Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet

Google Users more Wealthy, Net Savvy 280

Posted by CowboyNeal from the slashdot-users-not-mentioned dept.
evil_breeds writes "A study by S.G. Cowen & Co. says that Google users tend to be richer and have more Internet experience than users of the other search engines, including Yahoo!, AOL, and Microsoft's search, according to an article on Infoworld."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Users more Wealthy, Net Savvy More

Google Users more Wealthy, Net Savvy

Comments Filter:

  • That can't be (Score:5, Funny)

    by dg41 ( 743918 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @09:38AM (#14228084)
    I know plenty of hippies that use Google.

    • Re:That can't be (Score:5, Funny)

      by leonmergen ( 807379 ) <lmergen@@@gmail...com> on Saturday December 10, 2005 @09:42AM (#14228102) Homepage

      ... then you must be Wealthy, Net Savvy enough to keep up the average... kudos to you my friend! :-)

    • Yes. I for one have to set the hounds on those pesky hippies that venture in the grounds of my manor house trying to use their 'yahoo' on my wireless conection.

    • Google was good, going down? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ATeamMrT ( 935933 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @09:54AM (#14228163)
      What made google so appealing to people was the interface, there was no advertising. There was one blank page with an input box to do a search from. Google seperated advertising from searching at a time when other engines like Excite were filled with junk that distracted.

      Today, Google seems to be going in the other direction. Offering more services, integrating more advertising.

      Just the past 6 months, I have noticed a new form of advertising by Google. In the past, there would be the advertising on the right of the page, and the advertising on top in the blue or green box. But now they sneak in 3 or 4 searches on the first page mixed in with the regular searches as advertising. Google is tempted to make money, and it will burn thier support.

      Who knows, maybe someone else will start a search engine. Google came around at a time when Yahoo and Excite dominated, but Google made a product easier to use. I remember my first time using Google... I was at Yahoo to search for something when someone said "Why don't you try google, check it out". I was hooked.

      The past few months I have been using Yahoo more for a few reasons. Maybe reason #1 is I got tired of Google having so many websites listed so high that was spam.

      The other thing which turned me off to Google was I started a website and wanted to add it to the listings. Google would not add my listings for six months. And mine is NOT spam. Why is spam listed so high, but legitimate websites are not?

  • Quick! (Score:5, Funny)

    by TCM ( 130219 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @09:38AM (#14228085)
    Everyone use Google and wealth and wisdom will ensue!
    • Everyone use Google and wealth and wisdom will ensue!

      That's a nice joke, but the old saying "No knowledge no bread, no bread no knowledge" is true. People who know computing use free software and Google. People who don't really care use M$ and junk search engines. The true careless still watch TV to stay informed, well entertained. Poverty follows carelessness as surely as the laws of nature punish stupidity. People like Bill Gates will take their money.

      If you don't like people who take advantage of th

  • Mac users (Score:2, Troll)

    by wazzzup ( 172351 )
    So I wonder if a majority of Mac users use Google? The demographics are the same. Personally, I use a Mac and there are no other search engines but Google.

    • Re:Mac users (Score:3, Insightful)

      by HexRei ( 515117 )
      I suppose you have some citations for this claim? I'd buy that Mac users are on the average wealthier (Macs are more expensive) but as someone who has supported both PC and Mac users in a wide variety of circumstances, I don't see much difference between the two in regard to "net savvy".

    • Re:Mac users (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jimktrains ( 838227 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @10:10AM (#14228214) Homepage
      Oh, you mean that *nix distro with an AWESOME GUI? Yeah I use it. I also use google the most often because it looks better in Lynx.

      On a more serious note: Some people don't use google? Even the semi-computer illerteate people I know use google and nothing else. It's like second nature to most everyone, I thought.
      • Even the semi-computer illerteate people...

        I think we all can work a bit harder to help people become more computer lerteate.

      • Re:Mac users (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Fred_A ( 10934 )
        Oddly enough a lot of people I know insist on using Yahoo. They admit that google has a cleaner interface and better results but they still use yahoo.

        It's a bit like those people that can't manage to switch to Firefox. They tried it, saw that it worked just as well or better than IE, had better features, and still used IE.

        I've given up on figuring them out. It must be something like religion, it doesn't make any logical sense.

        • Re:Mac users (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ZeonMan0079 ( 926241 )
          "It's a bit like those people that can't manage to switch to Firefox. They tried it, saw that it worked just as well or better than IE, had better features, and still used IE."

          I have always believed these kind of people think IE is more "official" or something (installing "that other program" won't do, even though they install every mini-"game" that comes in cereal boxes), and because Yahoo! and MSN smack them 15 of their other services in the ir front page they use nothing else (They use either (MSN ||

    • 1) Yes, you definitely have to be decently well-off to be a Mac user. However, 2) Mac folks and their ~3% marketshare won't be enough to skew the general trend in a noticeable way.
      • Actually all macs aren't that expensive, when I bought my iBook for 1200 € it was after carefully considering the alternative (an Intel/AMD Linux laptop), and the Apple machine certainly was cheaper.

        With desktop machines, this doesn't work though.

        OTOH, if you want to fully use the software that comes bundled with it, you have to pay extra.
        • Actually all macs aren't that expensive, when I bought my iBook for 1200 it was after carefully considering the alternative (an Intel/AMD Linux laptop), and the Apple machine certainly was cheaper.

          You can get significantly more powerful laptops than an iBook for 1200 Euro. I say this as a Powerbook owner too - the decision was not made from a cost standpoint.

          • Yes, I know that, but if you want a no hassle Unix, which was my main puchase factor, the Mac was the cheapest option.

            Linux is still a major pain to use on notebooks (unless you have way too much time on your hands, and even then) and notebooks that come with Linux preinstalled typically suck and/or are overpriced.

            I don't expect to stick with the Mac though since although I don't regret my choice, I'm not overly impressed with the Unix side of things. Apple may have used a BSD base but it's really hard to

    • Re:Mac users (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TheRaven64 ( 641858 )
      Probably, since the search box in Safari goes to Google. It's always google.com, however, which is irritating. I filed a bug over a year ago saying that it should be localised for non-US people, and it was marked as a duplicate, but still hasn't been fixed.

  • One step closer (Score:5, Funny)

    by RasendeRutje ( 829555 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @09:42AM (#14228099)
    I think we're one step closer to Miscrosoft paying us to use their search engine...

  • Not very surprised (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mcvos ( 645701 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @09:42AM (#14228104)
    AOL and MS's Search are places you're directed to by your OS or ISP. Google is independent, so going there requires a bit more independent thought.

    Actually, Yahoo! is also independent, so apparently there's a hole in my theory. Can anyone explain why Yahoo! users are less intelligent than Google users? Has it something to do with that exclamation mark?

  • since we are always discussing microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)

    by way2trivial ( 601132 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @09:44AM (#14228109) Homepage Journal
    and their 'funded' windows v linux TCO studies..

    I'm curious who paid SG Cowen for this one?

    they don't generate this stuff for fun, they do it for income-- what's the source of the income that enables them to produce such a report?

    anyone? know anything about the corp? I find little on the site of the company to fill in the blank...

    • Re:since we are always discussing microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)

      by akuma(x86) ( 224898 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @10:29AM (#14228306)
      SG Cowen is a wall street investment bank. Their analysts get paid to do research on publicly traded companies.

      They may have a position in google stock in which case they would try to find information to suggest that the stock should be priced higher. They may do investment banking business with google which introduces a conflict of interest. By law (regulation full-disclosure), the analyst needs to disclose such positions or investment banking relationships if they exist.

      Their clients may have positions in google stock or be interested in buying or selling google. They pay the analysts for their reports. Accurate analysts develop good reputations and draw more business to the bank.

    • they don't generate this stuff for fun, they do it for income-- what's the source of the income that enables them to produce such a report?

      Wrong. They produce reports on various markets as part of their own advertising: predict a trend, publish the prediction, if you are right, people will flock to you to manage their portfolios.

      • reparse my question with me, and tell me how your response 'wrong' applies?

        my question includes two assertions before asking a question (ps I consider a little bit of skepticisim of everyone healthy)
        1-they don't do it for fun (it referring to generating reports)
        2- they do it for income (it referring to generating reports)
        --what's the source of the revenue ?

        what part of that- properly- can be responded to as "wrong"?

        now, in the second half, you answered my question- but why did you start out with "wrong"
    • I think the main problem people have with the Microsoft funded studies is the conclusions they come to do not match people real world experiences.- hence questioning the source makes sense.

      Whereas this 'study' elicits a 'well duh' type response.

      1) People who have been on the 'net longer tend to be more educated.
      2) Better educated people tend to be wealthier.
      3) People using the 'net longer tend to use google 'cause it works well.

      *shrugs*
    • I can't name names, but I can tell you this:
      they all use Google.

  • Rich? (Score:5, Funny)

    by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @09:46AM (#14228120) Journal
    Will all you rich Google users please send this Broke College Student some money?

    • Re:Rich? (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Will all you rich Google users please send this Broke College Student some money?

      Just give me your Bank Account Access Details, Account Type, Password Table and Payment Confirmation Codes and I'll put 100.000$ to your account.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Guie
      Nigeria

    • Re:Rich? (Score:2, Funny)

      by chillmost ( 648301 )
      Will all you rich Google users please send this Broke College Student some money?

      Why don't you just google [google.com] for it?

  • Could it be (Score:4, Insightful)

    by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @09:46AM (#14228127) Journal
    that Goooooogle users actually know what they are looking for when they search on the Internet, and so use Goooogle, and people that don't know what they are looking for are happy with whatever Yahoo! and others dish up?

    I know I use Gooooogle because I'm able to use it to find what I want to find, and normally in the first page. This is not so with other search engines. I may be biased by personal taste, but that seems to show some difference that might explain the headline?
    • Google is just a mess for anything i look for. Yahoo's summaries are better, results are less poluted of advertising only sites and actually are more responsive.

      This study only proves someone's bias for google and nothing more.

  • No word on... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Scareduck ( 177470 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @09:48AM (#14228135) Homepage Journal
    ... more attractive to the opposite sex just yet, though I'm sure that if Google could get you laid, you'd think I'd've heard about it by now...
    • So _that's_ where we're going wrong!

      Hang on, Yahoo gives you http://personals.yahoo.com/ [yahoo.com] but Google users have more cash. Could this be the real reason?

    • Re:No word on... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by headLITE ( 171240 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @10:08AM (#14228206)
      After I first met my gf, we didn't see each other for months since she lives halfway across the country (of course, said country being Germany, that wasn't as bad as it sounds). We started to exchange e-mails, currently totalling over 4k messages. I'm fairly certain our ability to look up information on Google and impress each other with it played an important part in this. Thousands of e-mails from the same person tend to be boring if there's never anything new in them. That was in 2004. We've been "officially together" for the better part of 2005 and she's finally moving in with me this month. Thanks, Google.
  • Since the first time I started using google it has always impressed me, the ease of use and accurate search results were just the beginning.

    For me the best thing about Google is that you can use regular expressions in your search strings which really gives you the best possible results, sure other search engines allow expressions but none as complex or effective as those found in google.

    Whenever I need to know something or understand something better I do a quick google and within minutes I have the informa

  • Hold on.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sdo1 ( 213835 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @09:55AM (#14228166) Journal
    ...while I put my surprised face on.

    Joe Average goes to his local Best Buy, Circuit City, or other mega-store and buys the PC that the pimply sales dweeb recommends. He doesn't know a Gigahertz from a megabyte. He unpacks his PC, plugs it in, answers yes to every question the computer recommends he answer yes to. He opens the browser and it points to MSN. His twelve year old daughter's friend uses Yahoo messenger, and therefore so does she.

    Is anyone surprised that the technically non-savy and generally lesser educated segements of the populous don't know what's out there and pretty much just take what's fed to them? Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of well educated and afluent people who don't have a clue either.

    -S
    • Is anyone surprised that the technically non-savy and generally lesser educated segements of the populous don't know what's out there and pretty much just take what's fed to them?

      But that's true of most things - cars, stereos, refrigerators. People don't really comparison shop anymore. They watch commercials, the commercials tell them what to do, and they do it, like lemmings to the sea. If Google advertised on TV and they redid this study, I'll bet the demographic would have shifted overnight.

      As an asi

    • Our way is not the best way, nor is it the only way... it is just a way...

      I grew up playing on 8088's and specialized computer. I use google and (insert_other_geek_indicator_here). This doesnt make me better than anyone else (except, perhaps, in the computer world).

      Example: I recently bought a house. My father in law and brother in law are not the computer elite. They are electrical engineers, HVAC, plumbing, etc. They also took time off their work to come up to our new house to help us fix tons of th

      • Re:Hold on.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rydia ( 556444 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @11:46AM (#14228653)
        That's a really great statement, and I don't think it can be emphasized enough. I'm a techie and now a lawyer, but once upon a time I spent a summer working in maintenance. There are so many things that people who slashdotites look down on can do it boggles the mind... and it's not just advanced stuff, it's knowing how to wire something properly. Computers won't give you that. Sure, most of the guys didn't go to college. But they're certainly not stupid. They're sending their kids to college because they want opportunities for them. They watch jeopardy and all that good stuff. You read /. long enough and you get the idea that everyone else here thinks that "joe sixpack" really is a permanently inebriated, dirt-eating idiot. That's really unfortunate, and it doesn't reflect well on us as techies.
    • You're right. People eat what is put in front of them. The news in this study is that Google has a huge barrier to overcome to attact the masses.

    • "answers yes to every question the computer recommends he answer yes to"

      How funny, I do that when compiling Linux kernels too. I guess almost every non-geek out there does it. Not a good metric, but I agree with the overall.

    • Re:Hold on.... (Score:2, Redundant)

      by Tim C ( 15259 )
      the technically non-savy and generally lesser educated

      How stunningly arrogant. A lack of technical knowledge means that the person is "lesser educated"? News flash for you - an awful lot of highly educated people (doctors, lawyers, etc) are clueless about technology. Conversely, a lot of people who are very, very knowledgable about technology know very little about any other subject.

  • If you ask... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Skiron ( 735617 )
    Jeeves he says to use Google too!

  • Erm... duh (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kiddygrinder ( 605598 )
    Ah, i think it's just that people who are smarter can figure out how *not* to use the default msn search in ie

  • Dialup portals (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TallMatthew ( 919136 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @10:01AM (#14228187)
    AOL, MSN and Yahoo (via relationship with SBC) are all dialup providers. It's not surprising their portals are visited more often by the, erm, underprivileged.

  • The Shark has been Jumped (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pedantic bore ( 740196 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @10:02AM (#14228191)
    Wake me up when there's some "stuff that matters". Or when the Google fanboys go off and start up a "GoogleDot" web site (which will be the best thing ever and spend five years in beta...) and we can have more stories about swimming hamsters.

    • Re:The Shark has been Jumped (Score:5, Funny)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @10:29AM (#14228304)
      They need to have google.slashdot.org and then people could block this stuff. Better yet, pointless-google-stories.slashdot.org as well as google.slashdot.org so we could seperate out the true trash from the slightly overrated trash that the editors have been pushing lately.

  • Macs & Googe (Score:3, Funny)

    by mslinux ( 570958 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @10:09AM (#14228210)
    Mac users who google are the smartest, wealthiest people on the planet.

  • Either wrong or article is missing something (Score:3, Informative)

    by broothal ( 186066 ) <christian@fabel.dk> on Saturday December 10, 2005 @10:13AM (#14228227) Homepage Journal
    From tfa: "The longer people have been using the Internet, the more likely it is that Google will be their search engine of choice" and "people whose primary search engine is Google are more likely to have household incomes above US$60,000"


      You can't conclude that. It's like saying "I'm left handed. I like linux. Therefore, all left handed like linux". What they have found out is, that people with more experience has a higher paid job. There's no statistical evidence tying it to their search engine of choice.


    "Google also emerged as the search engine of choice, with 52 percent of respondents choosing it as their primary engine for general Web searches. Yahoo came in second with 22 percent, while Microsoft's MSN and AOL tied for third place with 9 percent."


    That survery is good to see which search engine is the most popular. Google obviously is. But if you only have 9% MSN users in your statistical material, then you can't compare them. You need to compare groups of similar size.



    • Re:Either wrong or article is missing something (Score:5, Informative)

      by santiago ( 42242 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @10:53AM (#14228412)
      From tfa: "The longer people have been using the Internet, the more likely it is that Google will be their search engine of choice" and "people whose primary search engine is Google are more likely to have household incomes above US$60,000"


          You can't conclude that. It's like saying "I'm left handed. I like linux. Therefore, all left handed like linux". What they have found out is, that people with more experience has a higher paid job. There's no statistical evidence tying it to their search engine of choice.


      Yes, you can conclude that. The phrase "more likely" does not imply causation, merely correlation. If the data you gather shows that two factors are correlated then, without even trying to construct a causation model for this correlation, you can use one as a predictor of the other. The article is merely saying that the longer a randomly-selected user has been using the internet the likelier it is they use Google, and that the fraction of Google users with incomes over $60,000 is higher than the fraction of non-Google users with incomes over $60,000.

      That survery is good to see which search engine is the most popular. Google obviously is. But if you only have 9% MSN users in your statistical material, then you can't compare them. You need to compare groups of similar size.


      No, you don't. There is no statistical requirement that various groups you are trying to compare be of similar size in order to make comparisons. There is only a requirement that all your groups be sufficiently large to have a high likelihood of being representative of the population from which they are being drawn. WIth 1000 users and 9% MSN that's only 90 users, which is probably not enough to draw broad conclusions about MSN's user base, but the study as a whole seems to be mostly comparing the 52% Google users to the 48% non-Google users. That certainly seems like a reasonable number of samples to support the conclusion that Google use, technical experience, and income are all positively correlated.
      • WIth 1000 users and 9% MSN that's only 90 users, which is probably not enough to draw broad conclusions about MSN's user base, but the study as a whole seems to be mostly comparing the 52% Google users to the 48% non-Google users.

        Well, since they reported it as a statistically significant finding, I'm sure 90 people is enough to be representative. There's all sorts of statistical methods to determine if the results are significant with any sample size, and in practice 90 is a decent sized sample for maki

  • Make a donation (Score:4, Funny)

    by vivekg ( 795441 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @10:15AM (#14228235) Homepage Journal
    Now I can ask all my site visitors coming from Google to make a donation as they are rich :D

    Heh

  • POP! goes the ad revenue (Score:5, Interesting)

    by krygny ( 473134 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @10:18AM (#14228253)
    This seems almost like some contrived effort to increase Google's ad revenue. Now, when Google negotiates an advertising agreement, they can cite this. Poor, dumb people (who have computers) don't use Google? Virtually everyone uses Google. I wouldn't claim to know, but I'd think the Google demographic is that of the general population.

  • I don't know about you ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Woldry ( 928749 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @10:23AM (#14228276) Journal
    ... but I'm definitely putting "Google user" down on my next loan application.

  • Big surprise! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BushCheney08 ( 917605 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @10:33AM (#14228321)
    Well, I know that this is a huge surprise for everyone. *rolls eyes* Keep in mind that people who aren't netsavvy have no idea how the internet works at all (big shock!). I've seen many people who open up a browser, get sent to MSNs or AOLs page or wherever the latest hijacked homepage is, then type the address that you give them into the search bar there. They don't realize there's a difference between an address bar and a search field on a page. Every time this happens, one more hit for MSN, Yahoo, AOL, etc. Only people who go out of their way to get to Google (setting it as a homepage, installing Firefox, etc) use it. By these actions alone, it shows that they're more netsavvy. Can't say anything about the affluence part though...
  • How many people answer surveys honestly. Especially online ones. I always click on the highest income bracket.

  • Frequence of Google usage = Fg
    Average wealth of user = Wu

    Which is the independent variable [wikipedia.org] and which is the independent variable [wikipedia.org]? In this case, does use of Google cause wealth for the user? Does my use of Google make me more "internet savvy" and richer (bring it on!), or do I use Google because I'm smart and socially secure.... no, wait. That can't be the case. Well, anyway, we already know Google usage creates wealth for Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the founders of Google. Even after sales of 5.3 mi

  • I can't explain the wealth disparity, but I think Google users tend to be more computer savvy because google is more of a purist search engine. MSN, yahoo, etc are more "portal" type services with lots of obnoxious ads, silly tabloid-style surveys and fluff articles, and generally a lot of clutter for the bewildered computer noob to ooh and ahh at.

    Those with more net savvy tend to head for the more simple, direct route to what they want to find, with the least amount of distractions and timewasters along th
  • I'm single, and a Google user.
  • In another words smart people use Google and dumb people don't. Smart people have more money and dumb people don't.

    Smart people know this, and dumb people don't.

    This is of course speaking on the whole and not of the individual.
  • Google is a more commercial-focussed search engine. Most of the results are for sites selling things or advertising things, even when you're looking to buy something. It makes sense that people with money to spare will want to use Google, whereas people after relevent information will go elsewhere.
  • ... knock yourself out, boys and girls. Who would have thunk it?
  • Weird essays showing rivals "bad" by some "xxx and xxx Co."...

    I just sense some Microsoft way of doing business. Maybe a first sign?
  • Did we really need a study to tell us that?

Slashdot Top Deals

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Close