Talk:Usage share of web browsers

What about stats from w3schools.com

Hello, I am wondering why you do not include statistics form "w3schools.com". According to Alexa it has a much higher traffic ranking (presently #2000 worldwide) than any of the other services mentioned here. (see their statistics page) There must be a reason. :-) Best regards --Marbot (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Further down on their results page is the following:

• W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user. The average user tends to use Internet Explorer, since it comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek out other browsers. These facts indicate that the browser figures above are not 100% realistic. Other web sites have statistics showing that Internet Explorer is used by at least 80% of the users.

So, W3Schools' data doesn't seem to be as accurate as the other websites we have listed here. For example, IE and Firefox have about 50% each. Xenon54 11:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. You are right. However, I find it amazing, that more progressive users may generate enough traffic for a page to make it rank at about 2000. --Marbot (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no relation between the traffic to the site reporting the stats, and the total traffic measured by the service the reports are based on. A single site's usage (w3schools.com) is not a representative sample of browser usage share, where the other sites are reporting on the usage share measured at tens of thousands of different websites.

BE CAREFUL! the data that this article show differs from the w3schools.com one. It is imperative to fix it.

Hourly data

A few weeks ago I added a link to http://safalra.com/website/web-browser-market-share/ after it was on ComputerWorld because I though it was useful, but I lost the bokmark and came back here to find it and it was gone. The history says Wikiolap deleted it because he said it „provides information how to break into Net Application system without paying“ but that's not right. It doesn't say how to hack into the system, and you can't get their other data you have to pay for like data for US states, it just says how to change the options for their public graphs so they show diffrent browsers, so I dom't see what's wrong with it. --82.33.205.102 (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just received a message through my website about this (I created the referenced page), presumably from the anonymous editor above (although it came from a different IP address, and they seem to be on a fixed IP). Actually, I'd have to disagree with one of their minor points — I don't think it's hugely useful, as I don't think anyone really needs hourly data (although daily data can be obtained using a similar technique, and is probably more useful). I'm mildly offended by the 'breaking into' comment, but that's Wikipedia for you — unnecessary external links are a constant issue, so I can understand over-reacting. To '82.33.205.102': add it back in if you want, but I'm not particularly bothered — just don't start an edit war over this. —Safalra (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As both sets of graphs have now stopped working, I think the point is moot. —Safalra (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The counter .com

The counter dot com data, from the links on the right of the table, is not monthly as the links imply, but it starts on feb 01 for 2008 and ends on the month listed in the link such as september 08 which is actually a 243 days survey. The same seems to be true for all the other links.

60.231.195.143 (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC) silver_xxx

ps I reread the top posts and this has been handled correctly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.195.143 (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

IE shells

shouldn't we mention the problematic of the ie shells = more "browsers / different guis" --> "same" user agent --> recognized as ie? they are different browsers, its really the same like shared gecko browser: you install 5 gecko browsers/same engine (but al with the engine built-in) and 5trident shells/browsers (layout engine already installeD) mabdul 0=* 20:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Objectiveness of Summary Graph and Stats

Considering this article goes into detail about the different sources, does it not seem a bit subjective to include a graph and statistics in the Summary with only one source taken into account? (Especially since all the sources can be drastically different). Babydutka (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

... Well, there is the issue that various sources have quite different time chunks - people updating the graph tended to do it frequently which was nice. Unfortunately, Net Applications hasn't updated in a couple of weeks while they do some mysterious review. In my opinion the pie chart should switch to StatCounter - and perhaps note more prominently this is a single data source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.99.35.70 (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There should be an diagramm, which includes several stats site, so there is a possibility to get the best result. --87.78.23.122 (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would second basing the graph on StatCounter. Net Applications always seemed to US-centric so odds are that even with their switch in how they caluclate shares, they still overestimate IE global share. The Arkady (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to doing the same as the Usage share of desktop operating systems page where the chart data is from the median. The addition of a summary would also be good. I'm still waiting for Net App to come out with fresh data so I can update the pages. Jdm64 (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Doing median or any other deriviation is problematic. Different sources have different scale (by orders of magnitude), the methodology is different (apples and oranges) etc. Also, trying to derive any measure will be dangerously close to doing Original research. Having graph with clear attribution to its source is at least non-ambigious. It serves as example. Wikiolap (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the desktop os page currently uses the median, and I think it works fairly well. The percentages are all close and there was all ready a summary table, so using the median in the graph was natural. Will it work on this page? Maybe? I'd like to see at least a summary table because it would make retrieving useful information from the page much easier. Jdm64 (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly care *which* one you guys use, but I'd like to note that right now the graph claims to use the median, when that is clearly, wrong - the median for example for IE is 58%, not 64% - the graph should make clear which source it is using at the moment. Heck. I have no idea if the numbers even match the pie slices.

Differentiating between desktop and embedded

I think it would be useful to split off the embedded browser market share from the overwhelmingly dominant desktop share.

Opera Mini, NetFront, Pocket IE, Nokia S60, Safari for iPhone/iPod, Playstation 3 Browser and PSP Browser all compete on platforms like PDAs, phones and gaming devices. Their market share on those platforms is not evident from the 0.00 and 0.01 variously attributed to them here.

— Nicholas (reply) @ 13:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Make Colors in Pie Chart Match Prominent Colors of each Browser

I like the pie chart, but I thought of one way to potentially improve it. Use prominent colors of each browser as the color for that browser's pie slice. For example the blue pie slice already closely (exactly?) matches the color of the "e" in the Internet Explorer desktop icon. However, some of the other pie slices don't match their browser that well. For example, I think instead of yellow for the Mozilla Firefox pie slice, a better choice would be the orange-ish color of the fox's head in the Firefox desktop icon. What do you think? I don't use the other browsers. Perhaps other people could choose more appropriate colors for the other browsers as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.123.148 (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Previously, the graphic did use orange for Firefox (yellow was Chrome), but when Jdm64 replaced that graphic with the current SVG version, he changed the colors. I'd prefer an effort to "match" browsers and colors, as well. --Groggy Dice T | C 09:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Another counter

Here's another counter: http://gs.statcounter.com/ . Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

confused about w3c

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp doesnt seem to match up with the page. Am i reading it wrong? John.n-IRL 15:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confusing W3Schools and W3 Counter. -- Schapel (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability vs reliability. NPOV

Net Application (Hitlinks) are possibly the most well known and most used stat counter but have often been criticised for being extremely unreliable and generally inaccurate despite popularity. They are given prominence in this article (mainly by the pie-chart at the top). Given that it's certainly the most NOTABLE company, giving it prominence is possibly in line with the fact that Wikipedia places a value on notability, but given that it is a commercial company should it be given prominence in a WP article over other such companies? _ɹəəpıɔnı 06:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Who says NetApplications is "extremely unreliable and generally inaccurate"? Is there evidence that this is so? -- Schapel (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"tracking firm admits data is skewed", "not the first or even second time the numbers published by Net Applications have "mysteriously" changed from one day to the next" _ɹəəpıɔnı 05:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure all the browser stats are skewed one way or another. I can't imagine how to get a truly representative sample of the usage of web browsers. Net Applications data do not change "mysteriously." The data are run through quality assurance. You're not showing that Net Applications data are "extremely unreliable and generally inaccurate" at all. -- Schapel (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That is precisely my point. I wasn't implying that Net Applications are inaccurate relative to the others, I was arguing against giving them prominence in the article relative to other sources. All stats sources probably have some inaccuracies, Net Appications and their competitors. Does Wikipedia have reason to believe Net Applications is a better source than others? If not, why does the pie-chart show their stats?

Every single browser article on Wikipedia takes it's stats from this page, and giving Net Applications prominence ensures that their stats are always used in every one of these articles.

I cannot say they are significantly less reliable than any of their competitors, but I have given two references to articles commenting on anomalous statistics from Net Applications suggesting that they can occasionally be off. If there's no references to say that they are significantly more reliable, or encounter less anomalies in their statistics, than competitors, I don't see the benefit to Wikipedia to use them as an exclusive source in other articles. Giving them prominence in this one ensures that they will be used as such. _ɹəəpıɔnı 19:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Having changed the marketshare table in Microsoft Windows from being NA-only to including NA, Xiti, W3C, and OneStat, (need to update it!) I am sympathetic to your concerns. However, I think you are mistaken in believing that the prevalence of Net Applications in other articles is due to its pride of place in this article. Rather, both this article and those articles are reflecting their prevalence in the media.

As for why Net Applications is so dominant in the media, I've thought about writing something up on a userpage about why the media prefers NA. But a big part of it, I believe, is this: regular monthly updates. It gives more chances for Net Applications to be written up than those who release their figures more infrequently. It allows reports to plan ahead for the release of their latest figures, as opposed to outfits who release reports more irregularly. Even in stories that aren't directly about browser or OS usage stats, this gives NA an edge. If a journalist is writing up a story on Steve Jobs' health, and wants to look up-to-date, would he rather say, "according to Net Applications, OS X's marketshare last month was...", or "according to OneStat, OS X's marketshare eight months ago was..."? --Groggy Dice T | C 21:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

How about maintaining a table and pie-chart showing and averaging the latest results from all the major counters, and use those as the main features of the page? It would cancel out any biases. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

@Groggy Dice, I take your point about NA's notability in media contributing to their use as a source here, it's a good one. I was speaking from experience of people making points on talk pages referencing this article, but you're probably right that it's not as oft referenced as bloggers/etc. in article references are.

As for the regular updates, I'm not sure how true that is (that this sets them apart). Take the link provided by someone two sections above this - seems a fairly new statistics source as it has yet to be added to the article that I can tell, but an example of a regular source.

@Rwxrwxrwx, not a bad idea though I wonder how easy it would be to maintain such. I was merely suggesting toning down the prominence rather than bringing other sources up to the same level, but that's an interesting idea all the same. _ɹəəpıɔnı 15:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been suggested before (cannot find thread right now), but there were several problems with this suggestion. For one, different providers use different methodologies and track different number of web sites, so averaging across them would not be very meaningful. Second, deriving any non-trivial statistical measure is dangerously close to original research. So either we don't have any graphs at all, or keep one for specific provider, but not derived ones. Wikiolap (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The most important problem of NetApplication is that it's not global. They does not take in account good half of the world. It becomes very obvious after you look at StatCounter data, which provide quite accurate country-by-country statistic where you can see IE has extremely large popularity in China and Asia. Safari has almost no popularity in Europe and Asia, while Opera makes over 40% in CIS countries that results in 10% for Europe and about 4% wordwide, while Firefox isn't really choice of Eastern Europeans. Elk Salmon (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If NetApplications were "not global", the number would not match closely with the other global sources. However, NatApplications' data do, but StatCounter's do not. If anything, it looks like StatCounter and W3Counter are "not global". The statistical term for this is that the data are skewed, likely due to an unrepresentative sample. The article explains why W3Counter's data are skewed towards less popular browsers. We should figure out why StatCounter's are also. -- Schapel (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Still more like NetApplications makes their stats only from several western counties leaded by USA and Canada, where Apple products popularity is relatively high. Just like OneStat. I just gave an example. Taking in account active internet population of Eastern Europe and Asia Safari cannot reach so high position, as Apple products are completely unpopular in Europe. As Safari has 8% in North America it cannot be 8% worldwide. Large internet population of Europe and Asia will reduce this number significantly. So as IE has dominant position in Asia while Opera has dominant position in CIS. World is very different. It's like CIS is all about Yandex, China is all about Baidu, USA has large Live/Bingo popularity with no dominant position of Google while rest of the world is all about Google. Same as USA is about Linux, Blackberry, iPhone and Windows Mobile on phones with not, while CIS and Europe is all about Symbian with somehow large popularity of Windows Mobile and with zero popularity of Linux and Blackberry. NetApplications is absolutely obviously onesided. Elk Salmon (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. NetApplications matches OneStat and TheCounter fairly closely, and are show global share. StatCounter is even more heavily skewed away from IE and towards Firefox and Opera than Adtech, which shows European usage only. If anything, it looks like StatCounter is "not global". Of course, they are all skewed to some degree one way or another, but W3Counter, Adtech, and StatCounter are among the most highly skewed stats on the page. NetApplications is relatively balanced, as are TheCounter and OneStat. -- Schapel (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There's two issues. Firstly, NA are more English-language oriented and more oriented towards western websites. So when they say they are reporting global stats, they are not lying. They are in fact reporting stats of vistors FROM all countries, but TO websites primarily located in th US, because Hitslinks is primarily marketed in the US. So while visitors shown in NA's stats are from all over the world, they are visitors to websites more oriented towards the English-speaking world, rather than smaller local sites in national languages. Instead of comparing NA/StatCounter to OneStat and TheCounter, try comparing them to the individual stats of smaller local sites in national languages of any given countries. Yandex.ru is probably the biggest example, it matches StatCounter quite closely.

The second issue is the type of websites Hitlinks and such services are marketed at - NA tends to market at corporate customers which will likely lead to higher stats for IE, while marketing at blogs may lead to lower IE stats for StatCounter (as the more technically proficient users will be blog readers and not use IE, while those on corporate networks will probably be stuck with IE). Both lead to inaccuracies, my point here is all are inaccurate so none should be given prominence. _ɹəəpıɔnı 02:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Statistics from Wikipedia

Is it possible to include browser stats from Wikipedia-hits?

I was also looking for this data, would be interesting. --193.166.137.75 (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, would be very interesting. Anyone know how to get this data?????? --Marceloml (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mail.ru stats

[1]

• IE: 48.76
• Opera: 26.39
• Firefox: 20.67
• Safari: 0.56

These stats are quite surprising. Less than half use IE!? Opera more popular than Firefox!? And does no one have Macs in Russia? Even SeaMonkey's beating Safari! Anyone know how reliable this site is? 71.155.236.174 (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

My issue with mail.ru stats is that they don't keep history - the link always points to today's data, so it is impossible to verify how the stats looked last month or last year. Wikiolap (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question of reliability when it comes to a site providing its own statistics of its own visitors, although mail.ru's stats are a little different than StatCounter's (who have IE at around 33%) which I'd usually consider the most reliable global stats source. Opera's usage in that part of the world is the main reason YUI have Opera in the "A-Grade" category of their graded browser support guidelines.

The question of mail.ru stats history is one I've been trying to figure out myself, I wasn't aware they didn't keep a history at all, I just thought their stats history was quite difficult to find as I don't speak Russian. Are you sure they delete them completely? _ɹəəpıɔnı 03:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't able to locate historic stats from mail.ru (I do speak Russian). Perhaps they exist somewhere, but well hidden. Unless someone can find a link to them, we are risking breaking WP:V. Wikiolap (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I found this which seems to be almost the same. If I'm interpreting it all wrong, apologies - as I said, no russian - but it seems to show stats for mail.ru, whereas the stat.mail.ru site would presumably show stats for all mail.ru domains, including the likes of blogs.mail.ru and video.mail.ru. _ɹəəpıɔnı 06:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ordering of stat providers

Shouldn't these be put in alphabetical order? (ADTECH at the top, WebSideStory at the bottom) 82.33.205.162 (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary of known sample/bias for stat providers

Would it not be useful to include a brief summary of known sampling issues or bias? e.g. Net Applications is mostly for English sites, AT Institute mostly French, whether they are for one country or many, etc? 82.33.205.162 (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

IE8 compatibility mode

IE8 renders (almost exactly) the same as IE7, and declares itself as such in the User-Agent (but with an identifier that it's actually IE8 IIRC) - reference article for discussion here by Net Applications which gives a breakdown of IE8 mode vs IE8 in IE7 mode.

Given that IE8 is effectively being IE7 in this mode (link above says about 10% of the time in that study), how should this be handled? I see options as:

• Lump in with IE7
• Lump in with IE8
• Break out separately

82.33.205.162 (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Usage share of web browsers: June/July 2009

We need an update of the usage share of web browsers for June/July 2009; including a updated pie chart. There is no doubt that these statics have dramatically changed taking into consideration with the fact that Firefox 3.5 has been recently released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A9l8e7n (talk • contribs) 00:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the source we have been using for these statistics is Net Applications, and they are still conducting their "review" of the June numbers, and the July numbers won't be out for another week.

However, as far as the pie chart is concerned, the release of FF3.5 probably won't affect it much, since 3.5 will mostly gobble share from earlier Firefoxes, and the pie chart doesn't break down by versions. --Groggy Dice T | C 18:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, this is getting in the way of showing how many users are actually using firefox 3.5.--A9l8e7n (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)alen

Perhaps using a source with more regular updates in the top image would suit your purposes better? I personally believe having a single image from a single source at the top of a page representing multiple (often conflicting) sources is grossly subjective, but cycling the sources of that image might make it less so at least. _ɹəəpıɔnı 05:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary table

I don't think the summary table should be showing the mean of all stats. The main problem is that some are global stats, and some are for specific geographical locations. If the purpose is to give the latest stats from each source, then let's do just that, and leave the median out. We should also probably consider leaving out non-global stats, because they are listed in the table without any explanation of that they are. -- Schapel (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, except for AT Internet Institute, all the sources from the current table are global. I still think that the median is valuable. Removing "AT-II" from the table -- ok. But, the median could be useful in creating a new chart. The current one uses Net Apps, but a more reasonable data source would be the median of all global sources (because how would we determine what 'one' source should represent the chart). This would be similar to the OS market share page. Also, I think that some of the smaller sources should even be removed from the page entirely. The page has become excessively disorderly with the amount of tables. Having more sources adds little value to the page, but an easy to read summary table and carefully picked sources would improve the page. Jdm64 (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some sources should be removed. mail.ru, StatCounter, and W3 Counter would be my picks for removal. -- Schapel (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As you mentioned, one is non-global. Another is not a one-month stat like the others, and thus skews to older data. It would seem to me that all of these can stay in the summary table, and simply not be included in the "median" calculation. Then again, neither should data older than the month expressly stated in the "median" table row, and yet we are. That seems like an error. And, of course, that's not the median that's being calculated -- it's the mean. (And rightly so, IMHO, but the label should be corrected.) Gnassar (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stats of browser usage share

How can we find stats of wikipedia browser usage share??? Would be good to put these stats in this article --Marceloml (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Prefetching, is Gecko the only one?

"Gecko-based browsers (such as Firefox) can prefetch linked web pages, potentially increasing hits. Link prefetching in Gecko-based browsers is used on pages with enhanced markup, including Google search results."

Does IE 8 do this now as well? 68.13.126.138 (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

These sites differentiate between visits and hits. They are reporting browser share by percentage of visitors, not by percentage of hits.