Google Apologises to Guardian and Bild over "Nonsense" Statistics

[engine]

Google has apologised to the Guardian and Bild newspapers after citing incorrect statistics published to strenghten Google's case over the EU's "Statement of Objections" See "Europe "Statement of Objections": Antitrust Charges Against Google [webmasterworld.com]" See Google's blog post "The Search for Harm [googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.com]" Note the update at the end of the blog post.

Google has apologised to the Guardian and Bild, after citing “nonsense” figures for the two sites’ traffic statistics in a response to the European Commission’s antitrust charges against the company. Google Apologises to Guardian and Bild over "Nonsense" Statistics [theguardian.com]

Downplaying Google’s strength in the news field, Singhal wrote that “when it comes to news, users often go directly to their favourite sites. For example, Bild and The Guardian get up to 85% of their traffic directly. Less than 10% comes from Google.”

But those figures are “nonsense”, according to the Guardian’s audience editor Chris Moran. Citing the paper’s internal statistics, he said that “unknown traffic to Guardian fronts” – readers coming directly to the paper’s front page – “was broadly the same in [page views] as Google referral.”

[Shepherd]

I guess "citing nonsense figures" is the new way to say "lying through our teeth".

[jmccormac]

Not only the Guardian.
"The company also apologised to Yelp, another firm cited as evidence of healthy competition. “Yelp has pointed out that they get 40% of their searches (not their traffic) direct from their mobile apps. They don’t appear to disclose their traffic numbers. We’re happy to correct the record.”

Guess Google should stick to sending out dodgy press releases about watching Star Trek. :)

That mobile app stat is very interesting. The proliferation of mobile search apps for these large sites must scare Google because they effectively bypass Google's gatekeeper role.

Regards...jmcc

[Samizdata]

I guess "citing nonsense figures" is the new way to say "lying through our teeth".

Why guess when the facts are in the referenced article?

SimilarWeb, the third-party site which was the source of the incorrectly reported Guardian traffic figures, estimates site data using information from a panel of web surfers who have volunteered to install a browser plugin.

Interesting that The Guardian has so many readers who need to use Google to find the front page of their site.

Anyone would think they didn't know how to type a URL and habitually did a search on "The Guardian" instead.

...

[engine]

Interesting that The Guardian has so many readers who need to use Google to find the front page of their site.

Methinks it's from Google News, or people are searching for the long tail and a specific story.

[jmccormac]

Or a simpler explanation: Most people have a search engine webpage as their home page and type in the name of the site there.

Regards...jmcc

[lucy24]

I guess "citing nonsense figures" is the new way to say "lying through our teeth".

There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics.

[Samizdata]

Methinks it's from Google News, or people are searching for the long tail and a specific story.

No, The Guardian was specifically talking about their front page (which only has headlines).

JMCC probably has it closer to the truth:

Most people have a search engine webpage as their home page and type in the name of the site there.

Substitute "many" for "most" and I'll certainly agree.

I suppose it is technically "Google traffic", even if it's just laziness.

...

[toidi]

Most people have a search engine webpage as their home page and type in the name of the site there. 

From what i have seen, most don't know the difference. Ask the average user to type a url into the address bar and they will type it into the search bar. Not many geeks out there.