"Keep in mind that the list excludes adult sites, ad networks, domains that don't have publicly visible content or don't load properly, and certain Google sites."
I'm surprised that Yahoo is doing as well as they are.
It's easy to attribute the high scores of Live.com, Bing, and MSN to the power of web browser default settings, but Yahoo doesn't make a web browser so people have to consciously choose to go there.
For both Adobe and Macromedia the requirements for updating software can be used to explain a large portion of their traffic, 96% (I think that was the figure) of web browsers have Flash, the majority don't come with it installed and sometimes require updates, so it's not that out there to suggest maybe 90% of the internet visit their sites at least once... macromedia from out of date "update @ macromedia.com..." links maybe?
As an un-related side note, two of the sites I started have higher traffic (uniques and page views) that some of these sites (when the sites traffic is combined, as they cater to the same audience, I count them as a single site in stats anyway :p) -- awesome :-)
If this is the same list that showed up a few months ago, I had extracted some header information from all of the sites and placed it in a usable format for some analysis:
"Keep in mind that the list excludes adult sites, ad networks, domains that don't have publicly visible content or don't load properly, and certain Google sites."
This list may be less interesting / useful than you might think. It is tailored toward (non-adult) advertisers, and will be most relevant to them.
It's also wildly inaccurate, about 2 months ago Joel (I think? I always forget his name...) said that Stackoverflow does ~>60,000,000 page views per month, this claims 40,000,000 for Stackoverflow. I guess nobody should expect it to be accurate anyway, but this is an example of it. It also doesn't include a site I know of that doesn't a lot more than Stackoverflow...
If you know much about web stats (and comparing them from different providers) you'd realize that a 30% discrepancy is actually pretty accurate (sad but true!).
There are lots of reasons for this, not least the definition of a "Page View". Most publishers count a page view as anytime a page is served (because they are concerned about keeping the site alive, and load on it), whereas advertisers count it as everytime a page is seen by a human. Notably, this means advertisers exclude search engine bots from their page view counts, while publishers count them. (Although obviously this depends on the publisher and the context they are talking)
25 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 65.9 ms ] thread"Keep in mind that the list excludes adult sites, ad networks, domains that don't have publicly visible content or don't load properly, and certain Google sites."
It's easy to attribute the high scores of Live.com, Bing, and MSN to the power of web browser default settings, but Yahoo doesn't make a web browser so people have to consciously choose to go there.
Indeed, Yahoo still have a few holdouts around the world.
Adobe 13, Slideshare 192, Macromedia(!) 199.
And where's Reddit?
Also:
microsoft.com: Software apple.com: Mac OS
Oh really?
As an un-related side note, two of the sites I started have higher traffic (uniques and page views) that some of these sites (when the sites traffic is combined, as they cater to the same audience, I count them as a single site in stats anyway :p) -- awesome :-)
Too small (not enough user): Reddit: https://www.google.com/adplanner/planning/site_profile#siteD...
kukinews.com (site number 1000): https://www.google.com/adplanner/planning/site_profile#siteD...
And the answer to the inevitable "but reddit has Unique visitors (cookies)'s" is here: http://www.google.com/support/adplanner/bin/answer.py?answer...
http://openmymind.net/top1000data.txt
This list may be less interesting / useful than you might think. It is tailored toward (non-adult) advertisers, and will be most relevant to them.
There are lots of reasons for this, not least the definition of a "Page View". Most publishers count a page view as anytime a page is served (because they are concerned about keeping the site alive, and load on it), whereas advertisers count it as everytime a page is seen by a human. Notably, this means advertisers exclude search engine bots from their page view counts, while publishers count them. (Although obviously this depends on the publisher and the context they are talking)
It's like seeing a list of the so-called top selling books, and then learning they exclude the Bible, romance novels, westerns, etc. Too funny.
This data is 18 months old but is still directionally correct. http://gigaom.com/2009/07/16/yahoos-number-ones-so-much-more...