Google Zeitgeist '05

Garett Rogers writes "Google has just released their Google Zeitgeist 2005. From the site: 'It turns out that looking at the aggregation of billions of search queries people type into Google reveals something about our curiosity, our thirst for news, and perhaps even our desires. Considering all that has occurred in 2005, we thought it would be interesting to study just a few of the significant events, and names that make this a memorable year. (We'll leave it to the historians to determine which ones are lasting and which ephemeral.) We hope you enjoy this selective view of our collective year.'"

Janet Jackson

[CWRUisTakingMyMoney]

Am I missing something? What is Janet Jackson doing at the top of the search list?

Re:Janet Jackson

[valrog77]

A little incident at the Super Bowl maybe?

Re:Janet Jackson

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

A little incident at the Super Bowl maybe?

That is so last year.. Hell, most of the people I know didn't think it was a big deal at the time, much less two years later.

Re:Janet Jackson

[Tackhead]

> Am I missing something? What is Janet Jackson doing at the top of the search list?

Congratulations on getting boobies for this thread.

In other news, Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) to be acquired by Drew Curtis' Fark.com (NASDAQ:FARK).

Re:Janet Jackson

[CriminalNerd]

It is most likely because of the "boobie" incident where everybody saw Janet Jackson's boobies at the Super Bowl.

Re:Janet Jackson

[Class Act Dynamo]

Not to be a stickler, but wasn't it only one booby? Plus, can we really say we saw a booby when it had a pasty (sp?) on it? With the nipple obscured, it is just a bunch of flesh, fatty tissue, vasculature, mammary ducts, etc. that moves independantly from the chest wall.

Re:Janet Jackson

[lucabrasi999]

Hey, she has a great rack, even two years later.

Re:Janet Jackson

[SpaceLifeForm]

Your TV needs cleaning, or your glasses, for you were certainly seeing double.

Re:Janet Jackson

[controlguy]

Some children are fascinated with breasts, along with some adults.

Which I guess explains why didn't they put up the statistics for Google Image search.

Re:Janet Jackson

[14erCleaner]

Am I missing something? What is Janet Jackson doing at the top of the search list?

That's the top Google news [google.com] search, not the top search overall. But really, the Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction [google.com] was in 2004...

Re:Janet Jackson

[vandon]

You know what I'd like to see? Where's the top 10 search keywords for Google Images?

And so I don't have to ask again, Where are the top 10 search keywords for Google Images for people with SafeSearch turned off?

Re:Janet Jackson

[xaque]

Why? Are you running out of ideas?

Re:Janet Jackson

[vandon]

Why? Are you running out of ideas?

No, I just might not be using the best ones ;)

Re:Janet Jackson

[xaque]

Here's a hint: "Condoleeza Rice".

Re:Janet Jackson

[timeOday]

Yup, and with the following list if top "news" searches, we can now conclusively conclude the actual levels of interest in such trifling issues as the war, energy policy, and whether the US is still governed by the rule of law:

1. Janet Jackson
2. Hurricane Katrina
3. tsunami
4. xbox 360
5. Brad Pitt
6. Michael Jackson
7. American Idol
8. Britney Spears
9. Angelina Jolie
10. Harry Potter

Re:Janet Jackson

[arkhan_jg]

However, look at the world afffairs list [google.com] with the huge spike of searchs at key dates in the news - i.e. the massive spike in london after the olympic bid success and 7/7 bombings the next day, or the big spikes for rove, plame and libby with regards the CIA 'plamegate' scandal.

If you're going to include entertainment news, it's no surprise that lead actors are going to get massive surges of hits when a new film comes out (or gets in the news some other way, like the Jacksons did) - after all, that's news th

Not enough info

[NotQuiteReal]

A raw "top 10" list doesn't really give any sense of the scale of the numbers that determine the list.

Position 1 could be orders of magnitude more searched for than position 2.

On the other hand, position 1000 could have nearly as many searches as position 10...

Re:Not enough info

[Surye]

Which is why I found those graphs really interesting. And I love the key date markers to give them reference.

The graphs ARE nice but...

[NotQuiteReal]

The graphs are more informative, but still only relative indicators.

Is a peak on one of those graphs dozens of searchs or millions?

I know google is just being nice in showing this data at all.

Does anyone know;
Are the numbers available for free or for a fee?
Are they considered a trade secret?

Normally graphs have a scale on them... on both axes.

Re:Not enough info

[pHatidic]

While I don't disagree with the need for more numbers, I do think that their zeitgeist page is extremely well designed. Whoever did the webdesign on this one should get some options :)

Re:Not enough info

[s4ck]

yeah! google rulez. looks awesome. simplicity is the new complex.

Also, Y axes?

[happymedium]

On that note, the graphs tracking the popularity of certain searches over time lacked numbers on the Y axes, making it impossible to compare them to one another... which would have been interesting....

Fluctuations

[m85476585]

What are all the fluctuations in the graph? It is especially noticeable for Wikipedia. It looks like there are about 52 peaks per year. I wonder if there is more traffic to Google on weekends or during the week?

Re:Fluctuations

[Tango42]

Looks like a weekend dip, yes.

Re:Fluctuations

[rev063]

Definitely looks like a weekly cycle. It would be easy for Google to "seasonally adjust" these curves by scaling each day by the average traffic over the year. There's no reason to suppose any of these search terms would be more likely to be used than any other term on a Sunday than a Tuesday, and smoothing out the curves would make it much easier to see trends and differences.

Re:Fluctuations

[CastrTroy]

Yes, if they just took their numbers and plotted a single data point for each week, with the sum, instead of putting a datapoint for each day, it would solve most of their problems. A neat thing that this shows, is that most of the searches are done during the week, when we are working. Does this lead us to believe that people really do spend all their time at work, just browsing the internet?

Re:Fluctuations

[sp0rk173]

It's pseudo-diurnal oscilation. In a time series graph of most natural phenomena you see it. "Day time" behavior differs from "nigh time" behavior, that's all. If it really is about 52 peaks per year, then i would say the "Day time" of google is the weekend and the "night time" is the work week. Of course, to be absoultely sure you'd have to see the units on the x axis.

Re:Fluctuations

[sp0rk173]

er, reverse day time and night time. Daytime is the work week, night time is the weekend.

Re:Fluctuations

[Evil Pete]

From casual observation I'd say the "peak" is about 2-3 times longer than the dip. I'd say the dip is on the weekend.

What I found more interesting is the exponential decay of the hits for various events. Very nice. Must work out the constants to see how "pure" it is.

Re:Fluctuations

[sp0rk173]

it'd be nice if Google posted the raw data so bored people could do some number crunching and maybe come up with some quantitative observations about internet trends. Maybe they do? I dunno. I'm not bored enough to find out.

Re:Fluctuations

[UserGoogol]

What I found interesting was that on the Wikipedia chart, the "daytime" value of Wikipedia has growing been noticably faster than the "nighttime" value. I really don't know what that means, but... it's interesting.

where is....

[B3AST!]

porn?? that's should top the list...i search for that hundreds of thousands of times a day, i don't think i'm alone...i think this is RIGGED!!!

Re:where is....

[hackstraw]

True, "sex" used to always be #1 and similar.

I guess google is doing no harm here.

ssh tunnels to avoid spying firewalls and I guess VPNs aid in those times of need. Not that I know anything about these things.

Infoporn Re:where is....

[n54]

It's all porn: infoporn!

infoporn:
information and statistics arranged with seducing graphs, charts, and other eyecandy

Firefox

[m85476585]

Firefox isn't there at all! What about the release of Firefox 1.5?

Re:Firefox

[Surt]

Well, surely you'd agree that as a simple mathematical problem, the set of users who would consider bothering to upgrade to firefox at all, much less firefox 1.5 is a proper subset of the set of users who would search for janet jackson's nipples.

Because once you get it

[geekoid]

you don't need to keep looking for it?
Sheesh.

Re:Firefox

[Heembo]

And take away stream from the upcoming Google Browser release? Google is NOT evil unless money is at stake.

*grin*

How Do You Take Your Star Wars?

[Chaffar]

Star Wars Movie Vs. Star Wars Video Game Vs. Star Wars DVD

I think they forgot Star_Wars_Bootleg.torrent...

Re:How Do You Take Your Star Wars?

[TubeSteak]

How Do You Take Your Star Wars?

Future Poll Choices:

• One battle at a time
  
• With the Force
  
• Mastercard
  
• Bittorrent
  
• CowboyNeal fights my wars

Re:How Do You Take Your Star Wars?

[m50d]

The game shoots first!

Hilarious

[CriminalNerd]

I bet some of the terms will stay in the top 10 because idiots like me didn't know what baidu, Ares and orkut meant and looked them up on Google.

Re:Hilarious

[TubeSteak]

http://www.google.com/search?q=Orkut [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=Ares [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=Baidu [google.com]

And for good measure:
http://www.google.com/search?q=zeitgeist [google.com]
Answer.com - The general moral, intellectual, and cultural climate of an era; Zeitgeist is German for "time-spirit."

Interesting

[evil agent]

It looks like the BBC consistently gets way more queries than CNN. This might explain the world's perception of the U.S.

commence flame war...

Re:Interesting

[kietscia]

I guess more people would like to get their information from a more objective source of news rather than the American media which has been blackmailed, threatened, cajoled, etc. from actually questioning the policies and actions of the US government.

Re:Interesting

[susano_otter]

Last time I checked, it was the media's responsibility to report the news, and your responsibility to question government policies. Are you so lazy as to want the reporters to do your job for you? Are you so foolish as to think that the media can be trusted to discharge your responsibilities better than you can yourself?

Plus, how can a news source be simultaneously objective and questioning policy?

Plus, what makes you think that the BBC is immune from whatever market forces, black-hearted corruption, o

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I checked, it was the media's responsibility to report the news, and your responsibility to question government policies. Are you so lazy as to want the reporters to do your job for you? Are you so foolish as to think that the media can be trusted to discharge your responsibilities better than you can yourself?

It is the media's job to report when experts disagree with Government policy. BBC does this, CNN doesn't do so as often. Fox rarely does this at all.

Plus, how can a news source be simultaneously objective and questioning policy?

Look at a BBC news report. They will state something like: Expert A disagrees with Policy X, stating that it will have dire consequences for Issue Y. However, Expert B disagrees, stating it will dramatically improve Factor Z.

Plus, what makes you think that the BBC is immune from whatever market forces, black-hearted corruption, or government pressure you believe plagues CNN?

The BBC is independent of the Government and any corporate influence. If the BBC misreports something, there is an inquiry. If they accept money for a report, heads roll. The BBC's independent nature is what allows it to be impartial.

We can't really get into your proof of these allegations (that the U.S. government is pressuring the U.S. media to run biased coverage) since, presumably, you'd simply point out that now that they control the media, they're hiding the proof, too!

I doubt the US Government is directly influencing the media, however US media has a reputation for chest-thumping "patriotism" (earning CNN the moniker of "the Combat News Network"). Look at the run-up to the Iraq war. While news outlets around the world were doubting the existence of WMD in Iraq, and quoting experts that stated they didn't exist, most US media outlets were extolling the virtues of invading Iraq. It was truly appalling. Even the New York Times, which is usually as unbiased as the BBC, was reporting WMDs as fact. I don't know if this is due to consumer pressure, corporate pressure, Government pressure, or simply nationalistic short-sightedness, but it disgusted people around the world.

Re:Interesting

[evil agent]

You mean at the whim of the New York Times. Why would the government want to release it now? It overshadowed one of the greatest news stories for them: the successful Iraqi elections.

Re:Interesting

[TubeSteak]

Since that graph had Al Jazeera in black, when I kept going down and saw the graph for "CIA Leak" I though "How'd Al Jazeera beat the BBC for page views on this one?"

Re:Interesting

[king-manic]

It looks like the BBC consistently gets way more queries than CNN. This might explain the world's perception of the U.S.
commence flame war...


If any Americans thinks CNN/Fox news is a credible news source, then it goes to explain the Americans view on the world more. The BBC is often fiarly moderate and fair in international reporting while the later two shill for the state. BBC shills for the state too but the state i the UK. IT's reporting on the US and the rest of the wrold tends to be moderate and fair c

Re:Interesting

[LordSnooty]

The BBC's dominance is something I noticed, too. Just a little present from me as a licence-fee payer to the rest of the world. I hope you find it useful.

Glad to hear that bbc.com now goes to the BBC, it used to be occupied by some bloke with a small business in Canada, who refused to give it up for many years. In fact the BBC's first foray onto the net back in Oct '96 was via the rather cumbersome bbcnc.org.uk - 'nc' for 'network club', as I recall. Try it. [archive.org] It beats bbc.co.uk by a couple of months.

They need to dig a little deeper

[SlashAmpersand]

Steve Ballmer's top search: 1. Chair Aerodynamics

Re:They need to dig a little deeper

[TheOldFart]

That was funny... unfortunately you were hit by the MS Nazi squad...

Google thinks it's the Light Side

[Buran]

"As a company that tries to do no evil, we were quite pleased to see that [the force] outdraws [the dark side] in search queries."

So when will we see them admit that people are searching for [block banner ads] when they annoy people with graphical Google Ads?

And why the @*^!! is the browser useragent info and platform info still missing? "Do no evil"? I think it was wrong to pull that info out of the results. C'mon guys! Put it back!

Re:Google thinks it's the Light Side

[TychoCelchuuu]

Come on, annoying someone with graphical Google Ads isn't evil.

All the Apple items!

[dcarey]

Bah I've got karma to burn, do your worst, but ... LOOK at all the apple products on that list! 5 in total! Sure they're all ipod related (even itunes) but to me that's pretty cool. Unless you're still adament about not getting an ipod because somehow OGG is better for your precious ears ;) ....

Top Search... The Other Jackson?

[OctoberSky]

How in the hell is Janet Jackson the top search? I understand everyone wants to see her nipple but that was in 2004... the begining of 2004 (February 1, 2004). Get over it.

I could understand Micheal Jackson for his strangeness. The man is like a walking car accident, we have to look. But the top search being Janet is insane.

The Internet is the Holy Grail of nudity, searching for one womans half covered nipple is really cuddling the complex nature of Googles Algorithm. Make your searches interesting, like "Bea Arthur humping a Camel" or "Shannon Doherty doing coke off a dead hookers butt" Make the people at Google work.

Re:Top Search... The Other Jackson?

[Surt]

It's important to include the relevant google links for your searches:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Bea+Arthur+humping+ a+Camel&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a &rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official [google.com]
(and the top hit):
http://www.shanmonster.com/archives/searchterms.ht ml [shanmonster.com]

http://www.google.com/search?q=Shannon+Doherty+doi ng+coke+off+a+dead+hookers+butt&start=0&ie=utf-8&o e=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:off icial [google.com]
(and the top hit):
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00003CY67/002-33 64891-9190430?v=glance&vi=quotes-trivia&n=130 [amazon.com]
(of course, google thinks maybe you meant: Shannon Doherty doing coke of a dead hookers butt
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=EoT&safe=off &client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q =Shannon+Doherty+doing+coke+of+a+dead+hookers+butt &spell=1 [google.com]
(for which the top hit is the same)

Maybe you meant to include the quotes, in which case:
Your search - "Bea Arthur humping a Camel" - did not match any documents.
(yet, i'm sure their index of slashdot will pull it up soon)

also no luck with
Your search - "Shannon Doherty doing coke off a dead hookers butt" - did not match any documents.
same result for 'of'

All in all, the bea arthur hits are more interestingly relevant than you might expect.

After I'm dead,

[quokkapox]

The people that read through my Google search history are really going to wonder why those two phrases appear together on an otherwise innocent, idle Tuesday afternoon.

Re:Top Search... The Other Jackson?

[Coppit]

Actually, this year JJ sued someone for covertly filming her sunbathing in the nude. So apparently a nipple wasn't enough for a lot of people--they wanted more. :)

Mean reversion...

[Arthur B.]

Am I the only one here to find the huge mean reversion on most data series very surprising if not doubtful? Take a look at wikipedia. Sure there are cycles created by week-ends for example, but I have a hard time believing they account for so much movement.

How Do You Take Your Star Wars?

[xtracto]

On the "How Do You Take Your Star Wars?" section, they just compare DVD vs film and video game. It would be interesting how are the results of "star wars torrent" hehe, I guess those hits where quite higher

Here's an idea

[CastrTroy]

I think we should start a distributed computing project to get weird searches on next years list. Stuff like "How do I join al qaeda" or "What is 1+1" or "HEIRHENO#*(_#()*_#". It would be interesting to see how many searches would need to be done to take down the searches.

Re:Here's an idea

[TubeSteak]

Google (now) blocks queries if it determines that they're being driven by malilcious activity (like a virus/trojan/worm/etc).

I imagine they wouldn't take kindly to what is essentially distributed ballot stuffing.

unnormal

[squoozer]

I must be the most unnormal (my new word for the day) person around. I didn't searced for any of those terms in 2005. I don't even know what Ares and Baidu are? Where's Britney in that list anyway. I thought there was some sort of rule that said she always had to win?

WMD search dieoff

[AuMatar]

Apparently even the mighty Google couldn't find these things.

Re:WMD search dieoff

[TubeSteak]

Just wait for GoogleMars to come out.

Once we have HiRes pics of Mars we'll definitely find them.

Orkut?

[DumbWhiteGuy777]

I'd never even heard of Orkut until I read that. It's like a Google version of Myspace, I think.

Re:Orkut?

[billy reuben]

Orkut's very popular in Brazil. It started when the Brazilian membership numbers quickly took off during the early days of Orkut. Now Brasilieros are the dominant present on that website. Last time I checked a few weeks ago, Brazilians comprised about 3/4 of orkut's membership. The end result for you is that if you get an Orkut account, it's likely you'll be inundated with friend-requests from Brazilian twenty-somethings. If you're looking to practice conversational Portuguese, orkut.com's the place.

American boobs

[Eternal Vigilance]

We'll know things have turned around when instead of "Janet Jackson" the top searches include "25th Amendment" and "impeachment."

iPod

[anaesthetica]

I can't believe Apple got four of the top ten spots on Froogle with the iPod, iPod mini, iPod shuffle, and iPod nano. That's unbelievable.

ZZZ... Try Metaspy

[Johnboi Waltune]

For a more real-time view of what people are searching for, try Metaspy [metaspy.com]. It shows you what the last 10 search strings at Metacrawler were. There was nothing really suprising in the Google Zeitgiest report, but the stuff you'll see people searching for on Metaspy can really make you do a double-take.

Does Metaspy work?

[grouse]

"Sorry, Metaspy returned no results at this time."

Of course the morst important bit...

[Stan Vassilev]

.. for us webdevs is missing again (for a second or third year) - the browser stats :((

also I see less and less in each issue of the Zeitgeist (I suppose as they figure out that more and more of the info is pretty valuable to be released for free)

Re:Of course the morst important bit...

[geekoid]

maybe searching for web browsers isn't rally a big deal? and very few people care.

Send them a an email, see what they say.

Missing log day

[LiquidCoooled]

All (ok, 99% of) the displayed charts have a 0 dip around April time (just around the time of the popes death)

Did anyone else notice this and wonder just what happened at the data centre that day?

Re:Missing log day

[king-manic]

All (ok, 99% of) the displayed charts have a 0 dip around April time (just around the time of the popes death)

Did anyone else notice this and wonder just what happened at the data centre that day?

Catholics aroudn the world stopped masterbating to porn on that day. Leading to a huge drop in internet usage :)

Star Wars vs Harry Potter

[Marc_Hawke]

Is it a mistake in the legend, or is there some other force at work?

Look at the StarWars Movie vs DVD search. The DVD peakes when the movie is released and vice-versa.

Now look at Harry Potter right after it. The peaks coincide with their respective releases.

I'm guessing the chart is just messed...which is really too bad, because I thought the reversal was more interesting.

Are they kidding?

[eander315]

The big winners appear to be the Jackson family and Apple music players. What a curious and informed society we live in.

Ouch...

[Jugalator]

Google News - Top Searches in 2005 ... WORLDWIDE ALL CATEGORIES

1. Janet Jackson
2. Hurricane Katrina
3. tsunami
4. xbox 360
5. Brad Pitt
6. Michael Jackson
7. American Idol
8. Britney Spears
9. Angelina Jolie
10. Harry Potter

2, 3 is understandable but the rest...
What a fucking disgrace to humanity :-(

Ummm

[geekoid]

Could be that both katrina and tsunami where shown ad nasium on the news, complete with nearly accurate discriptions? while Janet Jacksons Boobie was not shown on the news.

Humanity is fine, your ability to look at a subject logical before coming to a conclusion is what you should be worried about.

Re:Ouch...

[TubeSteak]

You obviously never saw Home Wrecker [joliehomewrecker.com] (starring Angelina Jolie)

As for calling her a disgrace to humanity, she's probably done more for children in 3rd world countries than you have.

Ummm.. xbox 360 = the most anticipated product of the year

Britney Spears: Everybody slows down to see a car wreck. Ditto for Michael Jackson.

The rest, I have no clue

I can't help but notice...

[MoogMan]

... how much that looks like a Microsoft web page.

Oh no... Microoooogle?!

Image alt tags

[yotto]

I think it's amusing that the ALT tag on each image is either 'Harry Potter' or 'Star Wars', no matter what the chart is for.

I wonder which page they did first?

boring

[brontus3927]

I must be boring. Or at least very out of touch with popular culture. Throughout the entire zeitgeist '05 site, there were only 3 terms I searched for in 2005: wikipedia, BBC, and Pope John Paul II.

Re:boring

[Quiet_Desperation]

BBC, and Pope John Paul II.

Yup, you're boring. ;-)

I like Google stories on slashdot because ...

[CustomDesigned]

google.com is immune to the slashdot effect. I can RTFA even with the story at the top of the summary page.

Scary design

[Scareduck]

Am I the only one who thinks their new zeitgeist page looks frighteningly similar to something Microsoft would have designed?

but the dark side is a

[geekoid]

sub-category of 'The force'.

We need Bill...

[cca93014]

I remember him talking about his third eye being squeegeed clean after a bout of mushrooms. I feel like we are clearly in need of such an action again.

He would be so sad...

Browser Stats

[rawg]

I would love to see some web browser stats. Screen size would be a great one to see. Browser percentage would be the next.

John Cardinal Ratzinger

[harmonica]

Within a short time, the College of Cardinals elected his successor, John Cardinal Ratzinger of Germany. [google.com]

Did you mean: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger [wikipedia.org]?

Spelling flames aside, I'd like to know some absolute numbers. How many queries were there exactly? The diagrams all look the same, one or two peaks at some point.

I don't think the results are quite accurate

[sl4shd0rk]

These are a little more representative of our human psychological frame of mind:

1. Janet Jackson titties
2. Hurricane Katrina titties
3. tsunami titties
4. xbox 360 titties
5. Brad Pitt titties
6. Michael Jackson titties
7. American Idol titties
8. Britney Spears titties
9. Angelina Jolie titties
10. Harry Potter titties
 

You know what I hate?

[/dev/trash]

End of the year crap that starts before the year is over.

Re:Top search engine name searches

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

...I wonder how many people type in "Google" in the Google search box.

I tried that, then I hit "I feel lucky."

I'm posting this from the coffee shop down the street, since my office building is still on fire, TYVM!

Re:Top search engine name searches

[msbmsb]

I tried that, then I hit "I feel lucky."

That doesn't seem to do anything for me, just clears the search box...

Re:Top search engine name searches

[GigsVT]

If you are really interested in more information, sign up for an Adsense advertisers account (free), which will give you unlimited statistics on any particular search term.

After all you need to know what sorts of traffic levels which keywords will generate.

Re:So much for Politics... And Apple Owns the Worl

[TheDredd]

Nothing about Bush or his administration
Well there under the World Afairs for the presidential campain. The Administrations Propaganda Machine doing overtime :)

Something odd about the graphs. . .

[JSBiff]

I'm not sure what would explain this, but just about every single one of the graphs exhibited this almost mechanical jagginess for search popularity (during the 'normal' demand levels, not considering the short-period popularity spikes). I wonder if the local maximums correspond with weakly peak-periods, and the local minimums represent non-peak periods of the week. It's the only thing I could come up with for the almost identical jagginess of all searches.

Would be interesting to find the real reason.

Re:Something odd about the graphs. . .

[DaveLV]

A lot of people have high speed internet at work even though they don't at home. I'd bet the spikes are related to people browsing at work Monday-Thursday, then people browsing RATHER than working on Friday, then a drop off for Saturday and Sunday.