3 ms·
Anyone else find it creepy that they've removed all of their own websites (Google, YouTube, Gmail), but stil feel it's fair to publish this data about everyone
by spxdcz 16y ago
Anyone else find it creepy that they've removed all of their own websites (Google, YouTube, Gmail), but stil feel it's fair to publish this data about everyone else (including their competitors)? "Do No Evil". Hmm.
- pinksoda 16y agoMaybe they thought it was unfair to list their own sites.
- spxdcz 16y agoUnfair how? Facebook gets more traffic than YouTube. Why not let the public make up their mind? Or publish two versions? Or somehow otherwise make data available about THEIR sites that they've made available about everyone elses? Seems like a slightly pointless list otherwise... "Here are the top sites in the world!... except for the ones we've taken out."
- ugh 16y agoImagine, just for a moment, what would happen if the did release their data. People would criticize their decision either way …
- jonknee 16y agoUnfair because they have the exact figures for themselves where they don't for others. It would be kind of slimy to know you have X visitors and then guess for everyone else. If you were in the same vertical as a Google service and were behind them it would seem very unfair, more so if you knew your traffic was actually higher than estimated.
- nostrademons 16y agoIf that's it, I wonder why BlogSpot (Google owned) is #7 on the list, and Orkut (also Google owned) is a few places lower. I'm guessing that they filtered them out because they aren't of interest to the intended audience of this list (display advertisers). Only Google runs ads on Google search, and they aren't display ads.