Losing To The Social Web: Visualized(digitalbuzzblog.com)
digitalbuzzblog.com
Losing To The Social Web: Visualized
http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/loosing-to-the-social-web-visualized/
4 comments
monos - if you log into your Google account and then use Trends for Websites, you should see the y-axis numbers. The numbers are not shown when you're not logged in.
right, thx.
doesn't change the diagrams in the linked article though, they are images: http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Br...
doesn't change the diagrams in the linked article though, they are images: http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Br...
How is hulu.com social?
Most of the non-social sites are places you'd only go if you're looking to buy something of a specific brand. They're probably losing to amazon (not shown) and the recession. Others are old-school news sites, which are losing to blogs, aggregaters and specialized sources.
In short, the article fails to make its claim.
Most of the non-social sites are places you'd only go if you're looking to buy something of a specific brand. They're probably losing to amazon (not shown) and the recession. Others are old-school news sites, which are losing to blogs, aggregaters and specialized sources.
In short, the article fails to make its claim.
So in short:
- Online resources for real stuff (things that cost money) experience drop of visitors in recession
- Free, recreational and bitching-about-life sites show increase in visitors in recession
- Online resources for real stuff (things that cost money) experience drop of visitors in recession
- Free, recreational and bitching-about-life sites show increase in visitors in recession
yep. people would only go to bmw.com if they plan to buy or if they see an ad.
in a recession, both cases would be false.
in a recession, both cases would be false.
The traffic lost by the brand sites may not be the same traffic gained by the social networks.
Yes, especially since traffic on the web is not zero-sum. I can visit both, or neither, and a visit to one doesn't mean I didn't go to the other.
Although I think that the data supports the general trend in people looking to social media for information before looking for brand sites, I would throw out there that people also google brands and use blogs and review sites for information, which could account for lower visitor counts.
Although I think that the data supports the general trend in people looking to social media for information before looking for brand sites, I would throw out there that people also google brands and use blogs and review sites for information, which could account for lower visitor counts.
Doesn't that mean the market's becoming more efficient? I never visit some tech sites, for example, because I know anything worth reading on there will show up here.
we can not measure visitors (only devices, but you can do some statistical approximation - that's what they do for sure). but this gets even vaguer if you are not the owner of the site and don't have total access to all data.
we don't know how google calcs those "numbers", not even how they get approximated (they are not really statistics - Y axis is not labled).
it could very well be - and probably is, i've been in the webstats buiz - that the way they come up with this is by adding some artificial, best-guess multiplier to correct for not having enough real data.
---
the way to do those web statistics right is:
* have an open consortium with all the major players come up with an algorithm that satisfies them [1]
* apply that algorithm, it will output numbers that are in some correlance to the real, but unobservable truth [2]
* more important: the statistics of those websites are now comparable to one another. because the algorithm & factors are the same for everyone [3]
* rinse, repeat, adapt
[1] it is unlikely that they will publish this algorithm, since it will contain strange, seemingly arbitraty factors like "multiply by 1.2 during summertime, because people are less online and we don't want tooo much of a down curve"
[2] like "visitors" or "time spent on site"
[3] no, we don't know that's the case with google's data