Talk:Usage share of web browsers: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:44, 29 September 2007

TheCounter.com data

January 2005 data was not included due to irregularities in reporting (Mozilla usage in Jan 2005 was not 1%). I also went to a lot of trouble to get accurate data rather than the rounded-to-one-percent that is easy to read off the table. I'm going to revert the changes unless the bogus data is replaced with good, accurate data. -- Schapel

That's why I didn't include TheCounter.com previously. It is just too troublesome. Anyway, I changed the interval to annual since the change rate was just too slow. --minghong 1 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)

Could we settle on some way of handling the TheCounter data without you completely wiping out all of my work and presenting bogus data (for example, Firefox usage in 2005 being just 1%)? -- Schapel 03:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NetApplications.com data

The data listed in the NetApplications.com data table is not what NetApplications.com is reporting as overall browser usage. Those data are for one site, designergolfgifts.com, only. For example, compare May and June 2005 numbers listed in the table to the numbers given in this recent PC World article. We should take out the numbers currently in the table and replace them with official NetApplications.com stats -- Schapel 08:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. ;-) --minghong 00:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The NetApplications table is rapidly becoming the largest table in the article, even though it covers one of the smallest time periods. Additionally, because the data from each month is shown, it can be hard to see the overall trend of the data in the noise of the monthly variations. I propose that before the March 2006 data is added to the table, we switch to using NetApplications' quarterly data. -- Schapel 15:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Janco Associates

I've really begun to wonder about the data from Janco. They show usage share of browsers jumping way up, then way down again, without apparent pattern. Examples are when Firefox was shown at over 12% in 2005 then mysteriously jumped back down to below 9% three months later, and even more strangely, Netscape dropping down to 0.15% and bouncing back to over 2% three months later. Their January 2006 press release includes numbers for previously reported time periods that don't match the previously reported numbers, so we'll end up with multiple conflicting reports as we already have for April 2005. I know browser stats are fairly unreliable, and I can understand a small amount of "jitter" in reported numbers, but these mysterious and huge leaps are just too much for me to take. Is it just me, or does Janco's data just not seem credible any more to others as well? Should we just remove all their data from the page? -- Schapel 03:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one has responded, and because having Janco's data in the article seems to lessen the overall quality, I'll just go ahead and rip it out. -- Schapel 14:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web browser usage share

I recently moved this page to Web browser usage share, but it was moved back again. Why? Andy Mabbett 00:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have stuffs like list of web browsers and comparison of web browsers. So just to make the name consistent with each other. --minghong 01:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it have been more logical to have changed those other articles to Web browser list and Web browser comparison? Then the specific topic ("Web browser") would be in the most signifcant position in the names, as opposed to having general categories ("list" and "comparison") in the most significant position. That might help with searches. Chris Loosley 23:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of search engines and cellphones

I miss information about how much of the traffic is from search engines and how large a proportion of visits come indirectly through search engines. The impact of search engines is steadily increasing. I guess a very larg emajority of new visits tio sites comes through search engines like Google, Yahoo, Altavista, MSN, Clusty, Inktomi etc. Search engines probably do not search inside Macromedia presentations, Active-X and such. Many web designers might not be aware of loosing this opportunity to be found by prospective visitors. I think not only the browsers and rendering count but the access of search engines to the information counts as well.

Other interersting points would be to look specifically at "market share" of browsers on devices other than personal computers, such as mobile phones and PDA's. Opera is quite strong in that segment. - Mokgand 11:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Usage share of web browsers and Usage share

"Usage share" could apply to many things other than web browsers, yet the the page talks only of browsers. I suggest merging into this article - Chris Wood 12:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could generalize the Usage share article so that it applies to search engines and other things usage share could apply to, and then the articles should probably be kept separate. -- Schapel

I agree. We should merge the content on Usage share in and replace that page with a stub for the time being? - Chris Wood 14:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tom2006, for doing the effective merge and redirecting Usage share. - Chris Wood 20:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table widths

I reverted the table width changes, so that nearly no table rows need to word wrap on window widths down to 900 pixels in IE and Firefox. Without the widths, many table rows needlessly word wrap, and tables are harder to read because the rows are of differing heights. If someone can change the tables so they look significantly better with narrow windows (around 800 pixels) and not significantly worse with more typical width windows (around 900-1000 pixels), go ahead and do so. Note that about 80% users have 1024x768 resolution monitors or better. [1] -- Schapel 14:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that screen resolution is misleading — many people with large screen resolutions don't maximise windows, particularly as long lines of text can reduce readability. I have a 1680 by 1050 screen resolution, but only run my browser at 1024 by 768, and I'm certainly not unique in this respect. --Safalra 14:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Still, the majority of users have their browser windows at 900-1000 pixels. The tables should not be made to look better at widths of 800 pixels at the expense of being significantly worse at wider widths. Can you see a way to make them look much better at a width of 800 pixels and not much worse at wider widths? -- Schapel 15:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opera as IE

"Browsers such as Opera are set by default to report in as Internet Explorer, presumably for compatibility reasons." I thought they had changed this as of version 8. And does anyone know for sure if it was for compatability reasons? -DevastatorIIC 04:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Opera 8 defaults to cloaking as IE. Opera 9 currently defaults to identifying itself as Opera, but the final version might go back to cloaking as IE by default. According to the Opera Press FAQ, Opera cloaks as IE by default for compatibility reasons. I'll take the presumably out.

Layout engine / web browser usage share

"A rough estimation of usage share of layout engines/web browsers." Page nowhere states how this image has been done, and on what data it is based. Page states just that "this article aims to be an unbiased historical record for the usage share of web browsers, based on statistics and articles published by well-known websites. One of the uses of such statistics is to create a graph that roughly represents the browser wars", but gives no indication how this image has been made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.78.155.119 (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's based on data from this page. You can find more information if you click on the image itself. -- Schapel 15:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In General

User:Digita has added a table to this section. It appears to me to be completely pointless. I've reverted it twice, but he's put it back each time. Am I missing something or is this table just useless clutter? -- Harumphy 17:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worse than useless; it's downright confusing. I'll remove it. Anyone who thinks it's helpful at all, please discuss first before re-adding it. -- Schapel 18:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I further updated the table, maybe this will be an improvement. However, even the initial version was hardly 'pointless' - it directly relates to the paragraph next to it. Digita 18:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should make it clear that I did not revert it 'twice', the second time I added new data to the table to make it more relevant as well as adding wikicode reference footer. Now, I have added all-new 2nd table that you may find more relevant (now added to the page). Finally, please do not delete the reference within the paragraph, and reference footer. Digita 18:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these tables should be removed. They provide data from single source, whereas most of the article shows data from variety of sources. Making one of those sources more important then others seems contradictory to the spirit of the article and can also be considered POV. Wikiolap 19:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point was not to provide an overall comparison, but to provide an example of a comparison as talked about in the paragraph. Overall I disagree, but Wikio has a valid point that it seems to place one source of higher importance then the others. On that basis I will remove (both) the tables, and I thank Wikio for actually giving a logical reason for his opinion. Digita

I think I finally understand what you were trying to do with the table. Until you described it, and I thought about it, it made no sense at all. The reference still doesn't really make sense, because the example describes the current 83% usage share for Internet Explorer, but the reference gives an two-year-old example of 83% usage share for Internet Explorer version 6. Because of that difference, it's still confusing. Could we change the reference to a current one that shows all versions of Internet Explorer having 83% usage share, so the example and reference would match? -- Schapel 20:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the 83% reference for 2005, simply because thats when it was 83% (rather then updating pre-existing text). However, this was an obtuse way of adding the data and I agree that section needs improved. Feel free to update that section as needed, having newer data and better references would certainly make more sense. Digita 20:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found two references from 2006 that say IE (all versions) has 83% share. We really don't need them, as it's only an example. We could just as well give the example of Sneeflob browser having 42.356% share (just as an example), or Firefox having 24% share. However, I agree that having an example that verifiably reflects the current situation (or at least a fairly recent situation) is best. It just wasn't clear at all from your table that that was your intention. -- Schapel 23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean. Im glad we have worked this out and I am fine with the page. Digita 23:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the omission of Konqueror intentional?

The usage of Konqueror is quite low compared to the other browsers mentioned. Its usage is so low that most stats sources don't even mention it. I find it only natural that this article would not mention it either. -- Schapel 01:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

I think there should be a brief summary of the top three in the opening, something to the effect (using invented stats) "Currently, approximately 50% of users are using ie6, 30% use Firefox and 10% use ie7, the remaining 10%, and caveats, are detailed below." Andy Mabbett 11:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not have that. This is a rathole which will open door for POVs from all sides. Wikiolap 14:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are methods for dealing with PoV pushing - I came to the page seeking exactly that kind of information and I'm sure others do, too. Andy Mabbett 15:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do that, I would suggest attributing a source (which is one way of handling PoV pushing), and using Check Upsdell's browser stats (listed in the External Link section). He does a very good job of summarizing the current overall usage of the main browsers. -- Schapel 15:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but choosing one source out of the dozens to use in summary is POV. The way the page it is now - it simply shows what different sources report - this is neutral and unbiased. Wikiolap 15:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't one of the current sources. It is a completely separate website that uses different sources and provides Chuck Upsdell's summary of those sources. Attributing that summary to the author would not violate POV in any way that I can think of. I agree using one of the current sources in the article and putting that up as a summary would be POV, as it would be giving undue weight to that one source over the others. That is exactly why I am proposing doing something different from that. -- Schapel 16:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) How about something like:

Estimates vary greatly, but, as of March 2007, about 20% of users have ie7, 50% ie6 and 20% Gecko-based browsers such as Mozilla Firefox. The remainder, and the reasons for treating these figures with caution, are discussed below.

citing Upsdell, whose figures I've averaged and rounded? Andy Mabbett 18:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upsdell is just another source (and another point of view therefore). Are his averages weighted ? There are big differences in the volumes in the sources he averages over. Some of them overlap with the sources in the article. Why Upsdell's numbers are so special we would want to use them in the summary ? Do they have more fidelity ? I don't think so. It's OK to add his stats as another section to the article, but not to the summary. Wikiolap 18:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how would you summarise the current percentages, in a sentence or two, at the start of the article? Andy Mabbett 18:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, any attempt to summarise the current percentages will constitute OR (since it will be non-trivial synthesis). This is why I vote against having summary section - it will either be POV or OR. Wikiolap 18:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't think we should do it; you've already said so. I'm asking you if we do do it, then how would you like it done? Andy Mabbett 13:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are three sources of recent global figures, so you could say something like: "Globally, IE has about an 83% share, Mozilla and derivatives 13%, Safari 3% and Opera 0.6% (average of most recent data from TheCounter, Onestat, and NetApplications)." In view of the accuracy of the data, it would be misleading to use additional significant figures. Harumphy 12:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with that. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 13:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that too, as long as everyone else agrees. -- Schapel 14:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not happy, but if everybody else thinks this should be done, than this approach is probably the best. On related note, there is a graph at the top of the article, and I wasn't able to locate what sources did the author of the graph used for his numbers. If we will go with the Summary section, would it be a good idea to update the graph accordingly ? Wikiolap 15:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already updated several of the usage share graphs using averages from several different global usage share sources as described. I'll also update the one on this page and the one on the browser wars article in the same way. -- Schapel 23:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent)

So, where are we with this? Andy Mabbett 20:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have consensus on the User:Harumphy's proposal:

There are three sources of recent global figures, so you could say something like: "Globally, IE has about an 83% share, Mozilla and derivatives 13%, Safari 3% and Opera 0.6% (average of most recent data from TheCounter, Onestat, and NetApplications)." In view of the accuracy of the data, it would be misleading to use additional significant figures.

Wikiolap 00:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a consensus on how to do it, but not necessarily on whether to do it. --Harumphy 09:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge from Market adoption of Mozilla Firefox

The Market adoption of Mozilla Firefox page is a strange beast. It is unique, not only in the field of web browsers (neither IE, nor Opera, nor Safari have such pages) but in the whole of Wikipedia -- there are no other pages of the type "Market adoption of X". Of course, uniqueness is no bad thing if there is a good reason for it; but as far as I can see, there isn't here: there is nothing on that page that would not be better encapsulated on a more general page about the comparative usage share of web browsers -- i.e. this page. On the contrary; keeping a seperate page merely contributes to the unnecessary splintering of information (see WP:MM#Overlap). Any comments for or against a merger? -- Simxp 21:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss the merger in the Firefox article, as the Market adoption of Mozilla Firefox is a daughter article of that one. It's not really a "strange beast" at all; it's a daughter article like thousands of others in Wikipedia. -- Schapel 00:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tag; no support to merge has emerged, and Schapel has a point about the daughter article; though I still retain my scepticism about the justification for the existence of such a page in the absence of similar pages for any other web browser, software, or indeed anything at all. -- simxp (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W3 Counter

I've added another source of stats today. I'm a bit concerned that this appears to sample once every 10 days. This is perhaps too frequent for us and it might make sense, once we've got a few months' data, to take monthly averages. --Harumphy 18:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse chronological order

Ever since there was a change to put the more recent data on top, I wonder whether it makes sense to reverse the tables to show more recent data on top. This is also consistant with how W3Schools web site shows their browser statistics. What do people think about it ? Wikiolap 15:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents I suppose I would prefer your suggestion, but I don't think the current format is deficient. Does anyone know of similar articles that do use one or the other format? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done. Why not? It looks better, and current information is what we are after. 203.109.189.179 05:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for doing it ! Wikiolap 15:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 128: / Line 128: @@
 :'''My two cents''' I suppose I would prefer your suggestion, but I don't think the current format is deficient. Does anyone know of similar articles that do use one or the other format? -[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]·[[User talk:Koavf|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]·[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]] 23:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 :This has been done. Why not? It looks better, and current information is what we are after. [[User:203.109.189.179|203.109.189.179]] 05:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
+:: Thanks a lot for doing it ! [[User:Wikiolap|Wikiolap]] 15:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)