4 ms·
Tencent, Baidu? This seems to ignore obvious big players.
by zhte415 12y ago
Tencent, Baidu? This seems to ignore obvious big players.
- wcchandler 12y agoLooks like they used comscore for the bulk of their sources -- which only looked at US traffic to "web properties."
- listic 12y ago> "web properties." Is it a set of web sites? Looks likely, e.g. Microsoft has aggregated 'Microsoft' and 'MSN' for a boost in overall rating, in 1999.
- listic 12y agoThough probably most exhaustive (which other metric will measure Web stats from Feb. 1996 on?) it looks _very_ US-centric in my view. While US=World in terms on internet coverage early on, it is certainly not true now, and will become ever more untrue in the future. This list certainly ignores _many_ 'elefants in the room'; those who try to rely solely on it for high-level overview of development of the internet, will have a distorted view. I won't bother listing the others because my view is biased, too, and I'll obviously won't think of many. Just FYI: Russian Liveinternet counter, unique daily visitors: http://www.liveinternet.ru/rating/index.html?lang=en http://www.liveinternet.ru/rating/index.html?lang=en
- wuliwong 12y agoElephant #1 is that google.com is clearly #1 and facebook.com is #2. No way yahoo.com is above them in 2013.
- jjfine 12y agoFantasy football?
- mmanfrin 12y agoIt's not google.com, facebook.com, and yahoo.com; it's Google, Facebook, and Yahoo. The companies have many different properties.
- dmix 12y agoThis comment will have to be repeated on this thread about 50x before people realize this. But I guess you could blame ComScore or Washington Post for not making it obvious.