-up with no firewall and file sharing on by default was actually the right way to go -- In the general vacinity anyway. What we primarily lack is a popularity (read: installed by default) of a distributed identity service -- Like PGP trust graphs. Everyone from OS providers to Email providers to Content producers and ISPs wants to centralize the fucking web. It's infuriating what you morons have done with the robust decentralized free information exchange we gave you -- Starting with DNS. Gah. IDIOTS, all of you.

The cycle will continue because time after time you million monkeys actually get damn close at writing Shakespere, but to get it right will take a billion years at this rate.

Re:None of that matters (1)

fermion (181285) | about 9 months ago | (#45340483)

I think that advertisers are always looking to get to the 25-40 year old demographic that is approaching or in their highest spending patterns. They have money for more than beer, and are beginning to spend real money on routine household items. Twitter might provide connections that other media can't. I know I have seen young people move from Facebook to Twitter. I don't use either that much anymore, but then I am not in the demographic.

Re:None of that matters (1)

naoursla (99850) | about 9 months ago | (#45342677)

They make money the old fashion way: Volume.

Re:None of that matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45345017)

Even if twitter doesn't change and is just a free service I suspect having access to all the information collected behind the scenes would be of great value to anybody looking to do marketing research.

Re:None of that matters (1)

iMadeGhostzilla (1851560) | about 9 months ago | (#45346833)

FWIW I'm just looking into advertising on Twitter for my product, some people reports that twitter is comparable to adwords for some situations and way better than Facebook: http://www.techhive.com/article/2030740/do-social-media-ads-really-work-we-put-them-to-the-test-.html [techhive.com]

I'm a very light user but when I noticed "sponsored tweets" in my feed I actually read/consumed almost all of the info in them before I realized they were sponsored. And I wasn't annoyed that I did, more lightly amused that they got me to read the ad and that it didn't feel bad. I think it's b/c of the short format of everything. It's after that experience that I decided to place ads myself.

So, again, FWIW, I decided to give Twitter some money, just to see what happens, which I'd *never* do with Facebook. Can't imagine I'm the only one.

I wonder where I fall (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45339817)

I read the email summaries of the people I follow sent to me by twitter. I probably haven't logged in or tweeted anything in over a year.

So many twits, so little time (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45339845)

My brief encounters with twitter suggest that the population is 8% talkative narcissists, 12% adoring fans, 30% spambots, 50% people who thought they were signing up for something else and have since abandoned their accounts.

Is there any way to short a stock that isn't on the market yet?

Re:So many twits, so little time (2)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 9 months ago | (#45339985)

No, with a few very narrow exceptions. Generally you have to wait 30 days after.

I believe they have convertible bonds you could short but there would be additional technical issues and risks.

A more pertinent question: (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 months ago | (#45339899)

Is Twitter engaging in "changes for the sake of changes" which are beginning to drive users away?

Ebay is doing it.

Facebook is doing it. /. is probably doing it, as well.

Re:A more pertinent question: (1)

glavenoid (636808) | about 9 months ago | (#45341059)

Have you seen the new beta /. site yet? It's an absolute abomination. If/when they go live with it I really think that will mark the end of this site.

Re:A more pertinent question: (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 9 months ago | (#45341097)

Have you seen the new beta /. site yet? It's an absolute abomination. If/when they go live with it I really think that will mark the end of this site.

That's pretty much what I told /. in the survey that came with the Beta linky. But then, /. really is approaching shark jumping territory, and maybe when they do, something better will emerge.

Investors! (2)

DogDude (805747) | about 9 months ago | (#45339913)

Users? Profits? Bah!

As everybody knows the important question to ask about tech companies is... how much are stupid investors willing to pay for it...?

Twit Cleaner: Improved (1)

themushroom (197365) | about 9 months ago | (#45339983)

A scorched earth policy of leaving no account standing would be better than actually sifting for usage. :)

Re:Twit Cleaner: Improved (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45340243)

Is your twat dirty? Clean it up with twat cleaner: improved!

New from summers eve.

Twitter RFC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45340025)

It should take us about a week (with plenty of time for beer and food) for a few engineers to bang out a nice RFC for Twitter, with all the loose ends taken care of. Even that is overkill. Microblogging with a feed you can follow is a feature at best. That they were able to build a whole company around it is a testament to folly.

Re:Twitter RFC (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 9 months ago | (#45340675)

And how do you propose connecting your system to SMS? That is the secret sauce. No open solution can work as the SMS gateway providers will impose a toll for bulk messaging.

That being said, SMS will eventually be irrelevant once data plans become cheap enough to be ubiquitous. You will still need a middleman to store undeliverable messages but it won't have to be a price gouging telecom company.

Non Tweeters (0)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about 9 months ago | (#45340041)

Second, and more important, you need to accept Twitter's contention that 40% of its active users never Tweet (either literally or not within the past month).

Si Dawson can't see the people who just use Twitter as an RSS feed. These people are likely Twitters most active users. People who check their phone everyday to see what so and so is doing.

Re:Non Readers (2)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about 9 months ago | (#45340627)

I use Twitter to store things I want to remember but don't mind losing. When I see a sponsored twit, I comment inappropriately with their hashtags then delete the sponsored twit.
I don't think I'm using it right. Also, my followers are definitely not using it right. They may have serious mental issues.

Re:Non Tweeters (2)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | about 9 months ago | (#45343309)

I dont think you can consider people who see buses go past them in the street as passengers!

Re:Non Tweeters (1)

Rakishi (759894) | about 9 months ago | (#45344251)

No but when you're buying ads on the side of the bus that is exactly who you think about.

Re:Non Tweeters (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about 9 months ago | (#45345119)

No its like counting the number of unique ids in Slashdot comments to determine Slashdot's readership. Or counting the comments on Youtube vidoes to determine how many people use Youtube. His analaysis applied to Youtube might result in "The number of views Youtube reports on video's is fake. There are not enough comments on the them."

Don't you know... (1)

wbane (12572) | about 9 months ago | (#45340095)

over 85% of statistics are made up? :)

Seriously tho.. popular tech.. incoming IPO.. someone is surprised that a company padded numbers?

Nope (1)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about 9 months ago | (#45340117)

There is a twitter account that I have wanted for a long time. I rounded up a bunch of friends to report it for spam as its only posting from a long time ago is a "Make money fast" posting. But nope, they haven't done a thing about it. I suspect that it is a "live" account. My guess is that if they were to go through and kill all the dead accounts they would be facing incorrect headlines such as "Users abandoning Twitter, 10% lost in this month alone."

Depends... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45340163)

Do they need to be actual real people?

Yeah?

Well then no. Twitter is a just another ad platform full of shills. Sorry.

Large company lying?! (1)

The_Star_Child (2660919) | about 9 months ago | (#45340179)

Well I would never!

Twitter spam is huge. Twitter likes it that way (5, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | about 9 months ago | (#45340183)

Twitter prohibits spam filters. You're not allowed to write a Twitter client with a spam filter. If you do, Twitter will invalidate your OAuth code. So people actually see Twitter spam. That makes Twitter a spam magnet.

Of course they have huge numbers of fake users. Want to create some fake Twitter accounts? Just get Twitter Account Creator Bot [jetbots.com] : "... automatically creates thousands of accounts per day without any human intervention ... " Now only $225. Also available: Twitter Follower Bot ("can follow thousands of profiles using keywords"), "Twitter IDs Grabber Bot", and "Twitter Tweets Replier Bot".

If you don't want to do it yourself, you can just buy Twitter accounts in bulk. 20,000 Twitter accounts for $400. [buybulkaccounts.org] That seems to be the going rate; BuyAccs.com [buyaccs.com] also quotes $400 for 20,000 accounts (with avatar!). Google+ and Facebook accounts cost about 5x as much from the same suppliers. When you see low, low pricing for bulk social network accounts, you can be sure the service isn't trying very hard to stop spammers.

There's no problem finding social network spamming services. They advertise openly. Just search Google for "bulk twitter accounts". You don't have to go on Black Hat World, build up a reputation, and get into the closed forums. You don't have to get "bulletproof servers" in some third world country. The social spammers aren't hiding.

(Ad: we could stop this by using SiteTruth [sitetruth.com] to find spam links in tweets. I prototyped a Twitter client with spam filtering and tested it. But Twitter doesn't allow that. "Sponsored tweets" have to get through, you know.)

Re:Twitter spam is huge. Twitter likes it that way (2)

Vegan Cyclist (1650427) | about 9 months ago | (#45342849)

heh - i usually 'Block' accounts that do Sponsored Tweets. I wonder if many others do that, and how those accounts would respond if they knew they were being blocked en masse...?

(Positive and Negative Biases) / 2 = Neutral Bias (1)

deathcloset (626704) | about 9 months ago | (#45340201)

oversimplified we can just say that twitter is being rosy because they should and twit cleaner is being not-so-rosy because they should. Let us then just average the claims and call that closest to the truth since both entities are skewing towards their favor.

And the result:

163.5 million active monthly

74 million monthly

Not that relevant anyway (3, Insightful)

rasmusbr (2186518) | about 9 months ago | (#45340221)

I read stuff at twitter almost everyday and I don't even have a personal account.

Twitter is more of a broadcast medium than a social network anyway. Most of the most popular accounts are run by celebrities or "stars" in their fields. It seems likely that the number of active users will shrink while those that are active will become more relevant and drive more traffic to the inevitable ads that they will eventually have to add to the site once investors start to ask for profits.

Re:Not that relevant anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45340553)

Twitter is just advertising, but stupid people don't realize it.

Re:Not that relevant anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45341145)

some people want it.

Depends on what you mean by active users (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 9 months ago | (#45340285)

There are four types of twitter users.

1. MSM outlets - they tweet links to their stories vids etc
2. Active bloggers/users - we retweet stuff and tweet stuff - depends on when we have time
3. Passive users - they read stuff but rarely tweet anything.
4. Passive non-users - the read tweets but have no account.

Re:Depends on what you mean by active users (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45340873)

You nicely listed them in order of importance to Twitter.

I owned an ISP from Dec 1994 until a couple of months ago. If you exclude homes with a preteen daughter, Twitter isn't even in the top 1,000 of sites for our users. It is actually even worse than that because the demographic info we have isn't complete(based on census data and a couple of other cheap sources so to be honest it is pretty sucky, but better than nothing) so we're still counting a lot of households with preteen daughters. I bet with good data, Twitter isn't even in the top 2,500.

On the other hand, Facebook is a real site with real users that gets real traffic. They consistently fight with Google for the top two spots. Also, you can joke about how Yahoo is dying, but they are still a solid top 5 site for our area.

Re:Depends on what you mean by active users (0)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 9 months ago | (#45340987)

Well, my results may be different from yours, because I live in Seattle, and we're the top city for twitter trends.

We start trends here. We make San Francisco look like a backwards place.

Re:Depends on what you mean by active users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45341217)

Seattle home of "we are going to destroy and replace the Internet with MSN" Microsoft? No. The people here are very anti-Internet. I had faster Internet access in Georgia twelve years ago than I have now in downtown Seattle. The city is even fighting against allowing competition to Crapcast. The people here aren't technical like in the bay area. They just don't demand Internet access.

The only thing the Microsoft cultists here lead the world in is hatred and fear of the Internet.

Re:Depends on what you mean by active users (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45341241)

> live in Seattle, and we're the top city for twitter trends.

Seattle is number one in the demographic of preteen girls whining about the weather. I've lived here for over a decade, and I have never heard a single person here claim that they have ever used Twitter. I have more than four hundred friends on Facebook, and at least three hundred of them are from the Seattle area so having not a single damn person that I know uses that site is pretty significant. Of course I'm not a pedophile that hangs-out with little girls. Maybe you are one which is why you think Twitter is important. It's only important to your victims.

Twitter is solvent in my book (1)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 9 months ago | (#45340743)

Just like how Google attracts a bunch of eyes and then feeds them advertisements, Twitter does the same thing. I'm surprised Twitter doesn't do more sponsored links than it does. I rarely even see one, but they could probably get away with three constantly.

Re:Twitter is solvent in my book (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45342015)

> Just like how Google attracts a bunch of eyes...

But that's the question here. Are they really attracting eyes? I have never heard anyone male or anyone over the age of 13 that admitted to using that site. I teach middle school science so I hear a lot of students talking about things on the Internet, and Twitter is still somewhat used by my six grade girls but I have never heard an eighth grader mention that site. It can't seem to break-out of it's preteen girl majority user base. While that market is important to advertisers, it is nowhere near as big as the absolute lies that Twitter is spouting.

Does _anyone_ really use Twitter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45341027)

I know many people have things scripted to output to Twitter. Maybe a few of us have robots that read Twitter to try to scrape up some statistics. But does any human being actually read Twitter? Seriously. Twitter readers, step forward and tell us that you really do that, and that it's practical, fun, informative, keeps-you-in-touch, or whatever. Please. Because I don't know a single person who actually reads tweets.

Short answer: 'no' (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 9 months ago | (#45341155)

At least to judge by the amount of spam that I have received recently from friends who do have twitter accounts; messages claiming to be from them ''inviting me (personal invitation of course) to join twitter''. None of my friends were aware that this crap was being sent in their name.

I decided some time ago that you must be a twit to need twitter :-)

User = Unique Human? (1)

eepok (545733) | about 9 months ago | (#45341177)

They say they have 215 million monthly users. To me, a user is a person. An account is one of many identities that a person can set up. I can believe 215 million accounts (spam!), but users?

If they're suggesting that 215 million unique people use Twitter every month and there are about 7.2 billion people on Earth today, they're saying that one in every 34 people in the world sign on to Twitter every month.

According to this (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm), about 2.4 billion people have access to the internet in one way or another. So if that's the population from which Twitter users come from (mustn't it?), that would mean that 1 in 12 people with internet access log onto Twitter monthly.

Is that really believable? That (globally) 1 in 12 people with internet access log into Twitter at least once a month?

Invisible Users (1)

enter to exit (1049190) | about 9 months ago | (#45341561)

I use twitter everyday (essentially as a simplified rss reader) and i like it. The user-name i have is not the one i wanted, I have three user-names i use regularly, all were taken. All three of those accounts haven't tweeted anything in years and they've all only tweeted less than 10 times.

These accounts are still regarded as active - despite a policy of removing inactive accounts after a (unspecified) period. There are thee options: 1) these people install the twitter app on their phone, sign in and never open it again (but it runs in the background), 2) these people only use twitter's OAuth functionality to sign into other sites, or 3) twitter just doesn't delete inactive accounts.

Re:Invisible Users (1)

Eskarel (565631) | about 9 months ago | (#45341619)

Or they read content produced by others, but don't tweet. It's what I do, I doubt I've even hit 10 tweets, but I'm on twitter at least two or three times a week.

The Funny Part (2, Interesting)

The Cat (19816) | about 9 months ago | (#45341563)

Will be when IPOs like this one expose the entire Internet ad market as a gigantic ponzi scheme. SEO too.

Nobody has ever sold jack shit from a web ad. Nobody has ever sold jack shit from being #1 on Google. The whole fucking thing is a scam.

Re:The Funny Part (1)

Zapotek (1032314) | about 9 months ago | (#45348031)

I don't know who modded you interesting but they're wrong and so are you. My buying a product from a store appearing as a first result makes you wrong, along with plenty of other people quite probably. I'm not saying that I selected a store based on its position in the results, but the first-result shop carried the product I wanted and I didn't have to look any further.

I'm not defending all the SEO ball-busting spammers and pseudo-experts (not by a long shot), but it's reasonable to expect that making a website friendly to search engines will make it easier to find and get you more visitors and customers.

Hmmm.. (1)

junaidb (3000745) | about 9 months ago | (#45341599)

Likely to be true!

People still use slashdot? w0wwweeeeeee (1)

medicthree (125112) | about 9 months ago | (#45341945)

i feelz old

Probably adds up as much as Facebook's active usrs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45341979)

And Facebook stock is doing ok now.

You can have twitter when you pry it from my... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45349127)

Ah, nevermind. I'll just RSS.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>