3 ms·
All these top million lists are very good at telling you the top most 10K-50K sites on the web. After that, you're going into 'crapshoot' land, where the 500,00
by altdataseller 4y ago
All these top million lists are very good at telling you the top most 10K-50K sites on the web. After that, you're going into 'crapshoot' land, where the 500,000th most popular site is very likely to be a site that got some traffic a long time ago, but now isn't even up.
So I would take this data with a grain of salt. You're better off just analyzing the top 100K sites on these lists.
- TuringNYC 4y agoHow are people determining the "top" sites? We do some of this at work and we pay SimilarWeb a giant sum of money, are people able to find site traffic in inexpensive ways which allow for these analyses?
- giantrobot 4y ago> where the 500,000th most popular site is very likely to be a site that got some traffic a long time ago, but now isn't even up. That's literally the phenomenon the article is describing.
- altdataseller 4y agoOk let me reword it differently: the 500,000th most popular site on these lists most likely isnt the 500,000th most visited and it might not even be in the top 5 million. These data sources are so bad at capturing popularity after 50k sites or so simply because they dont have enough data
- iruoy 4y agoI haven't tested this, but the "Cisco Umbrella 1 Million" is generated daily from DNS request made to the Cisco Umbrella DNS service. That seems to be a very good and recent dataset. It does count more than just visiting websites though. If all Windows computers query the IP of microsoft.com once a day that'll move them up quite a bit. And things in their top 10 like googleapis.com and doubleclick.net are obviously not visited directly. So while it is quite a reliable and recent dataset, it is not a good test of popularity.