Facebook Passes Google in Visits Again

[Brett_Tabke]

According to Hitwise data released today, Facebook.com was the top visited website in the US in 2010, taking up 8.93% of site visits between January and November 2010. Google.com came in second at 7.19%, Yahoo Mail is third with 3.52% and Yahoo.com is fourth at 3.30%. YouTube came in fifth at 2.65 %.

While Hitwise came to the same conclusion back in March, this is the first time Facebook has been named most visited site of the year (crowding out last year’s winner Google). Comscore also shows Facebook.com passing Google.com in visits in November but all Google sites as still having more. According to Hitwise, visits to Google properties combined cover 9.85% of all site visits, making Google a formidable opponent. [techcrunch.com...]

[OMZen]

I think this trend will strengthen even more in 2011.

Time for FB to go public ( ..or forced by govt to go public )

[piatkow]

OK, G's slice of this year's cake is smaller than FB's. But is the cake bigger or smaller than last year's and are the cherries evenly distributed?

[true_INFP]

What I find interesting, though, is that Bing was number 10 this year.

[scooterdude]

Thing that grabs me once again is the people pulling power off these sites, and their consistency

[kapow]

Web professionals take note. Adapt or fossilise.

[frontpage]

Web professionals take note. Adapt or fossilise.

I will quickly sum up the future responses.

Facebook...blah...blah..can't trust that stats.. blah...blah.. impressions...Farmville...blah..blah..I never use Facebook......Adsense check....blah..blah..Matt Cutts poster over my bed....blah.blah...Hurumph...kids don't click ads...waste of advertising dollars....blah...blah...I heart 1984....blah... blah...

[Brett_Tabke]

>Web professionals take note. Adapt or fossilise.

I agree, but until there is an easier way for sites to pull traffic out of FaceBook, then se's will continue to get the unfair share of webmasters attention.

[dickbaker]

I'm trying very much not to fossilize, and so am looking at Facebook with an eye for ideas on how to use it to not just bring visitors to my site, but to bring visitors who will be likely to buy.

With the SE's, people are actively looking for places to buy things. On Facebook, most of it seems to be social interaction, with some interest in commercial sites.

Keeping up on Facebook would seem to require creating content almost daily and replying (if you're lucky enough to get people commenting and interacting).

I'm sure there are sites that do well promoting themselves on Facebook. How they do it is another question.

[kapow]

...until there is an easier way for sites to pull traffic out of FaceBook...

Thats like a store owner in 1995 saying, until websites send people to my door why should I bother with this internet fad. Facebook (I think) is not a website, its an 'internet' (there's probably a better word for it that someone will invent soon). While we're all waiting for FB to come round to our way of thinking, I bet there are some new/flexible web professionals figuring out how to work with FB. For example: it might be that you don't "pull traffic out of FaceBook" it might be that you get a presence within FB and learn to work that presence on planet FaceBook - separate to your website and search engine battle.

[borisz]

total agree with FrontPage's above opinion

[true_INFP]

Facebook (I think) is not a website, its an 'internet' (there's probably a better word for it that someone will invent soon).

The term has already been invented a long time ago. It's a popular social network (which is, however, still based on a popular website).

[wheel]

People buy my product when they specifically go looking for it. They don't buy my product just because I present it to them. That's facebook, it's not much different than advertising on TV. And I don't advertise on TV. And I don't advertise at my local bar on Friday nights either. Both have lots of traffic and eyeballs, neither of those groups would provide anything in terms of profit if I'm in their face at those times in those places.

Traffic for the sake of traffic doesn't mean it's worthwhile advertising there. It's hardly news that non-targetted traffic is mostly worthless.

[skibum]

Thats like a store owner in 1995 saying, until websites send people to my door why should I bother with this internet fad.

Kinda, except there the Internet represented people actively looking for things through search engines IF the site owners "got it".

Facebook (I think) is not a website, its an 'internet' (there's probably a better word for it that someone will invent soon).

More and more it does seem like Facebook does in fact represent the Internet to a lot of people. This internet, however is a chat room/forum and not typically where people go to buy stuff. They just go to talk about stuff and post/view pictures.

Unless a business creates some kind of FB application that keeps the business top of mind and engages someone to do or buy something, it seems like the jury is still out on how much effort to throw at Facebook.

Would it be safe to say that so far most of the traffic and sales for any business do NOT come from Facebook or Twitter?

Would it also be safe to say that the best investment is still to build out your own site, host your own content (or engage others to create it on your site) so that no matter what happens with Facebook you still have the bulk of your content under your control?

It seems like with the exception of maybe photos, content posted on Facebook has a shelf life of maybe a day or 7 at most unless it is some really engaging contest or something of that sort. Seems like FB is best used to post highlights of your business or website and start a conversation.

Even if you do that, it is amazing how many people will go, "oh I didn't know you had a website" after you have been posting links to the new content on it for a year or more!

I probably record a lot more time and page views on FB than a search engine, but that time [on fb] has got to be nearly worthless to an advertiser. The time I spend on a search engine has got to be worth 100X what my time on FB is worth to an advertiser.

[dickbaker]

The time I spend on a search engine has got to be worth 100X what my time on FB is worth to an advertiser.

That's my initial reaction, but considering the way Google is going, it seems that alternatives are going to be necessary. If it's going to be Facebook, then it would be best to figure out how to work it now. Twitter is much too limited for commercial purposes, IMO. Heck, it's limited, period.

[wildbest]

The term has already been invented a long time ago. It's a popular social network (which is, however, still based on a popular website)

Every network that helps people communicate is a social network. Facebook is popular because they help computer illiterate people communicate with other computer illiterate people over the Web.

[kapow]

Fossil talk:
- FaceBook is just a social network,
- Only stupid people use FaceBook,
- FaceBook will never generate sales for me

[annej]

It's not going to hurt to build a Facebook Page. It's easy and just takes a minute to add updates to it. You can post news about your business and/or website.You can get a nice following of Facebook members who "like" your page and they will get your updates in their news feed. Pages are open to the public and there might be cases where searchers will find it rather than your actual site. Also people will search your topic on Facebook and find your page. You can encourage your site visitors and the folks you send newsletters to to "like" your Facebook page. It may not bring a great many people but it's so easy to do and doesn't cost anything.

What I am wondering about now is if it would be worthwhile to advertise on Facebook. Facebook would be kind of like a fourm and we know forum visitors are less likely to click on ads. I think Google will still be by far the best source of visitors and customers.

[johnblack]

Call me a fossil, but I use FB to keep in touch with friends, see what they are up to etc. When I want to buy something online I go to Google or may be another SE, I wouldn't go near FB.

Even if I got to a website which sold the widget I was after, would I 'like' their page? Probably not. I would I visit thier FB page? Again probably not.

I agree it can be argued that a FB presence is a benefit to a website, but to devote more time to that than SE rankings seems a bit unwise.

[annej]

My point is that it takes very little time to have a Facebook page for your company. Just a very, very teensy tiny fraction of the time a company needs to put into SEO.

There is no way Facebook will beat out the search engines unless things change drastically. People go to a search engine to find a product or information. They go to FB for fun and friends. But why not have a company presence there since it's so easy?

[seo melbourne]

I agree, facebook is for fun. Smart people go to google to search for products, however smart marketers target facebook users that match their exact marketing demographics. Very easy for them, and why facebook is worth billions.

[wheel]

Fossil talk:
- FaceBook is just a social network,
- Only stupid people use FaceBook,
- FaceBook will never generate sales for me

Perhaps don't be so quick to sling mud at other webmasters, some of do actually know their market. You know who can't even monetize facebook? Facebook themselves.

[tedster]

Over the past year, P&G made a big and successful play with Facebook [nevillehobson.com...]

So wheel's right - it DOES depend on understanding your market. For example, P&G turned away from Twitter when they went into Facebook big time, whereas airlines are finding that they really need Twitter.