First, I think the main link should probably be to the WSJ publication, instead of this Fortune one which offers even less detail and analysis. Second, I think

First, I think the main link should probably be to the WSJ publication, instead of this Fortune one which offers even less detail and analysis. Second, I think it's incredibly shameful to be so damned misleading as the WSJ was with their reporting. While I'm all for calling into question whether the number of visits Google has to the Whitehouse is appropriate or not, I think it's worth considering context and purpose of the visits when looking at the raw numbers. Not actually looking any further into this seems to be either some of the most spotty journalism from a major publication, or a blatant lie of omission used to push a narrative.