Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Surpasses Google For Users' Online Time

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the guess-they-should-make-their-searches-take-longer dept.

The Internet 159

crimeandpunishment writes "When it comes to our time online, socializing beats searching. According to new data from researchers at comScore Inc., Facebook has moved ahead of Google for the first time in Web users' minutes. In August, people spent more than 41 million minutes on Facebook, compared to just under 40 million for all of Google's sites combined. Yahoo came in third, with 37.7 million minutes."

cancel ×

159 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Right, because Google is *instant* now. (4, Funny)

tha_mink (518151) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537394)

Well, duh. Now that there's Google Instant, you don't *have* to spend any time on google.

Re:Right, because Google is *instant* now. (3, Funny)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537486)

I'm waiting for "Google Telepathy". Requiring a computer to search Google is such a waste of time.

Re:Right, because Google is *instant* now. (3, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537910)

Not waiting for it, telepathy works in both directions... and i would like that at least my dreams are free of Google Ads.

Re:Right, because Google is *instant* now. (2, Insightful)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537988)

But you could get a tattoo on your forehead reading "This Space for Rent"... :p

Re:Right, because Google is *instant* now. (2, Funny)

brainboyz (114458) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538018)

*Imagining Uber Hot Chick*

*Interrupted by foggy window hovering right-of-center*
==Ads by Google==
+ _Prescription Drugs Cheap_
  Viagra and Cialis straight to your door
+ _Slutty Lingerie_
  Get something hot for her to wear tonight
+ _Toys, Toys, Toys_
  Vanilla not cutting it? Have more fun with toys

Yup, just how I want my dreams. Hot and practical.

Re:Right, because Google is *instant* now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33538152)

I've never heard anyone vanilla use that as a description for vanilla activities.

Re:Right, because Google is *instant* now. (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538050)

LIGHTSPEED BRIEFS
For the discriminating crotch.
Just $30 for a pack of three

Re:Right, because Google is *instant* now. (1)

froggymana (1896008) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538210)

Google should have already searched for what I wanted before I even go there. In fact, i shouldn't even have to search. Google should be smart enough to automatically open the web page I want before I even know that I want it open.

Re:Right, because Google is *instant* now. (2, Funny)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538274)

For that, there is Apple.com. :p

Re:Right, because Google is *instant* now. (1, Funny)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537796)

LIKE

Statistically significant (3, Interesting)

magsol (1406749) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537412)

Is that tiny edge that Facebook has over Google outside the margin of error? I don't doubt that Facebook use is growing faster than Google use, but has it exceeded the "noisy" range and clearly bested Google, or is this just a random spike during which someone happened to be paying attention?

Re:Statistically significant (3, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537822)

I don't use facebook, but I'd imagine that people who do spend more time there per visit than the five seconds it takes to google to somewhere. Plus, most people just use the search bar on their browser -- which is usually Google. Does that count as a visit?

Re:Statistically significant (1)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537906)

It's talking about Google's sites combined. I think most people (not I) spend longer than 5 seconds when they go to YouTube.

Re:Statistically significant (1)

NoTheory (580275) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538202)

This is a non-trivial problem. How do they account for youtube embeds on facebook? Count towards just facebook? Just youtube? Both? What happens to views embedded on other sites? Google gathers data from each view after all, perhaps more, than just the youtube video's primary page.

Re:Statistically significant (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537938)

If there were a way on Google to waste several hours of each day growing virtual crops, shooting virtual gangsters, and cooking virtual meals, in the quest for virtual points and virtual validation ... there are numerous people I know who would almost certainly sign up and proceed to send me an endless string of updates on their latest virtual achievements.

Re:Statistically significant (1)

brainboyz (114458) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538040)

My question is, do youtube videos embedded in Facebook count towards, one, the other, or both?

Re:Statistically significant (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538458)

The answer is, of course, yes.

Re:Statistically significant (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537970)

FWIW (one person does not a sample set make):
I use facebook ~ 10 to 20 min/week. Usually only 1 visit a week.
I use iGoogle about half an hour a day or more:
* /. RSS feed
* Comics RSS feed
* Stock widget
* Quotes of the day
* Bash.org latest quotes (WTF, no updates for a while)
* Web Hosting status RSS
* Analytics RSS
* Google Docs periodically.

Re:Statistically significant (1)

Evets (629327) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537946)

I think the bigger question is: does anybody care? Judging from the Farmville, Mafia Wars, etc. posts, you'd think that 150 users would have pushed facebook over the edge two years ago.

Both are still plenty vulnerable (google less so, but still) to an upstart with marketing money and a decent business plan.

Regardless, people who spend all day on either site aren't the people that make them money. Well except for offshore ones who are getting paid a dollar an hour to click on ads.

Masturbation vs sex (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538144)

Both are still plenty vulnerable (google less so, but still) to an upstart with marketing money and a decent business plan.

Facebook (when I last looked at it, more than a year ago) struck me as being a sort of internet masturbation. As soon as something more fulfilling comes along, it will fall by the wayside. I bet the typical teenager spends a lot more time wanking than screwing, but eventually gets laid often enough to reverse the situation.
Google, on the other hand, provides a few useful services. It's not sex, but it's not jerking around either.

Really? (5, Interesting)

Thyamine (531612) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537414)

Why did it take so long? I don't spend that much time on Facebook, but I know I spend more time than I do searching. I mean, how do you linger for any real length of time in Google? You search and look through the results. Sometimes you look through a few pages, maybe re-work the search a few times, but in the end most of the time spent is on that page you are searching for a link for. Unless this is counting gmail and things like that.

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537504)

I haven't RTFA but maybe Google includes Gmail, Youtube, Blogspot, etc?

Re:Really? (1)

tha_mink (518151) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537668)

I haven't RTFA but maybe Google includes Gmail, Youtube, Blogspot, etc?

Yep.

Re:Really? (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538170)

does it include embedded youtube videos?

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537510)

This is for all of Google's services, not just their search home page. I keep a browser window with Gmail open nearly all day, every day.

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537712)

...And many people also keep a Facebook tab open all day, every day and my guess is more people keep a facebook tab open than a Gmail tab because more people check Facebook regularly than their e-mails, not to mention that my Gmail account is synced with my phone, iPod, etc. while Facebook chat isn't.

Re:Really? (2, Informative)

IAmGarethAdams (990037) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537838)

while Facebook chat isn't.

Really? Facebook chat is Jabber-based so I find it much easier to use it in Adium (Gaim) than through the shocking web interface

Re:Really? (0, Troll)

cynyr (703126) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538190)

while Facebook chat isn't.

Really? Facebook chat is Jabber-based so I find it much easier to use it in Adium (Pidgin) than through the shocking web interface

/fixed

Re:Really? (1)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537540)

From the article:

all of Google Inc.'s sites combined, including YouTube, the free Gmail e-mail program, Google news and other content sites

search itself might not be a time sink, but youtube and gmail probably are.

Re:Really? (4, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537728)

I mean, how do you linger for any real length of time in Google?

I take it you've never googled "Christina Hendricks" and clicked on "Images"?

Re:Really? (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537950)

Maybe it's just as well I don't have any mod points for you. I'm not sure whether this should be Funny, Insightful, or Informative, (since there's no Helpful).

Don't be ridiculous (1)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538028)

EVERYBODY's googled "Christina Hendricks" and clicked on "Images".

Re:Don't be ridiculous (1)

tenco (773732) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538110)

Wrong.

Re:Don't be ridiculous (1)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538234)

I hadn't, but I have now. I was expecting NSFW to be honest. I was mildly disappointed but I did stop for a second to admire her large... dimples.

Re:Don't be ridiculous (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538238)

Ok, "Summer Glau" and "images" then?

Re:Don't be ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33538486)

EVERYBODY's googled "Christina Hendricks" and clicked on "Images".

Who the hell is "Christina Hendricks"?

Re:Don't be ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33538492)

who?

Re:Really? (1)

JeffSpudrinski (1310127) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537742)

Any bets on how long it will be before Google tries to purchase Facebook?

Just my $0.02.

-JJS

Re:Really? (1)

froggymana (1896008) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538232)

Doesn't Google already know enough about everyone? They already have gmail, blogspot, youtube, Ad-words, and analytics. As great as Google is, it doesn't need to be any bigger than what it is now.

Re:Really? (3, Insightful)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538092)

FTS: all of Google's sites combined.

When you consider that Google offers so many other things - calendar, email, etc. (which arguably, Facebook can also provide in its own way) besides search, I guess it means you spend more time on a Google site. I wonder if Youtube was also considered in Google's minutes, but I didn't RTA.

plus, who uses google to procrastinate? I'd think 90% of people would choose facebook over google if they had to go somewhere to procrastinate. That probably counts for the majority of facebook's time.

Facebook? Try Farmville. (4, Funny)

cusco (717999) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537416)

I'd like to find the bastard who wrote Farmville and sue him for 'estrangement of affections'. It's quite incredible how much time my wife spends on the damn game.

Re:Facebook? Try Farmville. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33537442)

Then divorce her and replace her with a newer blowup doll.

Re:Facebook? Try Farmville. (1)

UncleWilly (1128141) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537584)

Toss on a pair of smelly overalls, the volunteer to "harvest her crops".

Re:Facebook? Try Farmville. (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537736)

No, plow her fields.

No, wait, trim her hedges?

Stroke her pet beaver?

Wait... what were we discussing again?

Re:Facebook? Try Farmville. (2, Insightful)

Zixaphir (845917) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537726)

You now understand why women don't date gamers.

Re:Facebook? Try Farmville. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538320)

I thought it was because a real gamer would never have time to hit on anybody.

Differences. (1)

PsyciatricHelp (951182) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537420)

There is also a slight difference to why users are on the sites. I know a few people who only use Google to find facebook.

Re:Differences. (4, Funny)

XanC (644172) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537582)

Are these the people who Google for "facebook login" and then proceed to assume that whatever they find is Facebook? The comments here are pure gold [readwriteweb.com] .

Re:Differences. (1)

tha_mink (518151) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537778)

Are these the people who Google for "facebook login" and then proceed to assume that whatever they find is Facebook? The comments here are pure gold [readwriteweb.com].

Comedy gold indeed. I can't believe how stupid people are. I mean, I know there's a whole bunch of stupid people, but I'm constantly reminded that they're probably the majority.

Re:Differences. (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537886)

Look around... if you don't see the stupid person in the room, it's you.

Re:Differences. (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538046)

I just looked.
Please tell me that is a troll hoax, are people *that* dumb? Seriously?

Re:Differences. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538378)

That's the greatest post I've seen in a while, please tell me that it was an elaborate hoax or that they're all going to be fixed before having offspring.

Yahoo 3rd??? (4, Insightful)

A. B3ttik (1344591) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537450)

Who the #%&$ still uses yahoo?

Re:Yahoo 3rd??? (3, Funny)

emurphy42 (631808) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537460)

Are you sure you want to know?

Re:Yahoo 3rd??? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537466)

Exactly what I was thinking. How is yahoo still even ranked in the top 10?

I mean, next thing you know, people will be saying Geocities is ranked- oh wait...

Re:Yahoo 3rd??? (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537482)

How is yahoo still even ranked in the top 10?

Because lots of people still use their email services.

Re:Yahoo 3rd??? (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537682)

This... as well as their yellow pages service, to name two.

Re:Yahoo 3rd??? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538054)

Exactly what I was thinking. How is yahoo still even ranked in the top 10?

SBC partnered with Yahoo! as the default portal for SBC ISP customers (at least residential) back before they bought AT&T and adopted AT&T's name for themselves; if I'm not mistaken, the install procedure for the software that comes with the combined DSL modem/wireless router you get with AT&T internet service also sets your homepage to the "ATT.NET" portal, which is not at http://att.net/ [att.net] as its name my suggest, but instead is located at http://att.my.yahoo.com./ [my.yahoo.com]

Never underestimate the power of defaults.

Re:Yahoo 3rd??? (1)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537484)

People whose computer came with a Yahoo! toolbar for IE6.

Re:Yahoo 3rd??? (3, Informative)

Cochonou (576531) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537686)

Maybe you have heard about this site called flickr [flickr.com] ?

Re:Yahoo 3rd??? (3, Informative)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537694)

Who the #%&$ still uses yahoo?

For search, probably not a lot of people.

On the other hand, one of my fantasy football leagues is on Yahoo, and Yahoo Answers is pretty solid.

Re:Yahoo 3rd??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33537982)

Yahoo Answers is pretty solid.

Either you're being sarcastic there, or you're being subtle (IE: Yahoo Answers is solid comedy gold!)...

How is babby formed?

Re:Yahoo 3rd??? (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538068)

Well, sometimes you actually can get a good answer out of Yahoo Answers, and most of the rest of the time, yeah, it's comedy gold.

Either way, you can't lose!

Re:Yahoo 3rd??? (0, Offtopic)

JeffSpudrinski (1310127) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537804)

Yahoo resells itself as a web-based email host for other online services and schools.

I was recently FORCED to start using Yahoo (which I despise) for web-based email through my ISP.

My ISP did have a web-based email host, which was ad-free and a nice clean interface. They then inexplicably forced all their customers to start using Yahoo for their email (leaving users no choice) with all the stupid headlines, chat programs, ads, pop ups, and all the useless crap that Yahoo makes money off of.

I called my ISP to complain and their take on it was "if you don't like it, use someone else".

Reminds me of the old AT&T days...wait...what's my ISP again?

Just my $0.02.

-JJS

Re:Yahoo 3rd??? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537958)

I use their webmail since Google accused me of... well, they didn't say, just "acceptable use policy". Which was wierd, since all I used it for was email to friends, slashdot, and newspaper sites that force you to register, and not many of them at that. No attachments, no CCs, no chain letters, nothing.

So if you try to reach me at mcgrew@gmail.com, you're out of luck.

I still use Google search, though. But I won't use their webmail again, that's for sure.

Re:Yahoo 3rd??? (1)

istartedi (132515) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538042)

I do. My e-mail has been there forever. Their financial charts were, until recently, clean and uncluttered. They've started forcing "revamped" basic charts on us; but even for a "web 2.0 compliant" chart, they still managed to do it without too many bells and whistles. As another pointed out, this may include their acquisition of Flickr which I have been using for several years now.

Their search and directory were tired a long time ago. Their subscription music was a failure; but they're diverse enough to survive that. I suspect the people who wonder "who uses Yahoo?" get the aforementioned services from someplace else. They're probably just accustomed to using $Whatever as I am to using Yahoo.

Followed by, even when something is no longer "red hot", it retains a surprising number of followers. I bet there are still tons of people with MySpace accounts, actively maintaining them.

Re:Yahoo 3rd??? (1)

readandburn (825014) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538074)

I do. I prefer their email to Gmail and like my customized homepage.

Re:Yahoo 3rd??? (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538076)

Nigerian princes!

Re:Yahoo 3rd??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33538418)

I used Yahoo some (Google several times a day, but Yahoo a couple of times a week for a slightly different perspective) until Yahoo switched to Bing just recently.

No surprise (3, Funny)

al0ha (1262684) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537462)

No surprise based on yesterday's story regarding the majority of users on Facebook.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/09/08/1621235/Narcissists-Insecure-People-Flock-To-Facebook [slashdot.org]

Post a bunch of stupid sh*t about myself, then read it over and over again...

Re:No surprise (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537602)

Post a bunch of stupid sh*t about myself, then read it over and over again...

That would be blogging. Facebook is people posting stupid sh*t about themselves and hoping other people care enough to acknowledge their existence.

Is that an achievement for Google or Facebook? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33537480)

Google prides itself on wasting less of our time, while Facebook prides itself on wasting more of it.

I wanna see how many ads per minute each service gets from their users, and how much resources a minute is worth on both of them.

Then this milestone might even mean something. By itself, it doesn't.

Re:Is that an achievement for Google or Facebook? (1)

darien.train (1752510) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537598)

Bingo! If I had a mod point I'd give it to you. The comparison is not even close to "Apples to Apples". It's like saying that people spend more time on the toilet than they do watching TV. Correction...The analogy would be that for the first time people now spend more time watching TV than they do on the toilet...which was probably hit the first year TVs came out.

Re:Is that an achievement for Google or Facebook? (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537706)

Google prides itself on wasting less of our time, while Facebook prides itself on wasting more of it.

Google Search, sure. But Gmail or YouTube?

Re:Is that an achievement for Google or Facebook? (1)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537892)

Subscribe me to your newsletter post haste!

I was thinking the same thing; I'm in two gmail accounts all day long and spend perhaps 5 minutes on farcebook each day, I spend more time on /. than at FB too. Perhaps these number reflect the millions of stupid people willing to not only reread their own inane postings but the droppings, er, postings of their alleged "friends"? It takes all of a minute to weed through the "oh, look at my sandwich!" and "my kid crapped a HUGE load in their diaper!" stuff and get on with RL. This too will pass. Like unto friendster, and unto myspace, so shall facebook go. It's nothing that can't be replaced with an email list of "friends". That and a ton of shitty webapps trying to be real grown-up software. So, facebook can be effectively replaced with an iPhone and a list of idiots. Problem solved!

Re:Is that an achievement for Google or Facebook? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538390)

To be fair, they do try and waste as little of your time as possible getting to the distractions.

Yahoo? (3, Informative)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537500)

I am completely surprised by Yahoo's stats. Either user-minutes is a garbage metric, or I am using the internets incorrectly.

Re:Yahoo? (1)

Speare (84249) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537794)

I am completely surprised by Yahoo's stats. Either user-minutes is a garbage metric, or I am using the internets incorrectly.

Most of those minutes are the user getting up, finding son-in-law, asking him unclear questions about whether their computer has an Internet or not, and a demonstration by said youngster how you don't have to type "www.google.com" into the Yahoo homepage search field.

Re:Yahoo? (3, Interesting)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537878)

The kind of people who still use Yahoo do things really slowly... they're the kind of people who always get in front of you when you're late and drive ten miles per hour slower than the speed limit. So, yes, in a way 'user minutes' is a garbage metric because if a site attracts fast users that will make it seem less popular/useful (or whatever qualitative conclusion one is supposed to correlate to the metric) even it isn't, and vice versa a site that attracts slower users will seem more popular/useful when that isn't the case.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Re:Yahoo? (2, Interesting)

powermung (780700) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538340)

My start page is my.yahoo.com. I still use their e-mail service as my primary e-mail, and their finance content is second to none. For other contents, I have RSS feeds on the start page which allows me to satisfy majority of my information browsing needs without ever leaving the page. I have tried iGoogle and Google finance in the past and wasn't impressed. Facebook? I guess I'm no longer a teenager without tons of free time. Besides, I didn't realize there was an "incorrect" way to use Internet.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33537502)

That is like 111+ years (if I calculated that right!)

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537912)

Humanity is aging at a rapid pace...

Don't mean no nothing (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537526)

Slashdot keeps on posting stupid stories like this, day in and day out, and I'm still here posting how stupid they are.

I ain't going nowhere. Suck that, facespace.

fa6oRz (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33537562)

I read tHe latest

face what? (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537594)

what book?
what what?

"slacking off" would be the correct term (3, Insightful)

Silas is back (765580) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537620)

Replace "socializing" with "slacking off" in that very first sentence and everybody will go "like I didn't know".

Yahoo? Really. (0, Redundant)

RykerrK (1898308) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537642)

Am I the only person surprised to see Yahoo that high up on the list?

Re:Yahoo? Really. (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538200)

Yahoo groups runs freecycle, Yahoo owns Flikr.
That's likely where lots of the user time comes from.

So what? (2, Interesting)

LordArgon (1683588) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537656)

Considering Google just released Google Instant, a feature that reduces overall query time (and also just happens to increases overall ad impressions), I don't think "online time" is a particularly meaningful metric for relevance.

Not really Socializing (4, Interesting)

InsaneSpider (1898302) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537670)

Its not really socializing if they are spending hours playing farmville or mafia wars. I think thats where most of the time goes. Although I will admit that I leave my facebook profile open when I leave for work, so I wonder if they count inactive uses or not.

Not mine (1)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537702)

I don't waste my time with social networks. So I don't follow the trends, it seems...

The numbers don't add up to me - 6 sec/month (1)

bbbbryan (1089197) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537774)

If facebook has 400 million users, and they spent a total of 40 million minutes in a month, that's only 0.1 minute per month for each user. I don't think you can do much more than log in once in 6 seconds. I read the article, and these numbers all appear to be bogus. Perhaps it is 40 * billion * minutes?

Re:The numbers don't add up to me - 6 sec/month (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537968)

If facebook has 400 million users, and they spent a total of 40 million minutes in a month, that's only 0.1 minute per month for each user. I don't think you can do much more than log in once in 6 seconds. I read the article, and these numbers all appear to be bogus.

I'm notionally a Facebook user, and I haven't logged on to the site proper in months. I occasionally check some stuff on it through the native iPhone app (though even that only rarely), and use my Facebook logon for Bejeweled Blitz (which, incidentally, I use only on my iPhone.)

I know lots of other marginally-attached Facebook users. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of Facebook users (e.g., named accounts) is an order of magnitude or more greater than the number users that actually visit the Facebook website at least once a month.

Re:The numbers don't add up to me - 6 sec/month (1)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538142)

I was thinking the same thing. It must be on average per day, or billion, like you said.

Re:The numbers don't add up to me - 6 sec/month (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33538168)

If facebook has 400 million users, and they spent a total of 40 million minutes in a month, that's only 0.1 minute per month for each user. I don't think you can do much more than log in once in 6 seconds. I read the article, and these numbers all appear to be bogus. Perhaps it is 40 * billion * minutes?

FTFA: "To be sure, there's wiggle room in these estimates, which comScore bases on a combination of reports from a panel of two million users around the world and data from websites' servers."

This is almost certainly based on a subselection of the total data. Otherwise, you would be completely correct - this is too small by multiple orders of magnitude. If the data from servers is only for these two million users, then that is an average of 20 minutes per month, which frankly also seems small.

What does it include? (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#33537802)

Does that include all the time that facebook users are browsing non-Facebook "facebook-enabled" sites?

Interestingly enough, it would appear that something happened to change my facebook's settings to "keep me logged in" without me telling it to.

How many people were included? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33538000)

Do we mow how many people were actually included in this survey and who they were? As somebody else has noted 40million minutes makes no sense at all. If it was a worldwide estimate it basically means that only an average of 1000 are on fb or google at any one time and I don't believe that for a second (or minute).

I will post my reply to this in 1 sec (2, Funny)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538088)

I just have to click on some more cows first.

Just be a few more minutes.

If you can just wait.

Re:I will post my reply to this in 1 sec (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33538300)

And that's the thing.

Are those users "on Facebook" or "on Zynga" when they're doing that?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>