I'm not sure what your central statement is here. Are you criticizing the technorati for not explicitly mentioning different types of traffic in relation to th

I'm not sure what your central statement is here. Are you criticizing the technorati for not explicitly mentioning different types of traffic in relation to their value, rather than just their popularity? That info isn't usually available to outsiders, and it is difficult to convey in a concise manner (i.e., no more than a sentence in an article). Are you criticizing people who compare Google and Facebook? Beyond the fact that they (along with Apple) are 2 of the highest technology companies, with the best public ratings, they are also 2 sites that have the biggest impact on the internet. Also, they are currently lining up to fight for traffic at the point of purchase (which causes different values for different types of traffic, point 1 above). They can be framed as philosophically different approaches to the same problem: how do you get people to buy something on the internet? Even their approaches are fundamentally different: algorithmic versus social graph. It would seem to make sense to compare those two companies (although I agree, we probably aren't going to see one "beat" the other, because there is room for both of them). Also, what's with the URL and signature on your post? The HN comments guidelines state "Please don't sign comments, especially with your url. They're already signed with your username. If other users want to learn more about you, they can click on it to see your profile."