Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Social Networks Gaining on Internet Portals 96

Compete writes "We have some interesting analysis on how Social Networking sites compare to portals. From a sample size of around 2 million US people, Compete concludes that social networking sites are quickly approaching the traffic level of the big portals like Google and Yahoo. They liken the growth of SNS to email in the 90's. Their key findings: 1. In June, 2 out of every 3 people online visited a social networking site 2. Since January 2004, the number of people visiting or taking part in one of the top online social networks has grown by over 109% 3. Social networking sites are now close to eclipsing traffic to the giants — Google and Yahoo"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Social Networks Gaining on Internet Portals

Comments Filter:
  • by Chatmag ( 646500 ) <editor@chatmag.com> on Wednesday August 16, 2006 @10:49AM (#15919376) Homepage Journal
    "Social Networking" sites is just a buzzword term for a variation of Internet chat channels and forums. People have been doing that for years. That was one of the original concepts behind the Internet, communication.

    The social networking sites offer a few other features, but in the end it's just people wanting to talk with each other.
  • Like the BBS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by inKubus ( 199753 ) on Wednesday August 16, 2006 @10:51AM (#15919392) Homepage Journal
    I just finished watching the BBS Documentary [bbsdocumentary.com] and it reminded me about why BBS's were so cool. I mean, besides bringing the power of global communications to the common man at a low expense, it brought about this whole new online community.

    Many of the interviews talk about how impersonal the internet is, the fact that you might be one in 50,000 people on a newsgroup versus one of 100 or 200 on a BBS. The fact is, before myspace-type sites, it was pretty difficult to create a small online community of your friends without some decent computer skills. Sure, there was IRC, but it was difficult to create static content there. Sure, there were search sites like Classmates.com but no one ever went to them.

    Myspace is really quite primitive, as everyone knows. It's just a simple database blog. Where it shines is the search feature in combination with the ease of custom publishing. You can search for old friends, search by hometown, etc. And with the inclusion of music and video clips, it's a whole multimedia experience. I think that it's the closest thing to the old personal community feeling the BBS had than anything else.

    Sure, there's a lot missing, but I think that if someone were to look at the sucessful old BBS' and modeled a new "Social Networking" site after them (real time chat, files, message boards, multi-player games based on login, just more areas and features), it could be real successful in a hurry. MySpace just doesn't do enough. It's all anyone has right now, of course.

  • by Kryis ( 947024 ) on Wednesday August 16, 2006 @10:51AM (#15919393)
    I dont know how old you are, but there isn't a huge amount that i'm too old for (i'm 20), and the thought of myspace holds no interest for me. Quite a few of my friends have myspace accounts, and some have tried to get me to join and I have just refused, due to the pointlessness of the whole thing. As far as I can see, myspace is just something that people join to try and fit in with friends and be "cool".
  • by buffoverflow ( 623685 ) on Wednesday August 16, 2006 @10:58AM (#15919465)
    After reading the article, as well as the "Where do these #s come from" page, I still don't get the correlation. Why would the traffic patterns look in any way shape or form similar when comparing the Soc. Networking sites against, large search engine/portal sites. I don't have any experience in the monitoring of traffic, hits, visitors, etc. for either type of site; but even so, it still seems like apples & oranges to me.

    I would think that search engines would have many visitors daily (both unique & repeat), but the actual end-to-end traffic would be minimal & bursty in nature (individual searches). (In addition, one could say that things are really skewed, because if a search site does it's job well, the visitor will find what they need & be sent off site). With the SN sites, I would think people are logging in, digging through their various personal pages, as well as those who they're networking with. I would imagine that this would create a lot more traffic, but probably not from unique visitors. It's the same people who are logged in for long periods creating all the traffic.

    In addition, they showed no real comparisons between actual traffic flows, bandwidth usage, unique visitors, repeat visitors, etc.

    I agree that Social Networking is gonna continue to gain ground & will be (if it's not already) huge. But why is that being compared against the large scale search, data aggregation, and directed advertising companies.
  • by Overzeetop ( 214511 ) on Wednesday August 16, 2006 @11:06AM (#15919549) Journal
    Okay, so I've read all 970(ish) bytes of the article text (that includes their summary) and it doesn't look like the text matches the graphics all that well. The top 10 "social networking" sites combined have less than half of the visitors as the top 2 search sites. They've barely doubled their aggregate visitors in the high-growth 30 months preceding. Heck, if you look at the graph from October '04 to March '06, Google alone matched the volume increase of the entire top-10 SNS.

    Sorry, but I find it hard to call this earth shattering.
  • by porcupine8 ( 816071 ) on Wednesday August 16, 2006 @11:07AM (#15919562) Journal
    Looking at what they consider a "social networking site," I'd say that Slashdot would qualify. You talk to other people about common interests, you can add "friends" and "foes," I notice that you've even made at least one entry in your /. journal.

    Congratulations, you're using a social networking site! They're not all MySpace, you know.

  • by vertinox ( 846076 ) on Wednesday August 16, 2006 @11:09AM (#15919578)
    I don't get it. Maybe I'm just too old, but they hold practically zero interest for me.

    I think there a growing crowd of aging people on slashdot that is either not motivated with following the herd or just not for new technologies and very doubtful of the future (For example, every time a new technology is mentioned we get someone yelling about "Where are those flying cars you promised?! We'll never see this in 20 years!")

    Then we get those who often complain about Flash video when every knows the net is being dragged screaming and kicking to use flash video technology. Its just the way things are moving.

    The same with social sites. Personally, I'm an old live journal user (well if you think 2001 is old) and would never blog on myspace, but yet I keep a my space site just so I can keep a presence there.

    I'm late twenties almost thirties so I'm kind of old for that age group, but I can't tell you how many people from my old high school have contacted me through my space. Its endearing if nothing else, but as far as spending more than 5 minutes on the site per week, I seriously doubt I would ever do that.

    So the point being is that it appears that most technology nerds on slashdot (including me) aren't really up on technology trends as much as we should. Maybe we don't care... Or maybe we cling to are old ancient technologies and refuse to give up the ghost.

    Still we shouldn't scoff at it and nay say because it obviously these things are bigger than all of us combined like it or not. It's like the old war generals saying cavalry still trumps everything on the battlefield only to get them run over by those new fangled tanks.
  • by mac.convert ( 944588 ) on Wednesday August 16, 2006 @11:22AM (#15919701)
    Ok...Every time I read an article like this, and I see sites like Google and Yahoo referenced as "portals", I go a little crazy. I think of sites like, http://weed.com/ [weed.com] as a true portal. I know the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_portal [wikipedia.org] is a little broad, saying that they are, "sites on the World Wide Web that typically provide personalized capabilities to their visitors," but c'mon here...just because you can customize your Google or Yahoo homepage doesn't make it a Portal IMHO. A true portal to me is a domain squatter buying a name like, googles.com or ytahoo.com and putting a crapload of ads and "related" searches on it. I really think there needs to be a clear distinction between the two types of sites, instead of a branching term for any site that offfers custom content. Seriously...that would mean http://www.amazon.com/ [amazon.com] is a portal because I can customize my User Account screen.
  • by retro128 ( 318602 ) on Wednesday August 16, 2006 @11:37AM (#15919881)
    I don't think it's that we are a bunch of old curmudgeons who hate Myspace because it's one of those newfangled thingies, or because we don't understand it. I don't think that it even has to do with average age of its denizens. For me, one thing it has to do with is the TYPE of people it attracts, rather than their age. And what geek on Slashdot would subject themselves to the browser-crashing HTML and attention whoring that is Myspace unless they want to see the boobs of a co-worker or high school classmate?

    But seriously - The other dimension of it is that to be an effective Myspace participant you have to put a ton of information about yourself - Pics, where you went to school, your job, your thoughts, and -best of all-, everyone you have contact with. I don't think it's a secret to anyone here that Slashdotters are acutely averse to letting a lot of detailed info about themselves out, let alone posting it voluntarily. This is especially true since we know that the NSA is trolling MySpace [securitypronews.com] to build a map of the social networks of anyone they spider. Which is probably everyone^N^N^N^N^N^N^N^N^N only terrorists.
  • by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Wednesday August 16, 2006 @12:04PM (#15920165) Homepage Journal
    it appears that most technology nerds on slashdot (including me) aren't really up on technology trends as much as we should.

    I don't consider the popularity of social networking sites to be a technology trend. Sure, there's technology involved, but there's little technically new. This trend is social, and that's why many /. nerds don't bother to keep up with it. If social networking used newly innovative software platforms or languages slashdotters would be all over it. The fact that some old converging technologies are now getting very popular simply doesn't interest many of the people here. And I don't see anything wrong with that.

"Little else matters than to write good code." -- Karl Lehenbauer

Working...