If Google is not building a browser, then why do they have .2% of the traffic from their browser going to my site? And does your browser share statistic tell you anything about the intelligence of your readership?
Michael Russell posted a blog entry on the “Slashdot Weenie” effect yesterday. In the post he generalized Slashdot readers and posters down to a few narrowily defined stereotypes. Although much of his post was satire tongue and cheek type stuff, I thought one comment made deserved additional examination:
Per Russell: “On Tuesday of last week, I posted a reply (on Slashdot) to a post about Firefox’s goal to get 10% of the browser market. I posted a URL and the browser stats for that URL.
During the next day, we received over 300 visitors linked from Slashdot, trying to skew our browser stats towards Firefox or Opera or Konquerer or Lynx or whatever alternative browser was out there. (Firefox never did make 10%.) Which means that for this post, about 300 people who read the comments decided to follow the link, either to find out what the site was, or to skew the results. Regardless, that was it.”
So I decided to check my browser results and have always been surprised to see a much larger than 10% market share for Firefox. My first reaction was a “what the hey?! Google 4.X has .2% of my browser traffic? This is new.
As to Firefox, sure enough Firefox makes up 20% of my browser market share. Although I’ve had a few articles published on Slashdot I would not categorize my readership as “exclusively” Slashdot. In fact I’ve been posted much more over at The Green Button, a site dedicated to Microsoft’s new Media Center Edition software. I think that Michael’s comment seems to imply that there was some sort of conspiracy on the part of juvenille and zealous Slashdotters to “skew” his results.
No, I think that as a whole Slashdot visitors probably do use Firefox more than the average user and for good reason. Slashdot users are probably, generally speaking, more technically literate than other audiences and even more significantly, it’s a significantly better browser.
It’s not even close. Those who know technology and do not have any ties to Microsoft know this and even those who do work for and have ties with Microsoft know this deep down. They can’t admit it but that’s ok, the market will do it for them. It’s like someone saying that VHS is better than DVD or that vinyl is better than CD. Sure the guy who spent 15 years of his life between 1970 and 1985 collecting 9,000 vinyl LPs is going to say this. How can he not? To admit otherwise would be to mock his 15 years of wasted time. I’ve heard it before. Uh, the warmth of the sound of vinyl is just not the same as a CD. Yeah right. Geez guys, I know Firefox is a better browser but I’d really miss my morning routine of running Spybot and Adaware every day. They’ve become such good friends, they’re almost like family. Yeah right.
So let me ask you a question. What does your browser share statistic look like? I’ll give you a tip, the higher the percentage of non IE browser users, the more technically literate your readership. And do you work for Microsoft but secretly use Firefox at home? If you do drop an anonymous comment to this post.
One thing does skew the browser results though and that is an affiliation with Microsoft and thus high Microsoft readership. I’d imagine for instance that someone like Robert Scoble would have a high IE browser share.
Just some thoughts.
Others who have noticed the Google browser showing up as well: David Mobley, Mark Engle