New Website Measurement System Just A Little Less Useless Than Previous One
from the keeping-score dept
In a bid to improve the relevance of its ratings, Nielsen/NetRatings has announced that it will no longer use page views as its primary metric for measuring the popularity of websites. Instead, it will focus on the amount of time that users spend on the site. Obviously, there have been a lot of problems with the current system, as the use of page views grossly inflates the popularity of some sites, like MySpace, while penalizing sites that aren't refreshed or reloaded as often. As the above article notes, the new system will give YouTube a boost, but will ding Google's main site, which isn't designed to keep users around. Of course, therein lies the flaw with this new measurement system. Google is incredibly profitable and successful, precisely because it does a good job of whisking users away to other sites, either through ads or its search results. The idea of penalizing it because users don't spend a lot of time on the site is absurd. When it comes to TV shows, it may make sense to adopt a uniform measurement system, because all TV shows have the same purpose: to sell ads. Websites, however, have a variety of different business models, so trying to define a standard metric of success is going to prove impossible. Ultimately, the most meaningful measure of a site or service is its profitability, which, unlike page views or time spent, isn't so easily gamed.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: measurement, problems
Companies: myspace, nielsen
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why either-or?
Humans have excess enthusaism for "the best" without saying "for what purpose".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what about visitors?
Monthly unique visitors
and
Monthly Net Profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advertisers seem to be hung up on the idea that internet ads need to turn into an instant sale. Certainly the internet makes that possible in many circumstances, but I think this is a bad idea. An internet ad needs to be viewed more like a billboard placed next to a freeway, where the goal is often to build brand recognition or just plant a seed for a later sale. Anything more aggressive and you just annoy people. If someone clicks an ad then great- maybe pay bonuses for 'clicks' and 'actions', but a single view like a motorist driving past a billboard on the interstate should be the baseline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absurd?
Actually, that makes a lot of sense. If a user breezes through a page, an ad is less likely to catch someones attention.
Google *is* a bit different, though, in that the ad may be exactly what the person was looking for, but if it's not they may not even notice it. A better metric would be click-through rates, or click-through-and-buy rates, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not so absurd
For example x amout of users spend x amout of time at google versus yahoo...
or x amout of users spend x amout of time at myspace versus facebook.
It obviosly makes no sense to compare search engine to social network as it is said in the article. However with time you can get a really accurate system for rating groups of websites instead of every website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
damn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unique Visitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I call BS on this one too
Time viewing site? - HTML is connectionless, Google downloads quickly being lean and looks bad. And, if you are still using dial-up, you spend forever waiting on YouTube. How is Neilson going to see that I may be waiting on a page to load in one tab, downloading a second, and looking at a third?
Neilson is getting to be more and more irrelevant. They seem to be spending most of their time proving that they are relavent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And furthermore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anything else is like measuring your cock by starting at your knee. The numbers sound great, but it ain't gonna rock anyone's world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And still more
And, so many sites are coding themselves with specific cookies for tracking that my hit rates on the cache are going down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHY NOT OFFER BOTH ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two points
And you know what? There is still such a thing as public service broadcasting! Maybe not so much in the USA but it makes me sad to see anyone say "all TV shows have the same purpose: to sell ads". They do have ratings for the BBC in the UK, strangely, despite there being no ads at all on the BBC...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
selling your website
[ link to this | view in chronology ]