So, a few days ago I posted this. Heated language perhaps, but I didn't think the contents would be particularly controversial.
A lot of being flamed and modbombed later, I withdrew from the discussion. I'm still kinda baffled.
Now, there are a hundred things that might be wrong with my assertions so let me explain what I was trying to say, and then you can either say "You're wrong", or "You're right, but that's not what you said", or "You're right, and the flamers are wrong", or some other explanation.
StatCounter announced, a little while ago, that their stats show Chrome as the #1 browser.
I'm finding that difficult to believe, and fortunately I'm in charge of monitoring the GAs for a group of websites I consider... well, not 100% representative (are any?) but reasonably unbiased in favor of any particular browser (it's not a tech or corporate site. I'm not going to name it because (a) I have to protect my employer and (b) to be quite honest, I wish we produced a product I felt prouder of.) So I checked, and found that Chrome was in third place on our sites (using visitors as the metric, not using visits, or anything similar. We get about half a million a month, so it's a good sample size.) Firefox had around two and half times as many users, and most users were on IE.
This is so ridiculously different that it's hard for me to take the SC figures seriously. I'm not saying they're 100% representative, It's just if Chrome were #1, I'd expect our figures to at least show nothing worse than, say, all three browsers being at similar levels of usage. IE/Firefox/Chrome at 30%/28%/25% I can handle, but not 60%/22%/9%.
I've not heard any webmasters suggest their figures are remotely close to SC's. In fact, those I've spoken to are similarly baffled by the SC figures. They don't make any sense.
So, anyway, I got flamed for putting forth this argument (and my quoting of GA figures was modbombed out of the discussion. Wow.) The arguments were, to be honest, baffling, and that's one of the major reasons I'm having a problem. I may be completely misunderstanding the "counter argument", or I may have presented the argument in the wrong way.
What I got were arguments along the lines of:
1. You're counting visitors. You should be counting websites.
I don't understand this argument. I don't understand why I would count websites.
2. Your website may have half a million visitors a month, but there exists on the Internet other websites that are more popular.
I'm failing to understand what that has to do with anything at all.
When I explained why I thought what I thought, I actually just got a bunch of substance free "OMG I can't believe you're such an idiot" responses.
I'm not exaggerating. I don't mean "You stated black is white!!! You idiot! White and black are at completely different luminescences! How is this http://example.com/white.jpg remotely like this example.com/black.jpg?" I mean "You're a dumbass, the sample size is one not half a million"
So... what say the people who do not (I think) hate me for no reason? Without using terms like "You dumbass", can you explain to me what my failure of understanding and/or communication is?
I'd appreciate it. If I'm wrong, I'd genuinely like to know why.