So what this article is really saying is that sites (portals) like Yahoo and MSN don't get much organic G traffic, but they do get some social traffic.

So they have bad organic traffic sources, how does that relate to me? Just more traffic for us I guess... =)

I keep hearing the statement (mostly from Facebook execs) that we are moving towards a world where folks are no longer going to search the web for information, but rely on content from friends and family... I just don't see it. Everyone I know still uses Google to find things... got a question, you hear someone say "Google it". They don't say, Facebook it and see what your friends think of it... Which by the way would probably lead to 4-5 of your friends Googling it just so they answer your query.... Which I guess means Google traffic will continue to climb... ;-)

So what this article is really saying is that sites (portals) like Yahoo and MSN don't get much organic G traffic, but they do get some social traffic.

Actually, it says that Facebook has PASSED Google to become the top source for portals. The distinction is important because it indicates a shift, even if the absolute numbers aren't impressive.

Everyone I know still uses Google to find things

I agree that search engines will always have a place. But what happens when people don't have to leave their favorite website (increasingly, Facebook) to use a search engine? I think you'll see the heavy Facebook users migrate to Bing if the MS/FB collaboration includes a full WWW search engine right on Facebook. This alone could put a good dent in Google's share of the search market.

Google sends lots of traffic. Facebook sends more.

For years, Web content creators had to worry whether they had the proper level of search-engine optimization to make sure search engines listed them among the top results. Now, they have to consider (...) social-media optimization.

I've been saying this on WebmasterWorld for quite some time: you have to do SEO for Facebook. And that changes SEO: no meta-tags in FB, no H1 headings, no automated-SEO for 100,000 product pages.

And add in yesterday's news: FB is about to launch Titan, a complete email solution. FB will become the platform for talking with your friends and community.

I agree that people are always saying "Google It" - they used to say "I got it on ebey". Things change.

And Google is great for finding a specific thing.

But it is not good for answering general questions - like what is the best DVD player, or which are the biggest cities int eh USA or should I leave my boyfriend.

There is a need for that kind of service - Yahoo answers and Wikepedia are a start.

This will be shortlived!

It wont be long before all the large websites on the internet have facebook-like features.

It feels like openid will take off in a big way soon and I think this will really help smaller websites compete with the likes of facebook in each vertical, due to the fact that it will be easier to keep logged into many websites at once.

Then it will be back to business as usual :)

For those who dismiss this story as unimportant, I invite you to look at the trend in Unique and Visits for Facebook and Google.

I think you will be surprised. Remind again how to buy stock in FB? :)

December 2009 - Unique Visitors:

1) Facebook: 132,130,132
2) Google: 146,705,164

December 2009 - Total Visits:

1) Facebook: 2,712,334,571
2) Google: 2,686,747,057

Yearly Change

1) Facebook: +210.05%
2) Google: +33.59%

Stats Source: [siteanalytics.compete.com...]


QUESTION: How many of you or your friends check Google the first thing in the morning and spend time (stickiness) on the Google website? However, Facebook is now the first thing most people check.

I know that online marketers should spend more time working on social media strategies for sites that they look after, but I didn't think it was that important.

How many links have you clicked on that a friend has added into their Facebook status? Not that many I guess. Maybe Yahoo and MSN need to focus more strongly on their own SEO?

I see it from watching my wife post and her responses. I don't have much time for Facebook but my wife sure does and I see her more and more using it to find things. It has become her search engine so to speak. I have no doubt Google is seeing the trend and stepping into the picture to keep from falling behind.

How many of you or your friends check Google the first thing in the morning and spend time (stickiness) on the Google website? However, Facebook is now the first thing most people check.

How True> In my wife's case the last thing before bed.

[edited by: bwnbwn at 9:33 pm (utc) on Feb 15, 2010]

Remember those who couldn't see why the Russians were interested in facebook [webmasterworld.com] :) and considered the 200 million ..money wasted .

How many links have you clicked on that a friend has added into their Facebook status? Not that many I guess.

I do frequently - I know a few of my friends outside of the online (business) world also go to Facebook for recommendations etc... I guess it also depends who is on your friends list ;)

People have been waiting for the Facebook bubble to burst - I have this growing feeling it wont! Other social sites will come along and prosper, but I think Facebook might be around for a while longer.

are there any statistics from compete.com to show usage stats comparing facebook to google?

are visitor statistics alone a great measure of actual usage/value?

How much information starts out on Google and ends up on facebook?

These are the questions I am interested to answer before praising the success of facebook, and i havent seen any info that suggests that facebook is a leader in these areas

I agree Facebook helps you find things, but you probably wherent looking for them in the first place.

Mack.

This quote was from the other thread spliced into this.

Yeah, I wish search was simply search, but those of you who aren't on FB are in the minority of 'avid Internet users'

Minority? What?

Since when were FB users the the MOST avid of Internet users?

Social networking sites, soap programmes, constant interferring connections, people pretending to talk to you with a mobile phone in their face...people with no self-motivation who try to justify everything through celebrity culture and who do not mind making such media puppets even more wealthy...give me a break!

Since when were FB users the the MOST avid of Internet users?

That's not what the quote says. I even tried to clarify it so I wouldn't get flamed out, but that's how things go here... 400,000,000 active users IMO means it's used in a majority of some type. My apologies if I mis-stated or something previously.

What I meant (and what the quote says when read correctly) is IMO most of the avid Internet users are on FB in some way.

Not all traffic is created equal.

In fact I don't even want the looky-loo type of visitor costing me money by clicking just to have a look. An interested buyer who's taking the time to search for something on the other hand, yes please.

[edited by: JS_Harris at 6:23 am (utc) on Feb 16, 2010]

I'll take anyone you don't want, because word-of-mouth (FaceBook, Text Message, Personal Recommendation) IMO is and will continue to be an all-time-best-seller, and whether someone buys something or not on their visit or whether they are just browsing or even doing some type of research for curiosity or future use, they are much more likely IMO to say something to someone about the site or the product(s) offered if they've actually visited. If they don't ever visit the site, then IMO they will not ever generate any traffic for you from the people they know who are interested in the product(s) or service(s)...

HuskyPup, I guess the statement you quoted was trying to say FB users are NOT avid internet users.

I have a contingency plan. It's back to mIRC and the bulletin boards for me. No glamor, no glitz and thank god no celebrities and major corporations.

I used to run a BBS on my old PC 386 and before that on my Commodore 64... I will be happy to load them up again if things get to that;) One thing I do hate is the mass advertising which corporations bring to the computer world.

But it is not good for answering general questions - like what is the best DVD player, or which are the biggest cities int eh USA or should I leave my boyfriend.

We have had general interest and specific theme forums (like this one) for years, where people could ask those questions. You can still search google and find all the answers to your questions. But the operators or FB, Twitter, and other social sites want you to believe that the best way is to use their sites so you can reach the entire online world in one single transmission. Sounds like the lazy man's approach.. let's just ask the world instead of doing a little digging.

But the operators or FB, Twitter, and other social sites want you to believe that the best way is to use their sites so you can reach the entire online world in one single transmission. Sounds like the lazy man's approach.. let's just ask the world instead of doing a little digging.

I dont agree with this statement - Facebook is not 'asking the world' its asking your own personally vetted friends list.

Maybe it comes down to who you have on your friends list and if you trust their answers - if not them maybe look for new friends ;)

I think people are overlooking the other "side" of the story. Try rewriting the headline in the following (equivalent) way:

• Google Driving Fewer Online Users To Major Portals Than Facebook
  

and ask yourself - why could that be? Could it be that Google's initiatives since about 18 months ago are increasingly focused on NOT driving traffic ANYWHERE and making sure the traffic stays on Google.com?

Not at me, here my stats since 1997

Compared to Facebook and Twitter, even wikipedia is a great source of traffic

3038933 www.google.de
913510 www.google.com
349866 www.google.at
191225 www.google.ca
164104 www.google.ch
77212 en.wikipedia.org
9444 de.wikipedia.org
4484 it.wikipedia.org
1404 ja.wikipedia.org
761 es.wikipedia.org
227 id.wikipedia.org
219 fr.wikipedia.org
215 www.facebook.com
146 sv.wikipedia.org
132 twitter.com
116 ar.wikipedia.org
113 pl.wikipedia.org
67 en.m.wikipedia.org
48 cs.wikipedia.org
44 zh.wikipedia.org
20 el.wikipedia.org
10 no.wikipedia.org
10 static.wikipedia.org
9 tr.wikipedia.org
6 mobile.wikipedia.org
5 de.m.wikipedia.org
5 ml.wikipedia.org
2 nl.wikipedia.org
2 pam.wikipedia.org

the importance of this news depends on how you monetize your sites.

if you run ecommerce/transactional site(s), it's almost irrelevant. when was the last time your analytics showed a sale coming from Facebook or Twitter?

if you run content site(s) and make money off of ad impressions or ad clicks, Facebook is a great way to drive traffic and get more ad impressions. the quality of your traffic also doesn't matter as much as it does for transactional sites.

I have said it before
I run with Google Adwords for 3 months and got hardly any hits and no sales.
I ran with Facebook ads and got regular hits and a few sales.

The thing is my product is unknown and needs a pic of it to shows users that it exists.

Yet if you Google my product we are at the top.

Maybe it comes down to who you have on your friends list and if you trust their answers - if not them maybe look for new friends ;)

I don't use FB personally, but if I did I would probably ask some quesitons there I guess. What I mean is that when I want to find information, I wouldn't rely on posting a question on FB or Twitter, I find it faster to Google it. In order for me to be able to get timely or good information from FB or Twitter when I have a problem, I would imagine I need a huge following on those services so that when I ask a question all these people will provide input. Seems a long way to go for a solution versus just doing a specific Google search on what you are looking for.

A referral from Google (or any search engine) has intent behind it. Not so much from social media sites like FB.

What I mean is that when I want to find information, I wouldn't rely on posting a question on FB or Twitter, I find it faster to Google it.

I understand what you mean, and still do search some, but there was a time when I searched for designers for sites because I didn't have time to design my own sites, and I did research for quite a while... What I didn't know at the time is someone I went to HS with is a professional web designer now. No more searching for a designer again, because if they don't have time, they will be able to recommend someone who does.

Where am I going to eat when I go out of town? I don't need to search or look at all the pretty ads for quite a few places. I've seen reviews from all over the place on FB...

To me the thing FB does is provides personal recommendations for services, etc. in advance of needing them. I don't expect to post on FB and get an immediate answer for something, but there are also quite a few things I don't really need to search for any more, because someone has already provided the answer, so all I have to do is scroll back and I get a personal recommendation from someone for a service.

Cable, Dish or DirecTV? I've seen people post which they like better and what they like about each based on real life experience. I don't even need to ask, someone already did for me... They even managed to get Internet connection speed and package deals pointed out. Why would I use Google when I'll get answers from people I don't know anything about or an Ad from each provider rather than just reading what people I know and/or they know have say?

I see posts about what browsers do and don't do and what people like about their new computer or operating system all the time. I don't need to look to do some comparison shopping, because I have a friend or friend of a friend who's already done some, so I don't need to search to find all the answers any more I just need to see what they say and then go to the sites of the brand I'm considering and double check the information...

Again, IMO it's not about posting and getting the information right now, but already having access to the information about a site, product or service from someone you know is not a company rep. or whatever. I can usually find feedback from real people I know (or a friend knows) who actually use whatever it is (site, product, service) I'm interested in without having to search and trying to decide if I trust the resource provided by Searching and finding some random site in the results. (Of course on a sarcastic note: TBPR really helps in the searching situations, because knowing whether Google's algo thinks a page is important or not really helps me make my decisions. I mean if it's got a TBPR of 8 the references and information must be really good, right? LOL)

A referral from Google (or any search engine) has intent behind it. Not so much from social media sites like FB.

I would have agreed with you on this three months ago - but having just finished an ad campaign on Facebook for a client, the results we had I found to be exceptionally good - I wouldn't say this is the rule for all ad campaigns on Facebook but its certainly encouraging.

I am not sure this is important or very relevant. Not sure how to take this either. It seems to me that FB is basically becoming a interactive bookmark:

A big part of the Facebook experience is how friends and family share Web links to interesting news stories, photos, videos and Internet sites.

This traffic can't be worth that much: it's just shared news really.