×

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 Reaches Second-Most Visited Site Status

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the frequent-googing dept.

Google 191

Another anonymous reader has written to mention a story carried by Bloomberg, which has the news that Google is the second-most visited site on the internet. This puts it out in front of Yahoo!, which previously held the position. Google is now just behind Microsoft which, as the submitter pointed out, is the site that IE defaults to. From the article: "Visitors to Google's sites rose 9.1 percent to 475.7 million in November from a year earlier, while those to Yahoo sites rose 5.2 percent to 475.3 million, ComScore Networks Inc. said today. Both sites trail Microsoft, which had 501.7 million visitors, ComScore said. It is the first time that Mountain View, California-based Google attracted more visitors than Yahoo, reflecting Google's growing popularity outside the U.S."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

191 comments

Yahoo? (0, Troll)

TheComputerMutt.ca (907022) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351192)

Who the hell uses Yahoo?

Re:Yahoo? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17351212)

Your mum.

Re:Yahoo? (5, Insightful)

Ulysses_S_Grant (965756) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351268)

Yahoo has a lot of services other then their search. For example, they own flickr and del.icio.us. Fantasy sports and games are also pretty easy to figure out on Yahoo. Also, Yahoo news is far more popular then Google's news. Yahoo may not have the best search, but they have a lot of very good services.

Re:Yahoo? (4, Insightful)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351440)

Umm, if you want to include services, then I only have one thing to say:

YouTube.

Re:Yahoo? (-1, Redundant)

idiotwithastick (1036612) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351658)

Umm, if you want to talk about ownership of YouTube, I only have one thing to say: Google.

Re:Yahoo? (1)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351682)

Yes, that was my point - that even counting Yahoo's alternative services, if you lump YouTube into Google's camp, the hits must be off the charts.

Microsoft? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17351200)

Do they mean MSN?

Re:Microsoft? (3, Informative)

Coneasfast (690509) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351220)

The article isn't very clear. It could be just microsoft.com (although I doubt it), or maybe all microsoft-owned sites: msn.ca, hotmail.com, etc. Also, does google include gmail?

These statistics don't explain much, other than Google is rising in the ranks.

Re:Microsoft? (3, Insightful)

HUADPE (903765) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351684)

Gmail is hosted at https://mail.google.com/ [google.com] since it is under the Google domain name, I would be very surprised if they didn't include Gmail. In fact, were they not to, the statistic could safely be dismissed as meaningless.

Re:Microsoft? (2, Interesting)

GrumpySimon (707671) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351392)

I believe so - according to Alexa [alexa.com] , the top five (in order) are, Yahoo, MSN, Google, Baidu.com and MySpace.

So, yeah, MSN.com and not microsoft.com or even (we can only hope) windowsupdate.com

Actual most visited (1)

heauxmeaux (869966) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351210)

http://www.goatse.cx/ [goatse.cx]

That and /.
Dirty fuckin nerd hippies.

Re:Actual most visited (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17351584)

digg is a lot more popular than slashdot. CmdrTaco was bitching in IRC about it a while back ... VA Linux told them to be more digg like (ie, post more stories, tags, firehose, ajax, etc). Lately, I've noticed comments are down (especially in stupid stories posted by Zonk). I remember when every story got 300+ comments easily. Currently, only 4/14 front page stories have 200+ comments.

Re:Actual most visited (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17351998)

Not only that but Digg comments have been steadily getting better. More thoughtful and insightful people are moving over to Digg. Slashdot might want to adjust their rating system if they want to keep customers. Everyone loves mod points and you get as many as you want at Digg. That is not the only reason people are switching, but it is one thing that Slashdot could do to help itself without losing it's Slashdotness.

What about Microsoft? (1, Funny)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351222)

Microsoft must be saying, "What the heck should we do to come 1st?"

I will admit: There's not a single day I do not visit http://www.google.com/ [google.com] at least four times.

Re:What about Microsoft? (2)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351230)

They are probably saying nothing of the sort since they are the top ranked site and their hits are up by 3.3%.

Re:What about Microsoft? (1)

abscissa (136568) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351236)

I'm at like 80 times a day for Slashdot (crackdot)...

Consequently they won't let me moderate anymore... :-(

Re:What about Microsoft? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17351350)

I'm at like 80 times a day for Slashdot (crackdot)...

Consequently they won't let me moderate anymore... :-(

You need multiple accounts. Slashdot doesn't require an actively-posting account to receive mod points. I have two silent logins that regularly get them.

Re:What about Microsoft? (3, Interesting)

dwater (72834) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351378)

...correct me if I'm wrong, but that behaviour makes no sense at all.

Re:What about Microsoft? (1)

phoenix.bam! (642635) | more than 7 years ago | (#17352148)

I always looked at mod points as being like Jury duty. Everyone gets the notice from time to time but no one really wants to have the burden. Why would you want 3x as many jury duty notices?

Re:What about Microsoft? (3, Interesting)

AchiIIe (974900) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351300)

I agree, I would like to see this list
According to: http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_500 [alexa.com]
1) Yahoo
2) Microsoft
3) Google

according to the article
1) MSN
2) Google
3) Yahoo

so the lists are ugh, exactly reversed?
I'd love to know what methodology they used.

So what's next? (1)

Propaganda13 (312548) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351466)

Now that Google is #2, it's time to drop it and move on to the next new (or old) search engine. Before Google, I remember using Webcrawler and later on Dogpile. So what's next?

Which search engine do you think we should propel up the charts?

Re:What about Microsoft? (2, Interesting)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351606)

Make their website the default one of Internet Explorer and have IE always send the first few packets of a session there?

Remove the false MS hits and see where it stands (3, Insightful)

ZahnRosen (1040004) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351234)

MS would never be in first place without the default page being set by them in IE. Personally, I never leave a computer set to MS as the homepage, I switch them to Google. :) I'd much rather look at that then MSN gossip.

Re:Remove the false MS hits and see where it stand (4, Insightful)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351304)

And the Firefox default to Google is not a false hit?

Re:Remove the false MS hits and see where it stand (5, Insightful)

faedle (114018) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351344)

Perhaps it is, but people have to make a choice to install Firefox, where IE is the default browser for 95% of the computing populace. Most of the non-computer savvy people I know click the Big E on their desktop, and wait for the MSN page to load, and promptly hit whatever bookmark they wanted once the page loads: they don't actually use the MSN portal for anything.

I'd figure a good chunk of the people who run Firefox change their 'home' bookmark almost immediately. I did, but granted that was right back to Google's personalized homepage...

Re:Remove the false MS hits and see where it stand (2, Interesting)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351530)

people have to make a choice to install Firefox
Absolutely but they are not installing Firefox just so they can have Google as their home page. Google are paying Mozilla for this to be the case, which ironically was an MS monopoly abuse when they released IE7 with MSN as the default but configurable search around here (even more interestingly MS has since changed it to Google).

Re:Remove the false MS hits and see where it stand (1)

edis (266347) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351748)

"Microsoft, which had 501.7 million visitors" - those are passive MSN page loads, that should not be counted as visits. I often notice this default left at my clients, but have yet to see somebody using it. As well as Media player forceful "rich" interface horror.

Besides, google start page often is used for similar purpose - just because it loads fast, is probably useful, and looks more attractive than about:blank.

Re:Remove the false MS hits and see where it stand (2, Interesting)

Felonius Thunk (168604) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351874)

Just because IE is the default doesn't make MS its default: Google has been making deals with many OEM's (e.g. Dell, the #1) to have its toolbar preinstalled and default to its homepage (no doubt you've seen http://www.google.com/ig/dell [google.com] ). I'd be curious just how many people that is, but throw in the 10-15% from Firefox and I'd bet it's over 50%.

Re:Remove the false MS hits and see where it stand (1)

dwater (72834) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351408)

It doesn't default to Google on *my* computer. Perhaps that is the defaul on MS Windows - I get some Apple page...perhaps there's a reason for that (I don't think I set it manually, but it could have 'imported' it from Safari or something).

Re:Remove the false MS hits and see where it stand (1)

Pink Tinkletini (978889) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351478)

Can I ask you why you prefer Firefox to Safari? Whenever I try Firefox, it always seems to me that Safari is faster, cleaner, renders pages better, and integrates better with OS X technologies like the Keychain, not to mention generally behaves in a more Maclike way. And KHTML supports more CSS properties (text-shadow and display: block come to mind). What am I missing that's so great about Firefox?

Re:Remove the false MS hits and see where it stand (3, Insightful)

strstrep (879828) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351812)

It's all about the add-ons. Firefox add-ons [mozilla.org] give the browser extra functionality. I don't know if Safari has similar functionality (I am not an OS X user), but I'm pretty sure that the sheer number and diversity of add-ons for Firefox would be higher. I use lots of different plugins, from the download statusbar (I hate that download window) to the web developer plugin (great for lots of different things).

Many people find adblock and noscript very useful. Don't forget about greasemonkey, which is helpful for some of the more annoying sites. The list goes on and on. While the browser itself might not be as good as Safari, for some Mac users, the ability to customize is worth it.

Re:Remove the false MS hits and see where it stand (2, Interesting)

dwater (72834) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351960)

1) I've always used Firefox, since before Safari appeared.
2) I've tried safari. Not that much different, but I don't like some aspects of it. I forget all the reasons, but one of them is that the tabs each have 'x's on them, instead of one on the right, which doesn't fit into the way I view web pages (open many, reading one at a time, closing them as I go). Safari is usable, but I don't see any reason to change.
3) I use Linux and MS Windows as well (at work), so Firefox provides some cross platform uniformity - though not a lot, I think, since the menus are all different/etc/etc.
4) It's free(er?).
5) I like Linky and a few other configurable options, which I don't know how to do in Safari, and since I do know in Firefox, I see no reason to find out - even if it's possible.

The argument that it integrates better doesn't work with me, since I don't much like OS X's interface.

Re:Remove the false MS hits and see where it stand (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 7 years ago | (#17352170)

which doesn't fit into the way I view web pages (open many, reading one at a time, closing them as I go).

CMD-W is much quicker for closing tabs and pages than mousing around for a close button.

Re:Remove the false MS hits and see where it stand (2, Funny)

ZahnRosen (1040004) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351458)

Good point... seems a bit more fair when the underdog does it though, doesn't it? lol...

Re:Remove the false MS hits and see where it stand (1, Interesting)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351428)

I wonder if Micro$loth is also including hits to windowsupdate.microsoft.com [microsoft.com] ? Certainly, with all the windows PCs constantly hitting that server looking for updates, many of them automatically and without the user's active knowledge, it would rank quite highly.

Re:Remove the false MS hits and see where it stand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17351690)

False hits? Did they happen in an alternate universe? Oh that's right, you don't want the raw data. You want it to fit with your preconceived notions...

Re:Remove the false MS hits and see where it stand (1)

salle_from_sweden (896798) | more than 7 years ago | (#17352200)

According to Alexa Yahoo has 49% hits on mail.yahoo.com msn has 89% hits on hotmail.msn.com and google has 69% on google.com

So there arn't any "false" hits, most of the hits for yahoo and msn arn't for their search pages (which is the case for google) but for their mail services.

Why so late? (4, Insightful)

Esteanil (710082) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351242)

The only thing I'm wondering is what the hell took them so long.

Google is still (IMO) the best search engine out there.
Also, they make sure to attract the tech-savvy amongst us by being open-source friendly, adding lots of niche searches, their "Don't be evil"-motto, and being for so many of us the place we dream to work.
Sure, every now and then someone questions their "Don't be evil" policy, but compared to at least MS they win hands down. And Yahoo just isn't relevant, at least to me.

In short: Other search engines do marketing, Google goes viral in the very best way: By being the best, and giving us what we want.

Re:Why so late? (0, Flamebait)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351326)

"Also, they make sure to attract the zealots amongst us by being open-source friendly"

There, fixed that for ya.

In actuality, *real* tech savvy people are interested in only one thing - the best search engine. People with an agenda, on the other hand, add other considerations (open source friendliness, "don't be evil" motto, etc.) to their decision criteria. That said, there is no denying Google is the best search engine today by far, and whoever is in second place isn't even close.

Re:Why so late? (1)

dwater (72834) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351356)

I think you'll find everyone has an agenda of some kind.

Re:Why so late? (1, Insightful)

Simon Garlick (104721) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351486)

Yeah. My agenda is "I want something that gives me the best search results in the shortest time". I don't care if that's Google, Microsoft, or whoever.

Re:Why so late? (1)

AusIV (950840) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351638)

I agree, to a point. I've been a Google user for years. If Microsoft were able to provide better search results in shorter time, it would still take me a while to switch, mainly out of habit, but also holding out hope that Google would catch up.

Re:Why so late? (1)

dwater (72834) | more than 7 years ago | (#17352004)

Define 'best', and 'shortest time', and why you want them?

Aren't all the search engines fast enough and get you the results you want most of the time?

What's behind your lack of interest who runs the search engine and you ignoring the reasons others use to choose their search engine? Is it profit - ie use whatever tool gets you to the site you want quickest, thereby wasting less of your valuable time? ...or something else?

You explain what you want, not your agenda, I think.

Re:Why so late? (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 7 years ago | (#17352094)

Why shouldn't friendliness be a part of the criteria? Great search results might not be worth the effort if it's a real pain in the ass to use.

Re:Why so late? (1)

Esteanil (710082) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351374)

Well, I'd have to say I'm pretty far from being an open source Zealot. Heck, I still use Windows. I'd prefer not to, but despite what the Zealots say, *nix still isn't good enough to make me leave behind X years of getting used to this OS to embark on a new adventure.

OSX is the closest I've seen to something I might like, yet from my experiences on my best friend's Macbook Pro, I still prefer windows.

That said, I still smile whenever Google open-sources something, because I do believe/hope that that is where the future lies. Maybe even for me.

Re:Why so late? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17351400)

...yet from my experiences on my best friend's Macbook Pro, I still prefer windows.

The only thing more pathetic than a PC user is a PC user trying to be a Mac user. We have a name for you people: switcheurs.

There's a good reason for your vexation at the Mac's philosophy of user interface design: You don't speak its language. Remember that the Mac was designed by artists [atspace.com] , for artists [atspace.com] , be they poets [atspace.com] , musicians [atspace.com] , or avant-garde mathematicians [atspace.com] . A shiny new Mac can introduce your frathouse hovel to a modicum of good taste, but it can't make Mac users out of dweebs [atspace.com] and squares [atspace.com] like you.

So don't force what doesn't come naturally. You'll be much happier if you stick to an OS that suits your personality. And you'll be doing the rest of us a favor, too; you leave Macs to Mac users, and we'll leave beige to you

Re:Why so late? (3, Insightful)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351494)

You know, its the rude, arrogant, and self absorbed creative people like you that get the pleasant and intelligent creative people killed.

Re:Why so late? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17351800)

Are all Mac users like you? Well then, I'm glad I'm not one.

Re:Why so late? (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351758)

There, modified your statement to reflect my own agenda / world view in a smug way.


Returned the favor.

Re:Why so late? (1, Interesting)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351442)

What took them so long? Well lets see. Until a few years ago Google search sucked from a great height, returning vast abouts of garbage mainly consisting of outdated and broken links. Then they appear to have copped on to the 'lets make our money off advertising' concept (borrowed, not innovated) and there was a notable upturn in quality to the point where there were head and shoulders above everyone else.

Then on to other services. Now for example I have had a gmail account for years, however many of my friends (non technical, and particularly the legally minded) rejected invites after reading the privacy conditions. I though that was fair enough but then the Google Web Accelerator came out with the 'we might stick stuff you did not request in your cache clause' so I can sympathise with a large amount of people now view Google as a marketing driven engine with some gray boundaries.

Now I wont claim to pay attention to everything Google does (I think some is good, some sucks) but apart from the Slashdot fawning I do know there are quite a few people who question Googles approach to delivering their requirements. Fortunate for us, Googles quality over recent times has forced MS and Yahoo to improve, particularly in the search arena so I guess the user wins.

Re:Why so late? (2)

Esteanil (710082) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351664)

What are you talking about?

I changed to Google as my search-engine of choice before they ever made the mass-media, and they *rocked* compared to *anything* that'd come before them.
What's really special about the Google story is how they managed to hold on to me, and as this story submission proves, billions of other users.

I must admit, I really love what Google has done to the web. They've proved that companies don't need to be huge gorilla assholes to make billions of dollars. You just have to deliver.

Re:Why so late? (1)

edis (266347) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351782)

Google was great for quite a while. Don't you find first positions in search result suspicious nowadays?

Re:Why so late? (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351824)

That's because the first couple search results are "sponsored results" (meaning sites that don't really have much to do with your site, but paid google an assload of money).

Re:Why so late? (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351860)

I think the grandparent post was talking about the first position in the regular results as being suspicious, not the highlighted-in-blue sponsored links.
 

Re:Why so late? (1)

PsychicX (866028) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351716)

Now for example I have had a gmail account for years, however many of my friends (non technical, and particularly the legally minded) rejected invites after reading the privacy conditions.
Wait.

Your friends read privacy conditions?! Seriously?

Oh wait. Do you attend law school, maybe?

Re:Why so late? (1)

Woundweavr (37873) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351956)

The privacy concerns relating to Gmail were pretty widely known when the service debuted. Main stream media outlets ran stories on how Google would 'search' your email and show ads relating to the content.

Re:Why so late? (5, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 7 years ago | (#17352022)

Until a few years ago Google search sucked from a great height
You misspelled "Until Google, search engines sucked from a great height".

Re:Why so late? (2, Informative)

eMbry00s (952989) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351484)

They have no monopoly to leverage, they have made no direct commercials (though that doesn't mean their marketers have a low budget).

Re:Why so late? (3, Interesting)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351538)

The only thing I'm wondering is what the hell took them so long.

Keep in mind this is comparing domain traffic. Yahoo is much broader than Google in terms of services.

FP !?! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17351260)

First post !?!

I was thinking big jump (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351274)

Since last time I looked (a few weeks ago) Yahoo had a reasonable advantage. Then I thought Christmas shopping, I know how I start looking for gifts, ideas and the stores to purchase from. It will be interesting to see if Google maintain this after the holiday period. What I did find a tad curious with the numbers are the youtube figures, massive increase, but I will stick by my initial opinion that this is a Titanic for the moment.

Geeks rise from your graves! (4, Funny)

gulfan (524955) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351286)

History is to be made, bring out the wget, bring out the sticky F5 keys, tonight is the night - Google becomes one.

These numbers are meaningless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17351340)

Last I checked, "Google" and "Microsoft" are not single sites. Do they mean hits to microsoft.com and google.com? What about MSN? Google Maps? Windows Update? Gmail? Hotmail? Google Groups?

This article is all fluff and goes into no explanation of their tallies. Microsoft is most likely getting inflated hits because of thier browser defaults, but that could also be true of the default search in Firefox being Google.

I'm glad this guy posted his e-mail address at the bottom of the article. If I get a reply I'll post his research methods here.

Defaults indeed (1)

nighty5 (615965) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351398)

As the article has correctly pointed out, IE's browser defaults to Microsoft's page. A similarity to Netscape back in the hayday.

Nobody can mistake Google's dominance over the Internet, its popularity is dictated (for right or wrong) by its rich source of search tools. They saw the importance of search over all the other providers.

The old saying "if you build it, they will come" rings true here, Google have not only done very well in search, but have captured a large chunk of web based email.

Re:Defaults indeed (2, Interesting)

Shabbs (11692) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351500)

So, when an IE user who has not modified their default home page wants to do a search on Google, it's first a hit against Microsoft (which they had no intention of using) when they start up IE, then a hit against Google (which they did intend to use).

I wonder what the stats would be if they pulled out the "initial default page" hits.

Cheers.

This is pretty cool (1)

Warbringer87 (969664) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351454)

I mean, I remember all the yahoo commercials years ago, but I don't recall ever seeing a Google commercial. And despite the ads, google came out top. Now, if there were google commercials, I haven't seen them, but I've used it since I first of them, it was a "clean" site, unlike the messy yahoo page full of crap I didn't care about.

Re:This is pretty cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17351512)

Hmmm...Google Adsense? Slashdot?

Re:This is pretty cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17351692)

Google commercials on TV, dipshit.

IE defaults (3, Insightful)

towsonu2003 (928663) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351462)

Google is now just behind Microsoft which, as the submitter pointed out, is the site that IE defaults to.
Sometimes I just don't get it. Why wouldn't you change the default homepage of your browser? Is Microsoft that interesting?

Re:IE defaults (1)

LordHatrus (763508) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351624)

>>Why wouldn't you change the default homepage of your browser? Is Microsoft that interesting? Maybe your work/school administrator is smart enough to have nice, roaming profiles that keep your desktop/home page/etc constant with every machine you log into in the network. ... mine aren't that smart. I load up msn every time I open up iexplore.exe. The only way to prevent this is keeping a shortcut to google on my desktop. But their script that synchronizes the desktop to my network drive doesn't always work either... (They also will delete any copies of firefox that students have on their network shares)

Re:IE defaults (1)

towsonu2003 (928663) | more than 7 years ago | (#17352008)

They also will delete any copies of firefox that students have on their network shares
including the portable firefoxes? ouch...

Re:IE defaults (2, Insightful)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351632)

To the average Joe Consumer, it has everything they need. Small snippets of news, sports stuff, stock things.

People also might not know how to change it.

Re:IE defaults (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351750)

There's a lot of people out there in the Intarweb that don't have the slightest idea that you can change your startpage and most of them are using IE.

None of these results are "correct" (4, Insightful)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351472)

The submitter points out that Microsoft comes up first but it is also the default home page for IE.

But Google is preset as the home page on Firefox.

When Apple was shipping Macs with Netscape Navigator preinstalled, they defaulted to an Apple-themed Netscape news page. People using AT&T DSL are getting routed to a Yahoo page quite often thanks to the SBC/Yahoo marketting partnership. Lots of people leave the homepage to whatever their ISP's software sets up. I've had people call me because they lost their homepage (it got hijacked, kids changed it, whatever) and they want assistance changing it back. When we gets to the point where it's time to type in the address, they ask me what they need to put in. I tell them whatever they want to come up and they don't have a clue, many think the homepage s part of their ISP settings so to have AOL coming up instead of ______ means they're now on AOL. Few of them seem to actually use their home page, it's just what comes up and then they go where they want to from there.

To really make these figures more accurate, we would need to sets everyone's homepage to (blank) and make them all reset it, but you would still have people setting it back to things they don't use because "that's how it was before".

Firefox default? (1)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351968)

But Google is preset as the home page on Firefox. ... To really make these figures more accurate, we would need to sets everyone's homepage to (blank)

Is Google the default homepage of Firefox? I thought it was the Mozilla page. Most GNU/Linux distros do exactly what you want, they have a local start page which is a file on the system. With free software, the default is what the last person to build it says it is. Many will leave the project defaults alone, some will not, then users will almost always put in their own choice. The kind of people who go out and get free software are not the kind of people who will settle for default behavior.

The weight of defaults must be balanced for distribution use. M$, unfortunately, still owns 80 to 90% of the desktop market and 80% of that uses IE. That Google trails by such a small margin is a measure of real popularity and use.

Re:Firefox default? (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 7 years ago | (#17352146)

Most GNU/Linux distros do exactly what you want, they have a local start page which is a file on the system.

Why is that what I want? I often open the browser as a means to check that I have HTTP access. Opening up a local page is pretty useless. Of course, it's trivial to change.

Firefox (1)

spitzak (4019) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351970)

Is this a new feature? Firefox for me defaulted to a blank page, I think (I changed it and I don't see any way to "change to default" so I can't check). I think you may be confusing the default page with the default search for the search entry?

Is Hotmail included in the MS count (3, Insightful)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351496)

200+ million active accounts is a great big chunk of hits right there.

Yahoo!'s redesign to blame? (4, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351528)

Given Y!'s recent re-design, I an unsurprised. I used to have Y! as my home page, now it's Google news.

IMHO, Yahoo has made the fatal mistake of over-emphasizing form over function and is now suffering the result.

Re:Yahoo!'s redesign to blame? (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351798)

Given Y!'s recent re-design, I an unsurprised. I used to have Y! as my home page, now it's Google news.

IMHO, Yahoo has made the fatal mistake of over-emphasizing form over function and is now suffering the result.


Recent? Haven't they always done this? This sounds like a comment from 1998. At that time there was much lamenting over the increased clutter of Yahoo compared to the starkness of newcomer Google.

Re:Yahoo!'s redesign to blame? (1)

keeboo (724305) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351898)

Given Y!'s recent re-design, I an unsurprised.

I've just checked. They did change indeed, I was not aware of this.

It's somewhat funny to hear people mentioning Yahoo so often, I accessed their main site 0 times that year.
I always preferred using something generic like Google or, years ago, Alta Vista (during the Digital days).

Although the content categorization provided by Yahoo (and many other sites) feels somewhat appealing, few years ago (back in '96 or '97) I realised that it provided a narrow way to access Internet content.

No need to visit Google webpage (1)

dagamer34 (1012833) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351698)

That's because tech-savvy Firefox users never have to go to www.google.com. They type "google <search term>" in the address bar instead!

Re:No need to visit Google webpage (1)

Lukstr (1023965) | more than 7 years ago | (#17352018)

Pre-stable Firefox, I did the same in IE (through the use of MS PowerToys). 'Course it's easier in Firefox.

Re:No need to visit Google webpage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17352108)

The non tech-savy Firefox users meanwhile type in just the search term into the search bar

Re:No need to visit Google webpage (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 7 years ago | (#17352154)

Yeah, that's so much more convenient than using the search field. Why would a tech-savvy user waste time on a redundant task?

way too low of numbers (2)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351856)

Visitors to Google's sites rose 9.1 percent to 475.7 million in November
even if they meant unique visitors, that's REALLY low. If half of americans vistited google once in november and we're not nearly the most connected country, it'd only take about double that number in addition to come up with that. With like 6.5 billion other people in the world (something like that), I think they could come up with more than just an additional 300 million, geeze. It's probably more like close to 3/4 billion unique visitors.

Re:way too low of numbers (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 7 years ago | (#17352198)

With like 6.5 billion other people in the world (something like that)
The problem is that over 5 billion of those haven't ever seen a computer in their lives.

Bad news for humanity (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 7 years ago | (#17352134)

If so many people don't even bother with the trivial task of changing their homepage to something less annoying, or are incapable of it, we are doomed as a species. I wonder if these people also use the Microsoft page to search for Google?

Funny (1)

slashthedot (991354) | more than 7 years ago | (#17352244)

It's funny if you think about it. Why would anyone visit Google's site? Yeah yeah, to see an almost blank page with just a Search button. Many people search the Internet using the Google toolbar, so that could as well be added to Google's numbers, as that's all Google has on it's homepage. In that case I have Google's homepage always open when I used the net. Maybe toolbar numbers also are included in the calculation.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...