4 ms·

NetMarketShare's stats are more accurate than any of the others listed there. The mere fact that W3Counter, StatCounter, and Wikimedia are listed there shows t

NetMarketShare's stats are more accurate than any of the others listed there. The mere fact that W3Counter, StatCounter, and Wikimedia are listed there shows that whoever compiled it has no understanding of global web stats. Chrome is only the dominant browser in two countries and elsewhere only dominant amongst a specific subset of demographics.

oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
If that's true, maybe you could correct the Wikipedia article? Honestly, I'll hold my hands up: I don't have an in-depth understanding of how each of those stats companies gathers their data and, having heard widely-reported statements about Chrome exceeding IE's market share, my natural instinct was to accept the majority's figures over the minority. If I - and, no doubt, many others - are being misled, it would be nice to correct our misconceptions.
- JohnTHaller 13y ago
  I gave up editing Wikipedia years ago after someone kept subtly vandalizing a page for one of my big websites and removing mentions of it on other pages which had been placed organically by multiple editors in favor of a competitor's site in another country operating illegally. To the point that demonstrably wrong information was in wikipedia and demonstrably correct information was removed. This went on for months and there wasn't a thing I could do about it, so I just stopped bothering. Essentially, most pages wind up self-selecting among people with similar viewpoints or people who feel like sticking it out the longest in edit wars. As far as the wikipedia stats links, jeswin correctly points out why the other measures are inferior (and useless when talking about overall web usage) above. You're free to update the page to reflect this, but I think I've had enough of wikipedia egos and edit wars to last a lifetime.
mtgx 13y ago
They are not "more accurate". Just different. They measure 2 different things. I think pretty much any website owner can tell you their stats look a lot closer to what StatCounter says than what Net Apps says, though.
acdha 13y ago
> NetMarketShare's stats are more accurate than any of the others listed there On every site I've monitored (none of which cater to technical users, one of which is aggressively non-US-centric), NetMarketShare's stats wildly inflate IE's market-share, particularly internationally. That's not to say that they're fictitious but rather that they reflect a certain viewpoint and methodology which is only relevant for a few customers. I've found Akamai's numbers to track very closely with what I measure: http://www.akamai.com/html/io/io_dataset.html http://www.akamai.com/html/io/io_dataset.html They don't publish technical details about their methodology but I suspect you're seeing a sampling bias: NetMarketShare is used by a modest number of large companies, almost exclusively North American and mostly related to media, and their stats appear to depend on an embedded JavaScript tracker: http://netmarketshare.com/faq.aspx#Methodology http://netmarketshare.com/faq.aspx#Methodology There are some apparent technical botches: they didn't appear to use a CDN at all — when I last traced counter.hitslink.com in the spring everything went to Los Angeles and was correspondingly slower globally but it now[1] appears that they might be using CloudFront — or set Cache-Control headers, so if you're outside North America or on a slow connection you were going to see a higher rate of their JS failing to load and for the tracker ping back not to load by the time the user navigates to a new page: http://redbot.org/?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fcounter.hitslink.com%2Ftrack.js http://redbot.org/?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fcounter.hitslink.com%2Ft... (In contrast, the Akamai numbers reflect direct HTTP traffic for sites like microsoft.com, iTunes, etc. so they avoid the issues related to JS trackers but do require care to filter robots which spoof a browser UA) They also listed some major sites like CNN or Mozilla which didn't use that JS bug so they either have an unadvertised bulk log delivery service or are portraying smaller side sites as representative of the massive high-traffic main sites. The real question is the way they interpret the data, and in particular the weighting scheme. Because “everyone knows” Internet Explorer is common in China, they weight the numbers to represent this but you're simply hoping their usage of the CIA Internet Traffic by Country report is accurate: http://www.netmarketshare.com/faq.aspx#Country http://www.netmarketshare.com/faq.aspx#Country The numbers I can measure are very close to Akamai, showing Chrome tied with IE even in China: http://www.akamai.com/html/io/io_dataset_v2.html#stat=browser&top=5&type=pie&start=20131006&end=20131105&geocode=47 http://www.akamai.com/html/io/io_dataset_v2.html#stat=browse... 1. http://www.webpagetest.org/result/131107_2C_PZK/1/details/ http://www.webpagetest.org/result/131107_2C_PZK/1/details/

oneeyedpigeon 13y ago

If that's true, maybe you could correct the Wikipedia article? Honestly, I'll hold my hands up: I don't have an in-depth understanding of how each of those stats companies gathers their data and, having heard widely-reported statements about Chrome exceeding IE's market share, my natural instinct was to accept the majority's figures over the minority. If I - and, no doubt, many others - are being misled, it would be nice to correct our misconceptions.

JohnTHaller 13y ago
I gave up editing Wikipedia years ago after someone kept subtly vandalizing a page for one of my big websites and removing mentions of it on other pages which had been placed organically by multiple editors in favor of a competitor's site in another country operating illegally. To the point that demonstrably wrong information was in wikipedia and demonstrably correct information was removed. This went on for months and there wasn't a thing I could do about it, so I just stopped bothering. Essentially, most pages wind up self-selecting among people with similar viewpoints or people who feel like sticking it out the longest in edit wars. As far as the wikipedia stats links, jeswin correctly points out why the other measures are inferior (and useless when talking about overall web usage) above. You're free to update the page to reflect this, but I think I've had enough of wikipedia egos and edit wars to last a lifetime.

mtgx 13y ago

They are not "more accurate". Just different. They measure 2 different things. I think pretty much any website owner can tell you their stats look a lot closer to what StatCounter says than what Net Apps says, though.

acdha 13y ago

> NetMarketShare's stats are more accurate than any of the others listed there On every site I've monitored (none of which cater to technical users, one of which is aggressively non-US-centric), NetMarketShare's stats wildly inflate IE's market-share, particularly internationally. That's not to say that they're fictitious but rather that they reflect a certain viewpoint and methodology which is only relevant for a few customers. I've found Akamai's numbers to track very closely with what I measure: http://www.akamai.com/html/io/io_dataset.html http://www.akamai.com/html/io/io_dataset.html They don't publish technical details about their methodology but I suspect you're seeing a sampling bias: NetMarketShare is used by a modest number of large companies, almost exclusively North American and mostly related to media, and their stats appear to depend on an embedded JavaScript tracker: http://netmarketshare.com/faq.aspx#Methodology http://netmarketshare.com/faq.aspx#Methodology There are some apparent technical botches: they didn't appear to use a CDN at all — when I last traced counter.hitslink.com in the spring everything went to Los Angeles and was correspondingly slower globally but it now[1] appears that they might be using CloudFront — or set Cache-Control headers, so if you're outside North America or on a slow connection you were going to see a higher rate of their JS failing to load and for the tracker ping back not to load by the time the user navigates to a new page: http://redbot.org/?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fcounter.hitslink.com%2Ftrack.js http://redbot.org/?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fcounter.hitslink.com%2Ft... (In contrast, the Akamai numbers reflect direct HTTP traffic for sites like microsoft.com, iTunes, etc. so they avoid the issues related to JS trackers but do require care to filter robots which spoof a browser UA) They also listed some major sites like CNN or Mozilla which didn't use that JS bug so they either have an unadvertised bulk log delivery service or are portraying smaller side sites as representative of the massive high-traffic main sites. The real question is the way they interpret the data, and in particular the weighting scheme. Because “everyone knows” Internet Explorer is common in China, they weight the numbers to represent this but you're simply hoping their usage of the CIA Internet Traffic by Country report is accurate: http://www.netmarketshare.com/faq.aspx#Country http://www.netmarketshare.com/faq.aspx#Country The numbers I can measure are very close to Akamai, showing Chrome tied with IE even in China: http://www.akamai.com/html/io/io_dataset_v2.html#stat=browser&top=5&type=pie&start=20131006&end=20131105&geocode=47 http://www.akamai.com/html/io/io_dataset_v2.html#stat=browse... 1. http://www.webpagetest.org/result/131107_2C_PZK/1/details/ http://www.webpagetest.org/result/131107_2C_PZK/1/details/