

Losing To The Social Web: Visualized - matclayton
http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/loosing-to-the-social-web-visualized/

======
monos
the general trend is probably correct - social websites are gaining moment.
still i don't like these graphs.

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

~~~
microcentury
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.

~~~
monos
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...](http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/wp-
content/uploads/2009/10/Brands-Trending-Down.gif)

------
dspeyer
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.

------
varjag
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

~~~
gcb
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.

------
microcentury
The traffic lost by the brand sites may not be the same traffic gained by the
social networks.

~~~
maudineormsby
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.

