2 ms·
The first link doesn't seem quite conclusive (see the part at the bottom), and also doesn't give evidence that Google's widgets are to blame. The flattening of
by SamBam 6y ago
The first link doesn't seem quite conclusive (see the part at the bottom), and also doesn't give evidence that Google's widgets are to blame.
The flattening of users could also be due to a general internet-wide reduction in long-form (or even medium-form) non-fiction reading. How are page views for The New York Times?
Seems like it should be simple to A/B test, though. Obviously Google could do it themselves by randomly taking away the widget, but would could also see whether referrals from non-Google search engines (though they are themselves a tiny percentage) continue to increase while Google remains flat.
- tyingq 6y agoEdit: Removed bad "simple english graph", thanks. Though the regular english wikipedia traffic is flat from 2016-present. As for NYT, is there a better proxy to compare to? There's no public pageview stats and they have a paywall.
- magicalist 6y agoThat first graph is Simple English, not English, and is in millions, not billions. They also explicitly call out the methodology change in 2015...