Comments on: Is social media killing the web as we know it?

By: Frank Campbell

Frank Campbell — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:52:57 +0000

No one mentions it here, but the Crikey chart looks bleak…disregarding the Black Saturday spike, daily unique visitors have apparently halved from circa 8000 to under 4000…is this accurate? Some of the other posts here cast doubt on all these “estimates”.

If the Crikey fall is accurate, why aren’t we discussing it? If the summer drop occurs as usual, Crikey may hit the bottom. We don’t want that, do we Crikerions? So start talking…

By: Stilgherrian

Stilgherrian — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:45:50 +0000

Just in case people missed it, there's further information on Friday's Comments, Corrections, Clarification and C*ck-upscolumn. Scroll down past all the "Liberals in turmoil" stuff.

By: Sexual Lobster

Sexual Lobster — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:01:26 +0000

I agree with Scott, web stats are smoke and mirrors. I’ve got two packages on my domain that report wildly different things, the reason seems to be how they attempt to define and weed out bots, proxies etc, and when I try new ones occasionally I get different results still. Too bad Google hasn’t kept up with their analytics, it would have been a good resource if we could trust it.

By: joanww

joanww — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:23:22 +0000

Yes but whatever. We have been through this a couple of times before. At the very large long scale - say over 5 years or so, traffic patterns are affected by many things small and large that change how many and which pages get loaded into people’s browsers.

If you normalise after removing the elephant and gorilla properties - especially those that are conversational, however defined at any particular time then the picture looks much more as expected given continuing increases in speed and capacity over time.

In other words there has always been a “facebook” effect - people have always wanted to hangout somewhere online.

By: jg_rat

jg_rat — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:49:01 +0000

Baby Boomer? How rude, @RV

R for (totally) redundant, perhaps?

By: Stilgherrian

Stilgherrian — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:59:07 +0000

@Neil: That is a lovely scenario and, yes, it uses the word “trends” in that “predict the future” sense. And, indeed, it’s food for thought. But I don’t think that’s what’s going on here.

Overnight I’ve had people say that Nielsen NetRatings data shows significant increases for the news sites, even using the unique daily browser numbers they can get. For example, news.com.au grew from 250,829 average daily unique browsers (UBs) in July 2008 to 346,367 in October 2009, a 38% increase. Not the roughly 50% drop shown here.

Also, the forums area of Google Trends is rather quiet. There were only three questions or comments posted for the whole of September, none of which received a reply, and nothing since. I can’t see that anyone from Google has responded to anything for months and months — I gave up looking back any further. Others have noted that Google Trends data differs wildly from Google’s own Analytics product — usually complaining that it shows significantly less traffic.

Google Trends is a Google Labs product, i.e. an experiment, I’m starting to think that it’s been abandoned and we’re just seeing a slow degradation due to lack of maintenance.

@RV: I’m not a Baby Boomer, so I’ll feel free to keep using the “@” sign then, OK? That keeps my formatting consistent across platforms too.

But “totally superfluous”? Is there such a thing as “partially superfluous”? Maybe your “totally” is totally superfluous too!

By: RV

RV — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:34:06 +0000

Can you baby boomers please stop using “@” when replying to other people’s comments? It’s great that you’re down with the kids and everything but while it makes sense on Twitter (@, meaning “at”, as in at X’s page), it’s totally superfluous in this context. What does it add?

By: Neil

Neil — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:49:51 +0000

One for you Stil. Try this: the trend is the future. General web traffic down. Social media up. Why? Because right now lots of people in office towers are out of work. Yep. There’s been a GFC. And those offices are where the traffic comes from. Except when they’re unemployed. Then they sit around trying to find out what other unemployed people are doing.
Why the future? Because this is the profile when people in office towers can’t browse. And the trend is for the offices to block access. Because of spam and security.
Is this good for social media? Nope. It’s good for hardly anyone. Unless you think social media is a social good in that it keeps people off the streets. Oh, yes. It’s good for social media spruikers.
Makes you think, dunnit?

By: Neil

Neil — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:41:54 +0000

Gav et al. Whatever turns you on pal. But you may be assured that if it’s lucre you’re wanting the “most important thing” is results. Yes, it’s true: advertisers pay for results. And, wait for it: they are the ones who decides what’s valued, not matter how hideous the content.
Bummer eh?

By: jg_rat

jg_rat — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:48:09 +0000

“Mrs. Cratchit made the gravy (ready beforehand in a little saucepan) hissing hot; Master Peter mashed the potatoes with incredible vigour; Miss Belinda sweetened up the apple-sauce; Martha dusted the hot plates; Bob took Tiny Tim beside him in a tiny corner at the table; the two young Cratchits set chairs for everybody, not forgetting themselves, and, mounting guard upon their posts, crammed spoons into their mouths, lest they should shriek for goose before their turn came to be helped. At last the dishes were set on. and grace was said. It was succeeded by a breathless pause, as Mrs. Cratchit, looking slowly all along the carving knife, prepared to plunge it into the breast; but when she did, and when the long expected gush of stuffing issued forth, one murmur of delight arose all round the board, and even Tiny Tim, excited by the two young Cratchits, beat on the table with the handle of his knife, and feebly cried, “Hurrah!”

There never was such a goose. “

)

By: Gavin Costello

Gavin Costello — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:37:26 +0000

Stil,
As usual Craig Wilson has hit the nail on the head. I read something recently that said that Print and Broadcast Ad space is hideously overvalued while online is undervalued. One day soon the media buyers will see what the rest of the world sees perhaps
As for Google Stats, perhaps they are a bit skewy, but in many ways, it doesn’t matter, the most important thing is still RECURRING visits and Lengthy ones at that
Gavin

By: Stilgherrian

Stilgherrian — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:30:20 +0000

There’s a really bad pun in there somewhere about secret sauce and looking like a goose. If only I could blame Malcolm Turnbull somehow…

By: jg_rat

jg_rat — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:23:01 +0000

I suspect Google’s secret sauce is a bit off. Or their graph is upside down.

I look forward to the results of your further digging.

By: Stilgherrian

Stilgherrian — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:46:51 +0000

@ Paul Sofronoff: Well, all traffic statistics are estimates. Some are just better estimates than others.

Google says, on their website:

Trends for Websites combines information from a variety of sources, such as aggregated Google search data, aggregated opt-in anonymous Google Analytics data, opt-in consumer panel data, and other third-party market research. The data is aggregated over millions of users, powered by computer algorithms…

In other words, it’s some Google Secret Sauce.

I’m now hearing from people with deeper access to Nielsen data that includes unique daily browsers — supposedly the same thing Google Trends measures — and their numbers are very different.

There is more to this than meets the eye. I will continue digging.

By: peter5044

peter5044 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:43:03 +0000

I think your conclusion is correct - these days people are “more interested in news from their friends and family”.

I will spend more time reading and researching issues relevant to my networks than following what is on the front pages of the daily newspapers.

I also find the mainstream media excessively preoccupied with their own dynamic - especially the parliament house press gallery - when a story is running hot it seems every journalist is on the case and playing one-up-man-ship, as with the recent Rann sex scandal and the Turnbull insurrection - the bottom line is who cares!

As you say, “There’s only so many minutes in the day!”

By: Paul Sofronoff

Paul Sofronoff — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:06:19 +0000

Ummm. I too will be interested in Google’s reply - cause I think this is a data/calculation issue. Almost every site you type in there is supposedly going down. I know that my own company’s site continues to head up and is clearly attracting new users. Worth noting the fine print at the bottom of the GoogleTrends page however:

Google Trends provides insights into broad search patterns. Please keep in mind that several approximations are used when computing these results. All traffic statistics are estimates.

By: Anthony May

Anthony May — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:50:50 +0000

@mystikiel,
given that you’ve not registered for Facebook or Twitter (and casually watching others is no substitute), and the wording of your comment, i’m guessing you’ve come to your opinion on them via mainstream media (or via trusted others who’ve been so influenced). mainstream media, who can smell a threat from 5km away (if not actually do something about it) have not surprisingly been quick, consistent, and usually one-eyed in focussing on those aspects of social media - to the exclusion of all else.

and that would be a shame. i held similar views for some time. it wasn’t until i genuinely engaged with the social medium that i uncovered a great deal of utility, connectedness (with old/existing and new contacts alike, some of which are developing into face-to-face relationships) and fun.

By: Stilgherrian

Stilgherrian — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:27:30 +0000

This is just one set of numbers measuring one specific metric, but it does raise interesting questions. It’ll be interesting to see what Google has to say.

Andrew Hunter from NineMSN tweets:

Google Trends is smoking crack. Nielsen figures show audience growth during that period.

However Nielsen measures cumulative monthly reach whereas, as I point out, Google Trends measures daily unique visitors. Mr Hunter may have access to more detailed data, but nevertheless it’s quite possible for monthly cumulative figures to rise while daily figures plummet. It’s all about the frequency of the visits and — something which isn’t looked at here — the duration of those visits and the number of pages visited.

@Gavin Costello: I do think that people will increasingly spend time at sites where everything is organised around their needs than a specific type of information. Facebook lets you organise your social life, express yourself and stay connected, whereas a news site “just” brings you news.

Is this a post-portal portal world?

As Craig Wilson has pointed out:

Hold on… Australians spend more time online than consuming TV & Newspaper combined? More time online than Radio, Newspaper and Magazines combined?

So the big question for business is: are your marketing resources being allocated to the right media?

Why does the average business automatically resort to TV / Radio / Press when devising a marketing campaign?

There would seem to be an inherent conservatism in allocating the advertising budget.

@Anthony May: The plural of “anecdote” is not “data”, but I too spend a lot less time at actual news sites and a lot more time conversing with others about that news. And I don’t read newspapers or watch broadcast TV news at all — unless the paper’s lying around at the pub or the TV’s on at the gym.

I don’t think we need newspapers, but we do need journalism. The sliced tree can go the way of the dodo, as far as I’m concerned. But journalism I want.

By: Mystikiel

Mystikiel — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:24:06 +0000

I never would have believed that looking at other people’s photos, once an excruciating ritual endured grudgingly whenever someone had gone overseas, would prove so popular.

I’ve never registered for Facebook or Twitter, not out of any kind of principle but simply because receiving banal messages along the lines of “OMG I hate Mondayzz!!!” does not appeal to me.

This is deeply depressing stuff, really. If the overall trend is for media to devolve into fora for increasingly pointless and banal twaddle I’d hate to see where they could go from here.

By: Paul Williams

Paul Williams — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:13:30 +0000

Just having a thought - obviously using google reader or other rss readers would not count on those stats, so that would have an effect on the down ward trend. Actually that would also be a downward trend in advertising hits for the sites as well, so trend and analysis still valid in that respect… carry on…

By: Ian Bryant

Ian Bryant — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:34:15 +0000

Down and to the right. Down. And to the right.

I’d be very very surprised if they went to the left….

By: Anthony May

Anthony May — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:26:21 +0000

i think you might be right, Stil. since i jumped onboard Facebook a year ago, and Twitter a few months ago (having registered for both a year or two earlier but not really ‘invested’ in them ‘til then), and i’ve noticed a significant shift in where i spend my time online.

my network of friends know me, and I them, so an undeniable degree of relevancy is built-in to what they post online in social media. there’s only X number of hours a day for that, so for me this has meant less time given to systematically working through online news sites, and more time on sites that talk about the news, rather than simply report the news.

god i’d hate to be a newspaper right now… we need them, but not in their current form.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:22:05 +0000

I heard that Google trends is only accurate if the site is using Google analytics. Then it can follow the actual numbers quite closely. If using another tool, the estimation can be extremely different. See this post
http://dynamical.biz/blog/web-analytics/compare-google-trends-sites-analytics-18.html

I really think more work needs to go into tracking website usage. It’s all smoke and mirrors at the moment. When you add in proxies (multiple users using the same IP address) and the growth in secure browsers like Firefox that remove cookies by default, I don’t see how “Daily unique vistors” can really be tracked with any sort of confidence by a third party.

By: Gavin Costello

Gavin Costello — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:46:46 +0000

Hi Stil,
Are we seeing the ‘next’ great change in consumption online? From ‘Internet Portals’ - e.g. Yahoo to Trad News/Media Sites - e.g. News.com.au to now Collaborative - e.g. Facebook?
And with that in mind, why are the Advertisers not moving there as fast as they should? As I wrote just last night (http://wp.me/p1XYS-q) the model of funding ‘news’ need not change BUT the Delivery of that News must (assuming it hasn’t already). Advertisers still feel the need to advertise/market their service. Perhaps their Buyers have been talking to the wrong people all along?
Note http://bit.ly/8OQbgE for another position on this.
Gavin

By: gb96

gb96 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:42:48 +0000

The recent explosion of traffic to URL shorteners is further evidence of a rapid shift towards P2P media http://trends.google.com/websites?q=tinyurl.com%2C+bit.ly%2C+is.gd%2C+ow.ly&geo=all&date=ytd