Re: Statistics for search engine market shares

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 10:41:55 GMT, "Luigi Donatello Asero"
<jaggillarfotboll (AT) telia (DOT) com> wrote:

"Mikkel Møldrup-Lakjer" <mikkel (AT) fabel (DOT) dk> skrev i meddelandet
news:42a6c9d6$0$18636$14726298 (AT) news (DOT) sunsite.dk...
"SEO Dave" <seodave (AT) search-engine-optimization-services (DOT) co.uk> skrev i
en meddelelse news:v4gda1tbuveatpmt7kvt2k6mmup5kp9g3j (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
In Denmark Google seems to be extremely dominant among the general
public, let's assume this is so, but how can I know if this is also true
in France, the UK and Germany?


What do you base your asssumption on that Google is extremely dominant?
Do you have any figures about the number of visits Google, Yahoo and
Altavista get, for example?

OK then, use Neilson, the ratings people.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:34:57 +0200, "Mikkel Møldrup-Lakjer"
<mikkel (AT) fabel (DOT) dk> wrote:

"SEO Dave" <seodave (AT) search-engine-optimization-services (DOT) co.uk> skrev i
en meddelelse news:v4gda1tbuveatpmt7kvt2k6mmup5kp9g3j (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

Google and the search engines that use Googles database have far more
users than all the others put together. So if you are doing well in
Google you tend to do well in all of Google (all the engines using
their database) and this can be a considerable number of visitors.
The other search engines in comparison tend to supply a trickle of
traffic relative to Googles.

That Google is very dominant is probably true, but I would like to see
some figures that say it is so.

It would of course be faulty logic to make conclusions from stats of
pages that are not listed highly in MSN but have high numbers in the
Google SERPs. That would be a way of begging the question.

In Denmark Google seems to be extremely dominant among the general
public, let's assume this is so, but how can I know if this is also true
in France, the UK and Germany?

Mikkel

Use Neilson. Or ask us.

BB

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 20:13:19 +0200, "Mikkel Møldrup-Lakjer"
<mikkel (AT) fabel (DOT) dk> wrote:

"Victoria Clare" <victoria (AT) markpoles (DOT) org.uk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:Xns966FB55133749victoriamarkpolesorg (AT) 217 (DOT) 158.240.23...

Those figures could come from 3 places: [snip]

I am a bit dubious about it because: [snip]

Those are good points, thank you for indicating potential sources, although
you express many of the same doubts that I have.

I looked at this article:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Is-MS...sing-962.shtml
with stats from Nielsen. The war is on...

Mikkel

Not if Google will be indexing a whole lot more pages than the other
engines with their sitemap XML tool. Ther war is over till the others
respond to that.

BB

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

Mikkel Møldrup-Lakjer wrote:

That Google is very dominant is probably true, but I would like to see
some figures that say it is so.

It would of course be faulty logic to make conclusions from stats of
pages that are not listed highly in MSN but have high numbers in the
Google SERPs. That would be a way of begging the question.

One of my sites is better ranked in Yahoo! and MSN Search for some
important keywords but most of my traffic still comes through Google. I
tend to agree with Dave.

If it is as expense of Google you are right. But if you are able to get
higher in other SE not loosing your SERPs in Google I can't see a single
reason to not to try.

Effort compared to the traffic they can deliver would be one big reason.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 12:15:35 +0200, SEO Dave
<seodave (AT) search-engine-optimization-services (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

The way I see it if you see 90% visitors coming from Google you should
concentrate on optimization for other search engines, as you already
have your Google share Probably to have 9% more you will have to
put same effor as for the first 90%

That's generally a very bad idea in my experience.

Google and the search engines that use Googles database have far more
users than all the others put together. So if you are doing well in
Google you tend to do well in all of Google (all the engines using
their database) and this can be a considerable number of visitors.

Have you read about Bourbon update at WMW? Seems that relying on Google
was killing for many websmasters that have their total traffic cut off
in a blink. Diversification, diversification, diversification...

I just hope nobody on alt.internet.search-engines was hit...

No, I am wrong, I was hit (not really strong, as I didn't started yet)
so my hope is vague.

Anybody here seeing effects of Bourbon, or is it me only?

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com - chemical calculators for labs and education
BATE - Base Acid Titration and Equilibria
program for pH calculations
CASC - Concentration and Solution Calculator
program for solution preparation and concentration conversions

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:51:11 +0200, Borek
<borek (AT) parts (DOT) bpp.to.com.remove.pl> wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 12:15:35 +0200, SEO Dave
seodave (AT) search-engine-optimizat...es (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

The way I see it if you see 90% visitors coming from Google you should
concentrate on optimization for other search engines, as you already
have your Google share Probably to have 9% more you will have to
put same effor as for the first 90%

That's generally a very bad idea in my experience.

Google and the search engines that use Googles database have far more
users than all the others put together. So if you are doing well in
Google you tend to do well in all of Google (all the engines using
their database) and this can be a considerable number of visitors.

Have you read about Bourbon update at WMW? Seems that relying on Google
was killing for many websmasters that have their total traffic cut off
in a blink. Diversification, diversification, diversification...

I just hope nobody on alt.internet.search-engines was hit...

No, I am wrong, I was hit (not really strong, as I didn't started yet)
so my hope is vague.

Anybody here seeing effects of Bourbon, or is it me only?

Best,
Borek

Yes my positions have in some cases measurably improved. Also some
spam has gone.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:23:23 +0200, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

No, I am wrong, I was hit (not really strong, as I didn't started yet)
so my hope is vague.

Anybody here seeing effects of Bourbon, or is it me only?

Yes my positions have in some cases measurably improved. Also some
spam has gone.

Lucky you

I can see on my site all symptoms mentioned by others. As a part
of making my site attractive I put some physicochemical data (rarely
published) on two of my pages. Google traffic for these disspeared.
To my best knowledge some of these information is not published
anywhere else on the web. It is not to be found using Google now.
Some Yahoo and MSN visitors. BUT: links to my site appear above my
site in SR.

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com - chemical calculators for labs and education
BATE - Base Acid Titration and Equilibria
program for pH calculations
CASC - Concentration and Solution Calculator
program for solution preparation and concentration conversions

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:51:11 +0200, Borek
<borek (AT) parts (DOT) bpp.to.com.remove.pl> wrote:

Google and the search engines that use Googles database have far more
users than all the others put together. So if you are doing well in
Google you tend to do well in all of Google (all the engines using
their database) and this can be a considerable number of visitors.

Have you read about Bourbon update at WMW? Seems that relying on Google
was killing for many websmasters that have their total traffic cut off
in a blink. Diversification, diversification, diversification...

With each big change at Google there will be big winners and big
losers, that's life relying on search engines. If you don't plan for
this you don't have a good business plan.

I started with PPC traffic, now it's all organic traffic (mostly
Google). If all my sites went down in Google and Yahoo (Yahoo give a
significant amount of traffic) PPC is still available and a sure
thing.

In some respect Google is a free lunch ticket, you can't expect to
always have that free ride. Although in my case 99% of my sites have
Google Adsense ads on them and so Google makes quite a bit of cash
thanks to my stuff, so it could be argued it's not free traffic. And
no I don't think having Adsense ads makes any difference.

I just hope nobody on alt.internet.search-engines was hit...

All my older sites (over 9 months old) are doing better (much better
in many cases), newish ones are moving along as expected with a few
pleasant surprises (the one in the sig is doing better than expected
based on it's age). All my long term clients sites are doing better as
well, for example one of my clients was just at the stage where
everything comes together for Google SERPs and their traffic has shot
up from just under 300 visitors a day in May to just under 3,000
visitors a day in June.

No, I am wrong, I was hit (not really strong, as I didn't started yet)
so my hope is vague.

Anybody here seeing effects of Bourbon, or is it me only?

I'm seeing the positive side, though other than the big Florida update
years ago (my first ever site was banned that update :-)) now either I
come out unchanged or better with big changes at Google.

I like Google :-)

Best,
Borek

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/