November 30, 2009 5:35 AM
- Text
Search Engine Numbers Are Immensely Deceptive
(MoneyWatch) Quick, what's Google's market share of searches? There's no doubt that it's big -- really big. But just how big turns out to depend on how you define a search engine. Some numbers suggest that YouTube is the driving force behind the company's gains. But that has to leave you wondering what constitutes searching and whether the market share numbers are leading advertisers and the high tech industry to conclusions that may not be exactly justified.
Reported results on search engine use can vary so widely that you wonder if they're on the same map. Here's an October example from Net Applications:
Then there are numbers from comScore:
Quite a difference. One reason is that although many media outlets use comScore as a source, the company has been publishing its analysis of the U.S. search market, not the global one. But it also explicitly excludes from its core search numbers "searches for mapping, local directory, and user-generated video sites that are not on the core domain of the five search engines." It's another way of saying, for example, that Google's numbers don't include YouTube searches. Given that Net Applications doesn't mention YouTube, you might wonder if it is included under Google. Yes, Google owns YouTube, and yet something seems fundamentally different about looking for information, goods, and services, and searching for a given video. If you sell widgets, will advertising on a video site really make sense?
The difference between comScore's core and expanded numbers is significant. Look at these two tables of October data showing numbers of searches:
Not only are there big jumps, but you have to read the categories carefully. For example, Google Sites is the sum of Google and YouTube/All Others. Skip by that and you could end up significantly over-counting the company's already impressive dominance. As far as global numbers, it's impossible to accurate project comScore's numbers beyond the borders of the U.S. Furthermore, as is true with a number of the Internet measurement services, results sit on the habits of large panels of users. But people agreeing to be part of such a panel might well not be representative of consumer behavior on the whole, in which case the reported numbers could be complete hooey.
Reported results on search engine use can vary so widely that you wonder if they're on the same map. Here's an October example from Net Applications:
Then there are numbers from comScore:
Quite a difference. One reason is that although many media outlets use comScore as a source, the company has been publishing its analysis of the U.S. search market, not the global one. But it also explicitly excludes from its core search numbers "searches for mapping, local directory, and user-generated video sites that are not on the core domain of the five search engines." It's another way of saying, for example, that Google's numbers don't include YouTube searches. Given that Net Applications doesn't mention YouTube, you might wonder if it is included under Google. Yes, Google owns YouTube, and yet something seems fundamentally different about looking for information, goods, and services, and searching for a given video. If you sell widgets, will advertising on a video site really make sense?The difference between comScore's core and expanded numbers is significant. Look at these two tables of October data showing numbers of searches:
Not only are there big jumps, but you have to read the categories carefully. For example, Google Sites is the sum of Google and YouTube/All Others. Skip by that and you could end up significantly over-counting the company's already impressive dominance. As far as global numbers, it's impossible to accurate project comScore's numbers beyond the borders of the U.S. Furthermore, as is true with a number of the Internet measurement services, results sit on the habits of large panels of users. But people agreeing to be part of such a panel might well not be representative of consumer behavior on the whole, in which case the reported numbers could be complete hooey. -
Erik Sherman Erik Sherman is a widely published writer and editor who also does select ghosting and corporate work. Follow him on Twitter at @ErikSherman or on Facebook.
Follow on Twitter »
Latest Now in MoneyWatch
- Market cap, schmarket cap, Apple still gets no respect
- Philip Morris Int'l income up nearly 8 percent
- Survey: Small biz plans big hires in 2012
- Freddie Mac: Mortgages inch higher but stay low
- Will the European debt crisis sink Obama's re-election?
- Banks in $25B deal to settle foreclosure abuses
- Joe Coffee: Scaling up without selling your soul
- Greek agreement accomplishes nothing
- 401K plans: New rules make costs clearer
- Are women leaders selling themselves short?
- Ask the Experts: New 401(k) rules
- Mortgage lenders strike a deal
- $25B foreclosure-abuse settlement reached
- Wholesale inventories rose 1 percent in December
- States, Feds to announce new mortgage settlement
- Management changes at Ford
- Unemployment aid applications near a 4-year low
Latest CBS News Headlines
on Facebook
on CBS News
- 50 Cent visits famine victims in Somalia, Kenya
- Summary Box: ING Groep 4Q profit up on asset sales
- BCBG offers soothing start to NY Fashion Week
- Occidental Petroleum boosts dividend 17 pct.
on Facebook
- Adele opens up about vocal cord surgery
- Mo. teen gets life in prison for murder of 9-year-old girl
- "American Idol": Jim Carrey's daughter out, and then disaster
on CBS News






