Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Facebook Attracting More Visitors Than Google.com 173

Posted by Soulskill
from the bigger-they-are dept.
vikingpower writes "Internet research firm Hitwise just broke the news: last week, Facebook attracted 7.07 percent of the internet traffic in the USA, compared to 7.03 percent for Google. This is the first time google.com has been out of the top spot since it surpassed MySpace in 2007, and reflects a change in the way people use internet. They tend to privilege social interaction sites above 'passive' search engines." Facebook still has a ways to go if you include Google's non-search properties, which bring the total up to 11.03% of traffic.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Attracting More Visitors Than Google.com

Comments Filter:
  • facebook (Score:5, Funny)

    by ionix5891 (1228718) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @08:57AM (#31507192)

    pokes google

  • WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @08:58AM (#31507196) Homepage

    What the hell is a "passive" search engine?

    Come on, CNN. These people aren't saying "Oh, well, I have Facebook, so fuck Google"...they are just going to Facebook. What with Saint Patrick's day upon us and Spring Break happening in the near future, this doesn't surprise me, as a ton of people are likely using Facebook to organize parties and trips.

    • Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dangitman (862676) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:01AM (#31507230)

      Come on, CNN. These people aren't saying "Oh, well, I have Facebook, so fuck Google"...they are just going to Facebook.

      Not only are they going to Facebook, they're also Googling "facebook login."

      • Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by somersault (912633) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:19AM (#31507398) Homepage Journal

        Actually they're probably googling Facebook.com instead of just typing it in the address bar. I've seen people do stuff like that. Hell, I always just google "urban dictionary" rather than type in urbandictionary.com..

        Besides, by the very nature of facebook you will be navigating around a lot more looking at photos and such, whereas with google you often just need to have the main page, and one page of results. Admittedly if you're browsing for porn or similar you also probably will go through several pages of photos/results.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Your browser probably has a quick search keyword feature, so instead of going to google "urban dictionary", you could type something like "slang [term]" or even "ud [term]" om your address bar

        • Re:WTF? (Score:5, Funny)

          by Gulthek (12570) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:50AM (#31507722) Homepage Journal

          Actually, they are googling for facebook and getting hilariously confused with the result:

          http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_wants_to_be_your_one_true_login.php [readwriteweb.com]

          After that article went up dozens of people found it googling for "facebook login", and then proceeded to leave scathing comments about the "new" facebook design.

          • Wow. I could expect a couple of braindeads. Not several dozen. Certainly not in the thousands.

            • by tlhIngan (30335)

              Wow. I could expect a couple of braindeads. Not several dozen. Certainly not in the thousands.

              Facebook has how many million people? It doesn't take too many percentage wise to add up to over a thousand people... and they probably comment on everyone's "wall" so leaving a comment on a blog post isn't too different.

              On the plus side, that guy probably amassed a few thousand facebook logins...

              • by sopssa (1498795) *

                It looks like they used the Facebook Connect button to leave a comment, hence the F pictures and names in the comments.

                Still, hilarious.

          • by Sporkinum (655143)

            Thanks for posting that link. The 'tard quotient is high in that comments section.

          • I just lost most of my remaining faith in humanity. That actually ruined my day.

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by 228e2 (934443)
            #621

            I am a Prince from Nigeria and Facebook has been captured and is hidden behind our impenetrable firewalls here.

            If you send me a $10 Western Union money order to my address here in Lagos I can convince my family to release it.

            Send it to me here at:
            2 Walter Carrington Crescent, Victoria Island, Nigeria

            Win of all wins =)

          • I felt like bashing my head against a wall out of pure shame for humanity.
        • by dangitman (862676)

          Actually they're probably googling Facebook.com instead of just typing it in the address bar.

          Well, yes. That was the entire point of my post, it was a reference to the ReadWriteWeb [readwriteweb.com] incident mentioned by other correspondents. Sometimes I wonder if slashdot users are any more intelligent than those who tried to log in to Facebook via the ReadWriteWeb article.

          • I got your point and was just saying how crazy it is that people often know the actual address but still prefer to Google it. Looking at that article people are even more stupid than I had previously suspected though. It was almost like YouTube in there.

          • I don't like the new RWW! I put in my username and password and it doesn't work here!!!! WHY DOESN"T IT WORK?!?!?!?1/1/!?!?
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Hurricane78 (562437)

          Uuuum, do you know that there is a keyword search built into Firefox (and Opera for that matter)
          You can right-click on a input field of a form, and choose to create a keyword search. Enter the keyword, and off you go.

          To search on urban dictionary, I do “ud myquery” for Youtube its “yt”, etc. That’s what it’s there for.
          I even removed my search field, removed all buttons, and moved the URL field to the left of the menu. Which makes FF really slim. Nobody needs buttons anymo

          • I'm using Chrome.

            Although I'm sure I could implement something like that in Gnome-Do with browser plugins, then I'd just hit win-space and type "ud word" or whatever. For the amount of times that I actually look up stuff on Urban Dictionary (maybe once a week) or Youtube (almost never) it wouldn't really be worth my time though. When I want to look up a word I usually just google define:word (in Chrome the address bar doubles as a Google search box), with a normal Google search or Urban Dictionary as my bac

    • Re:WTF? (Score:5, Funny)

      by sopssa (1498795) * <sopssa@email.com> on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:01AM (#31507232) Journal

      Maybe CNN implies that Google searching should be more social and have a wall and status updates of what their friends have searched for. More social googling could also mean planning a trip together, searching for Linux information together, or even looking at porn together.

      • by bsDaemon (87307)

        WAN parties?

      • by JWSmythe (446288)

        Ummm, like Google Buzz?

        Google is moving away from "Do no evil" to "extend, embrace and exterminate". By the looks of it, Google Buzz has been another Google flop though.

        Facebook has their fair share of flop elements, such as their privacy (or lack thereof), which made the news but hasn't really scared too many people away. Considering how many games requests I've gotten from people I know, when I check my messages on there once every few months, they're still

    • Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Threni (635302) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:13AM (#31507326)

      Also, as the Internet gets more popular, the average technical ability of the users will decrease, and it will be used less often, overall, as a research tool for people looking for information about development/physics/whatever, and more for entertainment (watching tv/movies, listening to music etc).

      • Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by MBGMorden (803437) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:27AM (#31507490)

        Pretty much. People learn what sites they like.

        I spend a decent amount of time at Slashdot, several other message boards, my Gmail account, Wikipedia, and Facebook. Another significant chunk of my monthly usage is tied to downloading P2P content, podcasts, and online gaming - all have separate non-web interfaces.

        In the end, I know a lot of where I want to go, and I can go there these days without needing to search for it. Don't get me wrong I still Google plenty, but it's not 1995 when every time I want to do something on the web I need to go searching for it.

        • What is the attraction of Facebook? My empathy circuits do not grok someone that spends significant time there. If my real face is somewhere, then it can only have links to my resume, and bland boring stuff that couldn't possibly offend anyone. Doesn't having your real face associated with your online activity sap every single ounce of fun out of using the internet? Or are people that naiive that they think being anything but Ned Flanders in public is a net win. I'm faced with the possibility that mayb
    • It's extra fluff to make Google sound like a skank whore that no man will ever want to fuck.
    • What the hell is a "passive" search engine?

      Wikipedia could be considered a passive search engine. The bulk of everything there was put there manually by the various contributors. Sure, there are bots clearing out dead links, and translating from one language to another, or from one wiki to another, but they work on the wiki itself. They don't go out actively searching for new information.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by cream wobbly (1102689)

      They were looking for some way to validate their comparison of apples to hippopotamuses.

      They were also at a loss for words. They meant "outputative" and "inputative". Google is something where you look for useful stuff. Facebook is where you post useless crap. Presumably, an "active" search engine would be one where you provide the content you're looking for.

      All these statistics show is that the Internet is dominated by useless crap. But there's hope, in that Facebook will become a huge repository for usele

  • OK (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dangitman (862676) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @08:59AM (#31507206)

    Facebook still has a ways to go if you include Google's non-search properties, which bring the total up to 11.03% of traffic.

    So, in other words, the entire premise of the headline/summary/article is a lie? What would the statistics for Facebook be if you only included "search properties"?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by elrous0 (869638) *
      It must be a fair comparison. The Facebook press release said so.
    • So Facebook hits exceed Google Search hits. That's an interesting trend. But Facebook is a rather one dimensional tool, while Google represents practically everything people do on the Internet. They can't really be compared, in my opinion.

      Millions of people (myself included) log onto Facebook several times a day to check their friends' status, and update their own status, and engage in banter with friends. It's a casual, superficial, but fun way to keep in touch with people that you'd otherwise have to

  • by jplopez (1067608) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:03AM (#31507238)
    Google introduces Gfarm.
    • by natehoy (1608657)

      Yeah, I almost expected "Buzz" to be an app where you raised bees. Is that a sign that I need to spend less time on Facebook?

      • by tepples (727027)

        Yeah, I almost expected "Buzz" to be an app where you raised bees.

        You mean like Halo 2 [wikipedia.org] or like I'm a bee, I'm a bee, I'm a I'm a I'm a bee [wikipedia.org]?

        • by natehoy (1608657)

          More as in...

          "(user) has lost a baby bee in Buzz! Awwwww. Looka da cute widdwe bee! And it's lost and alone! CLICK HERE to help find it!"

          "(user) has sent you some HONEY from BUZZ! CLICK HERE to collect it and start farming your own!"

          "(user) just got a NEW QUEEN and is starting a new hive in Buzz! CLICK HERE to get your FREE QUEEN and start your own hives!"

          "(user) just burrito-farted and killed off 45 WORKER BEES in Buzz! CLICK HERE to send (user) some VIRTUAL BEANO and a VIRTUAL SYMPATHY CARD!"

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Matt Perry (793115)

      Google introduces Gfarm.

      Obviously it requires GNOME.

  • by Gopal.V (532678) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:03AM (#31507252) Homepage Journal

    Facebook is slowly turning into the WalMart equivalent for the internet. Sure, you could go to flickr for the photos, twitter for the updates, upcoming for the events, youtube/hulu for videos, gtalk/yahoo for IM, gmail to send messages - or you could go to facebook and have all of it half-assed.

    Basically a huge walled garden which is only available to those inside the wall. The trick of course, is to make it nice so that people can bring in their data easily and fb's success is because they make it damn convenient to put your data in there.

    Now, do I use facebook? Damn right, I do ... because as much bitching as I do about the effect it's having on the entire internet, I gotta move with my friends or end up falling out of touch [dotgnu.info], with everybody who already knows what everybody else is doing. And in some selfish way, my friends are more important to me than the internet.

    Sad, but true.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Pojut (1027544)

      While you made some great points, you're about two years too late:

      http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/chris-dannen/techwatch/internet-and-strip-mall-effect [fastcompany.com]

    • by sakdoctor (1087155) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:12AM (#31507318) Homepage

      So fall out of touch with them. There is nothing social about social networks.

    • Basically a huge walled garden which is only available to those inside the wall. The trick of course, is to make it nice so that people can bring in their data easily and fb's success is because they make it damn convenient to put your data in there.

      You know, they just opened up their chat over Jabber, right? I just added another account in Empathy, (you can do it in any chat client that support Jabber, like Pidgin, and many, many others) and now my friends keep messaging me when I'm asleep, wondering why I'm still online.

      I actually like it, I can chat with friends on the site, without having to be on the site.

    • by gaspyy (514539)

      gotta move with my friends or end up falling out of touch [dotgnu.info], with everybody who already knows what everybody else is doing.

      Falling out of touch? The friends I have are just a phone call away. I have an account on FB but if I really care about someone, I don't need it to stay in touch with them.

    • to keep up with your friends, they aren't really your friends

      facebook is for ACQUAINTANCES, not true friends, even if the word you use for an acquaintance is "friend" (which makes sense to promote the word "friend" to the realm of the more dispersonal, for the sake of corporate level public relations, which is how some people run their lives)

      the point is that a true friendship is its own reward. you actually commit real work and maintenance to see them because you want to do that. if it feels like a lot of effort to do that with someone, then in emotional honesty, they aren't really a true friend anymore. as soon as someone is unimportant enough to you that you slag them off to your fake corporate public relations face, aka, facebook, they have ceased to be your friend. just admit it and move on

      all facebook is is a giant mask, a bit of fakery, that requires you to constantly maintain it, as long as having a fake public face is important to you for whatever reason. facebook is turning our social lives into emotionally dead corporate facades of shallow fakery

      so for a little bit of genuine, psychologically healthy friendship, stop running your private life the same way a corporation runs a public relations department. facebook users, try this: the next time you make a new friend, someone you sense could be or you want them to be a close friend, make a pact with them to "keep it off the radar"

      off of facebook, off of tweets, etc. when you want to socialize with them, socialize with them directly. make your emails and phone calls terse things to actually just arrange meet up times in which real socialization actually takes place

      then you will know what it is like to actually have a friend

      i'd rather have two or three friends like that than 200 to 300 acquaintances on facebook, that you dutifully and exhaustively maintain a corporate mask for. but inside, no one knows you and you don't know anyone else. for those of us addicted to facebook, life has become an emotionally unsatisfying slog through fake masks of constant shallow empty cheerfulness

      go off the internet, make a real friend, lose the corporate pr department

      • This is not necessarily true. I've lived in 4 different US states in the past 6 years. Status updates for a period can be enough to keep that relationship going to the point that if I called them tomorrow it would not be a 2 hour conversation around catching up so much as "Hey, I have a 4 hour layover passing through Las Vegas on my way to Chicago next week, want to try to grab lunch?" or "Saw you were going to a convention in LA, I live about 90 minutes from there, think you'll have time to grab a beer?"

        Th

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by brkello (642429)
        Oh jeez, get over yourself. No one can keep a close personal relationship with every one of our friends. We have moved or have families or are just too busy. Facebook is a simple way to keep in touch. I log in, see someone I haven't chatted with in awhile, send them some messages and enjoy seeing how they are doing.

        To try to make it seem like that is somehow anti-social and I don't have real friends is moronic. I don't maintain some sort of fake personality. I'll throw up a link or something if I thi
    • Facebook is slowly turning into the WalMart equivalent for the internet. Sure, you could go to flickr for the photos, twitter for the updates, upcoming for the events, youtube/hulu for videos, gtalk/yahoo for IM, gmail to send messages

      In other words, what Google and Yahoo! and many others have tried to do - become the One Site To Rule Them All.

    • by rwv (1636355)

      upcoming for the events

      I've never heard of this one. Could you describe how useful it is compared to MeetUp.com, Google Calendar, Facebook invites, or eVite.com?

      Specifically, I want an online invitation system where I can set a "Max RSVP Number" so I can put a ceiling on the number of people who come to events that I host. Honestly, I *want* to be able to invite the whole world when I hold desirable events, but it's a matter of logistics that "poker night" can't accommodate more than 8 people and "homemade pizza/sushi night"

    • by Angostura (703910)

      I see it more as Facebook rebuilding AOL from the bottom up. It is a walled garden that for increasing numbers of people IS the Internet

    • by DrVomact (726065)

      Facebook is slowly turning into the WalMart equivalent for the internet.

      I believe we already had something like that—it was called "AOL".

      The Normals need a playground. A market like that just can't be ignored; after all, there are so many of them.

  • by rwa2 (4391) * on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:04AM (#31507256) Homepage Journal

    Meh, I only went to facebook regularly because I got addicted to some of the crappy clicky games (MafiaWars and Starfleet Commander). But at some point just this month, I finally stopped feeding the urge to maintain those things... it was eating a lot of quality time out of my personal time in mornings and evenings. I pretty much avoid MMORPGs for the same reason.

    The signal-to-noise ratio of most of those social networking sites have plummeted, so I rarely pay much attention to them anymore. The feeds are dominated by a handful of people who post all the time. So queue up the next big thing... or actually maybe the older sites like LiveJournal with actual content, and not just grey connective tissue. Clicky clicky linky linky can still get old and tired.

  • Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ircmaxell (1117387) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:04AM (#31507274) Homepage
    So you take one sites total traffic (including searching, media, and generated traffic), and compare it to a (albeit large) portion of a another sites traffic. I mean it's cool that Facebook's traffic exceeds Google's search traffic, but I think the title is misleading...

    One thing that bothers me is how Hitwise gets its data...

    Hitwise takes a wholly different approach. It does not gather data directly from individual computers as comScore and Nielsen do. Instead, it gets the data from Internet service providers (ISPs) who aggregate traffic data across all the individuals to whom they deliver Internet access. Hitwise provides ISPs with proprietary software that allows them to analyze website usage logs created on their networks

    http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/online_sidebars_backgrounders [stateofthemedia.org]

    So what does that mean? Are they analyzing DNS queries? Are they analyzing raw IP addresses? Are they analyzing raw HTTP headers? And I'd like to know more about what ISPs are signed up for this. Is it a statistical significant portion of them, or is it only a few here and there... Do those providers use high speed, mid speed or dialup connections? These are the kinds of questions that need answering to know if the conclusions that they draw are indeed valid, or if this isn't just a marketing stunt for the company...

    • And analytics for backing the company's last big push double suck.
    • Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by natehoy (1608657) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:41AM (#31507610) Journal

      They're analyzing whatever they can find so they can make up a headline "Facebook attracting more visitors than google.com" so you'll actually read it and discover it's complete tripe, but only after having seen a few ads that they get paid for.

      I know when I search on Google, I go to Google.com, enter my search criteria, and then start poring through the results. When I've found what I wanted, I move to the sites that have what I want. So Google gets maybe 10 "hits", 100 if you count each page element my browser requests as a "hit".

      When I go on Facebook, I'll read updates, sometimes post replies, etc. Facebook also has a much more complex page with a lot more elements. So depending on their measurement of "visits", just going to Facebook might be anywhere between 20-30 hits per brief visit to thousands of them if you count each request.

      But you looked at their ads, didn't you? Their statistics served their purpose.

      • They're analyzing whatever they can find so they can make up a headline "Facebook attracting more visitors than google.com" so you'll actually read it and discover it's complete tripe, but only after having seen a few ads that they get paid for.

        Which are more like to be google ads than facebook ads? :)

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by E-Rock (84950)

      No one finds it funny that this milestone of the rise of social networking is that facebook surpassed google. Did they not read the next line where before google MySpace was the top site?

      Social Site - Search Engine - Social Site

  • by selven (1556643) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:04AM (#31507276)

    When I need to search for something, I put the search terms into the URL bar and Google Chrome automatically sends me to the answer page for the search query. Sometimes it even takes me straight to a Wikipedia article.

    Search isn't dead, it's just transparent.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by omnichad (1198475)

      And the answer page is on Google.com. They're talking about the whole TLD, not the home page.
       
      Using the search bar is win-win with Google. They save on bandwidth/resources, and there's no ads on their home page anyway. And when it jumps you to Wikipedia, those are usually for instances where you're not shopping for something anyway.

  • And the point of the article is?
  • I'd be interested in how this is measured tbh. It is the old, false, addage of 'hits'? The graph cites as 'visits', but I'm curious how that's actually measured.

    Besides, even if FB had more visits, big deal.. a visit to search means you're likely trying to find out something.. not post that you're getting ready to make eggs for breakfest.. then post again that you realized you're out of eggs.. and another one asking if anyone needs anything from the store..
    FB is popular for the same reasons MMOs remain popu

  • This is a vulnerability to them. They want to be YOUR portal to the rest of the internet. If they can make it easier for you to get to Facebook via Google they will. If they can pull you away from facebook into BUZZ or GoogleWave they will. The interesting bit comes around when you start getting an agreement with Facebook and Bing/Yahoo that tries to make this impossible for Google to achieve. The interwebs is a fickle hellcat, it moves at speeds of fast.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DragonWriter (970822)

      This is a vulnerability to them. They want to be YOUR portal to the rest of the internet.

      Actually, they want to be your portal to all of human knowledge; the internet is a means, not an ends.

      If they can make it easier for you to get to Facebook via Google they will. If they can pull you away from facebook into BUZZ or GoogleWave they will.

      I don't think that they view pulling people into Buzz or Wave as properties as a major strategic goal, they want to use Buzz and Wave properties as showcases for the unde

  • by bogaboga (793279) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:22AM (#31507426)

    Is it only me who knows that what people do on Facebook is more of gossip spreading than anything really useful?

  • I suspect most people visit BOTH sites. If I want to look up some technical information (or find new pr0n), I use google. If I want to find out if Brenda's son got his car fixed, I check on Facebook.

  • Sure there's a ton of traffic. People keep handing me free beers!

    I'd hazard that at least 80% of that Google traffic is useful and productive. Facebook traffic, OTOH, tends to be viral marketing crap designed to drive up the traffic stats.

    --
    Toro

  • by SlappyBastard (961143) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:36AM (#31507556) Homepage

    So, you're counting all of Facebook's assets -- including Farmville! -- while only looking at Google's core.

    Sloppy and lazy. You guys should be proud of putting this on Slashdot.

  • The only thing I do on Facebook is throw cows at everyone on my friends list. Outside of that Facebook is kinda pointless to me. All these causes, games, god knows what else I find more annoying then useful. Still Superpoke is useful for tossing cows at people. When Google comes up with something that lets me do that then I'm ditching Facebook forever.
  • by rcastro0 (241450) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:52AM (#31507752) Homepage

    Even if google had half the traffic of facebook it still would trump it: google knows what you are looking for in that moment so it is able to target advertisement better. Facebook on the other hand generally only knows that you are tending to your pigs in farmville, at the moment.

    Even if facebook had twice traffic, it still is an easy bet that google has more reach (as a greater % of internet users access it). Just think about age/professional profiles: you know everyone uses google. You know lots of people don't use and don't care for facebook.

  • So some people spend time in Facebook like members of the TheGuild spend time in WoW. That generates lots of page views and traffic. On the other hand I visit facebook about twice a month and use google countless times a day.
  • People generally prefer talking bullshit and gawking at each other's pointless photos over finding and learning useful information on the Internet.

    Either that or people stopped googling the website name they wanted, and learned either how to use the address bar or the bookmarks :)

  • In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PhilHibbs (4537) <snarks@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @10:24AM (#31508124) Homepage Journal

    More people read the TV Guide than Yellow Pages.

  • As an aside, it's stunning to think of the absolutely massive hardware that must sit behind Google and Facebook. I mean, 11% and 7% of ~total web traffic in the US~, respectively. That's a lot of bytes! Frankly I find it shocking/amazing that any single site can command such a massive slice of all traffic, given the size of the web and all. 11% for Google's stuff combined doesn't surprise me but 7% for FB certainly does. I mean, it's a popular site and I use it, but I doubt it makes up 7% of my browsing-rel

  • Say what you will about Google, but its level of evil is dwarfed by Facebook's.

    *You can use much of Google without logging in, even without cookies or Javascript. Try that with Facebook.
    *Google gets criticized for privacy bugs in Buzz, but Facebook is entirely based on privacy violations
    *Google pioneered reasonable Internet ads (text ads). Though they later added other kinds of ads, Google showed it's possible for websites to earn revenue without being totally obnoxious. Facebook ads are evil incarnate.
    *Go

  • No kidding. This is like saying more people are heading to a bar or coffeehouse than to a library. Human beings are social creatures; they will want to hang out and chat more than they will want to riffle through all the world's knowledge.
  • Everyone already learned everything there is to know on the interwebs, no longer needing to search for it on google.com anymore. Now, they're logging in to facebook to share their knowledge with their friends!

  • This news came just when IPO is beeing talked inside FaceBook... perfect timing, isnt it ?

"Just Say No." - Nancy Reagan "No." - Ronald Reagan

Working...