• http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2006/12/googles_true_ma.html Don Dodge

    Danny, I think the difference is market share for “search referrals” versus “total searches performed”. They are different, but that doesn’t explain the relative differences in market share.

    My own blog traffic breaks down like this; 69.5% from Google, 1% Yahoo, 1% MSN, 10% links from other bloggers, and 18% links from my own blog to other posts.

    My guess is you are all right (You, Hitwise, ComScore)but the definitions and parameters are different. I wrote a blog today on my findings http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2006/12/googles_true_ma.html

  • http://seo-theory.blogspot.com/ Michael Martinez

    You’re comparing apples to oranges. Since all sites are not relevant to all queries, there is a disconnect between site owner data and search engine data.

    If, out of 1,000 searches run on engine X, 200 are about “danny sullivan”, your statistics on SearchEngineLand will only reflect some value about the 200 queries for “danny sullivan”, not the 1,000 queries overall.

    If engine X has a 10% search market share, “danny sullivan” may still only be a popular query on engine X, and it may grab only 50 out of 1,000 queries on engine Y.

    Engines X and Y undoubtedly have some audience overlap, but their audiences also have unique profiles, and those profiles include different interest trends.

    You just don’t have enough data to make a valid analysis.

  • http://searchengineland.com Danny Sullivan

    Mike, I pretty much already said that people might disagree in using Search Engine Land as a sole basis of anything. That’s why I mentioned that I’ve seen the same at Search Engine Watch over years, why I’ve seen the same thing at Daggle, why I’ve heard many other site owners say this, as well has having seen stats from traffic collection services say it. But hey — you run a site. Most of your traffic from Google?

  • http://www.fashioncraft.com JeffWells

    This confirms something I’ve been noticing over the past few months. We run a wholesale web site, and I’ve been noticing a decline in our Yahoo referalls over the past year. Even though our rankings for our key terms are better in Yahoo then they are in Google, my organic traffic for December is 59% Google and only 11% Yahoo. Interestingly MSN is 22%.

  • ROI Guy

    Danny

    I have wondered about the stats that show Google’s market share at 50% or even 60%. As an SEM professional, the only thing that really matters is the share of REVENUE delivered by each engine.

    I aggregated data for a couple of different clients across Google, Yahoo and MSN for May, 2006:

    Google produced around 74% of revenue, Yahoo 20%, MSN 6%.

    While this is certainly not a statistically significant sample or a broad cross section of the internet, these revenue figures are much closer to the Hitwise and Enquisite numbers reporting referrals to commerce sites.

  • http://seo-theory.blogspot.com/ Michael Martinez

    Danny, if you’re talking about Xenite.Org, most of my traffic comes from non-search sources. If you’re talking about my new SEO blog, most of my traffic comes from non-search sources. If you’re talking about my other, older (non-SEO) blog, Google accounts for about 56% of the traffic (according to Google Analytics, about which I have expressed reservations that don’t need to be revisited).

    Among the search engine referrals, Google probably sends my sites the most traffic. I get so many referrals from various Google, MSN, and Yahoo! properties that adding them all up is pretty tedious. Just looking at the top few referrer listings for both domains, Google seems to send more traffic then either Yahoo! or MSN. MSN sends almost as much traffic as Yahoo!

    Google does not appear to account for anywhere near 80% of all search-related traffic, but I would put their referrals above 60%.

    I see very different traffic patterns for my various domains based on topicality.

  • http://seoptimization.blog.com/ ★ ★ Search Engines WEB ★ ★

    One possible way to resolve this to the COMBINE THEM ALL – Then take the Average.

    Although on the surface, this might appear to be a copout….another way of looking at this tactic would be ‘WISDOM OF THE CROWD’

    One possibility of why Google far excells on the example sites mentioned, would be the relative complexity of the keywords people might have used to find the sites -
    RELATIVE COMPLEXITY…RELATIVE COMPLEXITY!!

    Look at the so called 2006 top search terms from the major search engines.

    Does anyone REALLY doubt that gaining access to precious statistics from those sites that come up #1 or #2 for such searches as:

    Britney Spears,
    Pam Anderson,
    S*X,
    P*rn
    etc….would show a different graph??

    It really is possible that the Extremely Common, Extremely Popular Simple terms are what are giving the other search engines a bigger piece of the graph.

    Google users – overall – may search with more complex terms and are apt to search more frequently, and go to page 2 SERPs.